/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230821.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 167 Headlines ABC CORP: Agustin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ACADIA PHARMA: Marechal Suit Over Psycho-Meds sNDA Issue Ongoing ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Case Management Conference Reset to August 24 ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Class Suit Over Misinformation ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon Antitrust Class Suit ALLEGO INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping of Sales Calls ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Final OK of Settlement Deal in Free Sought AMAZON WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rivera Class Action AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hall Alleges APPY PIE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Engineer.Ai Class Suit ARMY AND AIR: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. AT&T SERVICES: 9th Circuit Court Revives 401(k) Plan Class Suit AXCESS FINANCIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Linton Class Action BABA LOKENATH: Faces Licona Harassment Suit in E.D.N.Y. BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Cabrales Set for Oct. 2 BANCO POPULAR: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in Golden BANK OF AMERICA: Milliken Sues Over Excessive Interest Charges BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING: Jimenez Alleges Unfair Biometric Collection BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Infusion Pump BHP BILLITON: Pennington Bid for Class Certification Stayed BIG MONSTER: Faces Birwari Suit Over Underpayment of Wages BLACKBAUD INC: Settles Suits Over Data Breach Incident BOSTON POST: Parties in Pichardo Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing BRIGHT HORIZONS: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule CALIFORNIA: MPC Seeks to File Portions of Exhibit 14 Under Seal CAPRI NAILS: Li Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CARBONITE INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Utah Ongoing CARBONITE INC: Feng Class Suit on Server Issue Ongoing CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. CARNIVAL CRUISES: AG Sought to Intervene in Passengers COVID-9 Suit CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suits Over False Statements CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Slam SEC Filings in Texas Court CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Alzheimer Meds Ongoing CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Incentive Plan Ongoing CERTEGY PAYMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Reuschel Suit CIRCLES OF CARE: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Deadlines CLAY LACY: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Court Stays McGrady Class Cert Bid COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Jarrow Suit Removed to D. New Mexico CR FITNESS: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages CREATORS AGENCY: Sells Unregistered Securities, Garrison et al. Say CREW AVIATION: Lawson Sues Over Non-remittance of Pay Deductions DEL MONTE: Court Narrows Claims in Bryan Class Action DEPUY SYNTHES: Faces Suit Over Dangers, Risks of Implant Devices DEUTSCH IMPORTS: Collinson Sues Over Defective Glass Tiles DIGITIAL TURBINE: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties DOLLAR GENERAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina EDWARD D. JONES: Late-Filed Initial Disclosures Partly Stricken ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Holmes Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 2 EPIC SHEET: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices FASTMED URGENT: Discloses Patients' Health Info, Rodriguez Says FLO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 11 FLORIDA HEALTH: Borchers Sues Over Alleged Data Breach FLORIDA REGIONAL: Wang Appeals Ruling in Peng Suit to 11th Cir. FOLGERS COFFEE: Sept. 27 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for More Time to File Reply Denied as Moot GEORGIA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15 GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd GOOGLE LLC: Faces Williams Class Suit Over YouTube Ads GOOGLE LLC: Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Seal Briefing OK'd GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal GSF USA: Solis Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Retention HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply Docs HCA HEALTHCARE: Nelson Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Exclude Airquip Expert Opinions Partly OK'd HOOKED UP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrow Suit Alleges HP INC: More Time to Depose Plaintiffs' Class Cert Expert Sought HWS LLC: Hall Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Han Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 INTERNI CUCINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages INTEVAC INC: Settles Quiusky Labor Suit in California Court IOWA: Hilson Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ISSUANCE INC: Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases Entered JCF HOUSEMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations JLM DECORATING: Martinez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to Certify Putative Class JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid for Additional $32M Pelvic Mesh Suit Denied JUDGE GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Baez-Medina Suit KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Seeks Initial OK of Settlement KROY LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages LAML LLC: Parties in Mabry Has Until Oct. 12 to Complete Mediation LIVE NATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3 LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lim Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Drop AG as Defendant in Bail Suit Denied LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 12, 2024 LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Court Junks Pop Class Suit LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Class Suit Under Appeal LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voight Putative Class Suit in Louisiana LUMICO LIFE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Miller Suit Alleges M.A.C. COSMETICS INC: Maciel Suit Removed to N.D. California MAIN EVENT: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, McCall Says MAMCO INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7, 2024 MARATHON OIL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Royalty MARS PETCARE: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for Nov. 10 MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminates People With Mental Health Concerns MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges MAXIMUS INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Data Breach MAXIMUS INC: Faces Buzzel Suit Over Data Breach MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buzzell Alleges MEDICAL SCANNING: Christensen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations MEMORIAL HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Valladolid Suit to State Court MERCEDES BENZ: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024 MH CONSULTANTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 7, 2024 in Olvera MILLIMAN INC: Mattson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd MITRE CORPORATION: Brown, et al., File Class Certification Bid MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Suit Over Extensive Flooding MULVADI CORP: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Corker NCAA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Vice Suit NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Sues Over Illegal Kickback Under FLSA NEI GENERAL: Ruiz, et al., Seek to Certify Three Overlapping Classe NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs Seek Revised Class Cert. Order NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered NEW YORK, NY: Parties Seek Stay of Summary Judgment Filing NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Iannelli Suit NPAS SOLUTIONS: Dickenson Appeals Once Again in Johnson TCPA Suit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Parties Must File Status Reports by August 18 OLO INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in N.Y. OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Nienaber Claims OWENS AND MINOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15 PARKVIEW LOUNGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalagasidis Alleges PEABODY ENERGY: Puerto Rico Municipalities Drop Class Suit PEQUENOS GIGANTES: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA PFIZER INC: Hickox Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine's Deceptive Ads PLUSHCARE INC: Class Settlement in Robbins Suit Gets Final Nod PNS STORES: Appeals Final Judgment in Wellons Suit to 9th Circuit POLISHED.COM INC: Oral Argument for Maschhoff Class Suit Not Set PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Baker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Landi Alleges QUANTA SERVICES: Subsidiary Faces Benton Class Suit QUICK BOX: Parties Seek to Defer Class Cert Ruling to August 31 QUONTIC BANK: Seeks Sept. 18 Extension to File Class Cert Bid REALPAGE INC: Lauder Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid RISING RIVER RESORT: Faces Class Suit Over RV Park Rent Hikes ROHR INC: Court Junks Bid to Strike Fulimeni Expert Reports RTX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: DuPont Bid for Reconsideration Tossed SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class SCHENKER INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Wickham Due Nov. 20 SEABOARD CORP: Court Certifies Class in Pork Price-Fixing Suit SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: PERS of Mississippi Files Securities Class Suit SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. California ST MARY PARISH: La. Bid to Participate as Amicus Curiae Partly OK'd ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Suit Seeks Proper Wages ST. LOUIS, MO: To Pay $43,000 Each Protesters Over Misconduct STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit SUBURBAN PROPANE: Dismissal of Consumer Class Suits Under Appeal SUMO LOGIC: Michel Files Suit Over Merger with Francisco Partners SWCA INCORPORATED: Roberts Suit Removed to D. New Mexico SYGMA NETWORK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2024 SYNEOS HEALTH: Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit SYNERGY AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lu Alleges TAKARA SAKE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 11, 2024 TARGET CORP: Parties Stipulate Extending Class Cert Deadlines TAXACT INC: Kirkham Sues Over Sensitive Taxpayer Data Disclosure TD BANK: 60-day Extension of Case Deadlines Sought in Nelipa Suit TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31 TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Putative Stockholder Suit TESLA INC: Corona Sues Over Deceptive EV Mileage Driving Range TETHER LTD: Wins Anderson Class Suit Over Illegal USDT Stablecoin TIVITY HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Proceedings in Strougo TMX FINANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Kolstedt Denied w/o Prejudice TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Mock Gets Initial Approval TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert. Opposition TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to Jan. 15, 2024 UNISYS CORP: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Brunswick UNITED STATES: Elbert Bid for Attorney's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd UNITED STATES: Omaha Widow Joins Suit Over Water Contamination UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Suit Removed to E.D. California VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit in New York VYSTAR CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 21, 2024 WALMART INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Arrison Suit WASHINGTON: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Aiona Civil Rights Suit WASTE CONNECTIONS: Subsidiaries Hit Over Noxious Odors from Sites WEGMANS FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 2 WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Fixing Suit in Quebec Stayed WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NY Court WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Faces Munt ERISA Suit in WI Court WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2024 X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan Hits Sale of Geolocation Data YATSEN HOLDING: Court Appoints Wong & Park as Lead Plaintiffs YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE: Mason Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid OT YUMMYEARTH: Asks Court to Impose Terminating Sanctions v. Marino ********* ABC CORP: Agustin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ewer Donaldo Lopez Agustin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. ABC CORP. (REAL NAME UNKNOWN) D/B/A PHIL'S II SUB SHOP, PHIL ARCURI AND MENY PEREZ, Case No. 3:23-cv-04010 (D.N.J., July 26, 2023), is brought alleging pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL" hereinafter), that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants did not count or compensate the Plaintiff for minimum wages or overtime wages according to state and federal laws. The Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other employees with written notices about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in relation to their rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired as a general restaurant support staff, from March 2023 to June 22, 2023. The Defendants' operate the restaurant, ABC Corp. (real name unknown) d/b/a PHIL'S II SUB SHOP, (hereinafter "PHIL'S").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongjin Bae, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: ybae@hanglaw.com ACADIA PHARMA: Marechal Suit Over Psycho-Meds sNDA Issue Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned "Marechal v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," (Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of its current executive officers. On September 29, 2021, said court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its supplemental new drug application (sNDA) seeking approval of "pimavanserin" for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 15, 2022. On September 27, 2022, the court issued an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on October 19, 2022, and filed a motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2022. On February 2, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. On March 17, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order, setting an August 21, 2023, deadline for lead plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, and setting a fact-discovery cutoff of December 15, 2023. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in San Diego, California focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases. ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIN FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03403-AT (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2023) seeks to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, between February 6, 2023 and February 27, 2023, an unknown actor gained access to the Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. For the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their PII. Plaintiff and Class Members will have to spend time responding to the Breach and are at an immediate, imminent, and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their PII, loss of privacy, and additional damages. ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING, INC. is one of three program accrediting agencies for nursing education in the US and its territories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404)205-8395 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Case Management Conference Reset to August 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting in part and denying in part the County Defendants' motion to amend their answer: The County Defendants are granted leave to amend their answer to plead the affirmative defenses of res judicata and exhaustion. The County Defendants shall file their amended answer by July 28, 2023. In light of the parties' stipulation regarding deposition dates and further meet and confer scheduled for August 15, 2023, the Court resets the August 3, 2023, case management conference for August 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs filed this action in November 2019 alleging they are subject to unlawful, inhumane, and unconstitutional treatment at the Santa Rita Jail. Over the following three and a half years, Plaintiffs filed five amended complaints and Defendants moved to dismiss each version of the complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ky0y5 at no extra charge.[CC] ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Class Suit Over Misinformation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in July 31, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the company and certain current and former officers, captioned Juliana Paice v. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-11737). The lawsuit alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose certain information concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for and the prospects of ADX-2191 for the treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages on behalf of herself and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between March 17, 2022, and June 20, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a clinical-stage biotechnology company devoted to discovering innovative therapies designed to treat immune-mediated diseases. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Simon Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Simon antitrust class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC doing business as City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to the Company's alleged market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a plaintiff on August 14, 2020. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on June 29, 2024. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself. Align Technology manufactures Invisalign brand clear tooth aligners, which are generally used to straighten teeth.[BN] ALLEGO INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping of Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- JOELLEN CHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11781 (D. Mass., Aug.8, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by wiretapping communications of sales representatives and potential customers of companies who contract with Defendant. Companies employ the Defendant, Allego, a third party, to provide sales optimization services. Part of the suite of services offered by Allego is the recording of sales calls to create sales team training programs and to attempt to improve future sales calls with the use of AI. The communications made during the sales calls are routed through the servers of and are used by Allego to, among other things, secretly observe, record, and analyze telephonic communications in real time. Allego collects this information without the knowledge or consent of either the sales associate or the person on the other end of the sales call, says the suit. Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Allego, Inc. is a Delaware company that primarily offers sales optimization software and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing, and analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, 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 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Final OK of Settlement Deal in Free Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE NOBLE FREE, V. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-00190-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves the court for entry of an order granting final approval of class action Settlement filed with the Court on January 26, 2023. The lawsuit arises out of Allstate's alleged refusal to comply with Texas law and its contractual obligation to pay full contractual benefits for Plaintiff's total fire loss -- and all those similarly situated, covered by an insurance policy issued by Allstate. Allstate Indemnity provides insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QwSOMC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Sparks, Esq. Jane S. Leger, Esq. Tripp Jones, Esq. THE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP. 3155 Executive Blvd. Beaumont, TX 77705 Telephone: (409) 832-9700 Facsimile: (409) 832-9708 E-mail: mark@thefergusonlawfirm.com jleger@thefergusonlawfirm.com tjones@thefergusonlawfirm.com - and - Mike Love, Esq. MIKE LOVE & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 202 E. Lufkin Ave. Telephone: (936) 632-2000 Facsimile: (936) 632-2005 E-mail: mikelove@texaslawoffice.com AMAZON WEB: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rivera Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and YASMINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying Amazon's motion to dismiss: -- First, the Court notes that Amazon's Service Terms are not incorporated by reference in the SAC and were instead submitted by Amazon via a declaration, so it is unclear whether the Court can even consider them. -- But even if it could, the Court is not convinced that Amazon's inclusion of a catch-all provision requiring its customers to comply with the law generally is enough to satisfy its legal obligations under BIPA. -- Amazon could program Rekognition so that it will not run unless and until it provides BIPA-compliant notice and obtains BIPA compliant consent from end users, either through ProctorU’s interface or otherwise. The Plaintiffs Avelardo Rivera and Yasmine Romero are citizens and residents of Illinois who took multiple remote tests while attending two colleges in Illinois in 2019–2020. Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9P1Lj at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hall Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WYETH HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01145 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hall was employed by the Defendant as a virtual customer service representative. AMAZON INC. offers online shopping services. The Company retails products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books, toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 Email: crodriguez@bm.net apiazza@bm.net manderson@bm.net APPY PIE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Engineer.Ai Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENGINEER.AI CORPORATION, v. APPY PIE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05376-HDV-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order: -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. -- Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). -- The Court is committed to fostering the development of new and Diverse lawyers in the legal community. Consequently, the Court strongly encourages litigants to provide opportunities for less experienced lawyers or lawyers whose identities and/or backgrounds further the diversity of the legal profession to conduct hearings before the Court, particularly where they contributed significantly to the underlying motion. -- The Court expects that everyone in the courtroom be treated with dignity and respect at all times. -- The Court hears status conferences and scheduling conferences on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the Court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. -- Unless otherwise ordered, no later than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference, counsel shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. -- All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to the Magistrate Judge. -- Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. -- No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary. adjudication. Northwestern Mutual is a mutual life insurance company organized by a special act of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1857. Appy Pie is an application development platform that enables users to create mobile applications. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qwnRO7 at no extra charge.[CC] ARMY AND AIR: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- LINDA THOMPSON is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Linda Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02799-SMY, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The case was originally filed in the Third Judicial Circuit Court for Madison County, under Case No. 2022LA001292, and was removed to the Southern District of Illinois on December 2, 2022. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly or recklessly failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act ("FACTA") by disclosing certain credit and debit card account information of the Plaintiff and other customers on printed purchase receipts at its stores. On Jan. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Staci M. Yandle on Jan. 19, 2023. The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, all pending motions were terminated as moot, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. A motion to remand the case filed by Plaintiff Linda Thompson was also denied. The Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment which was also denied by the Court on June 29, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Linda Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Case No. 23-2447, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 374-3408 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com - and - Roy C. Dripps, Esq. ARMBRUSTER, DRIPPS, ET AL. 51 Executive Plaza Court Maryville, IL 62062 Telephone: (618) 208-0320 Facsimile: (800) 927-1529 E-mail: royd@adwblaw.com Defendant-Appellee ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE is represented by: Taylor Pitz, Esq. DOJ-Civ 1100 L. St. NW Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 305-5200 E-mail: taylor.n.pitz@usdoj.gov AT&T SERVICES: 9th Circuit Court Revives 401(k) Plan Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a class of 245,000 people covered by AT&T Services Inc.'s 401(k) plan revived their lawsuit over fees and public disclosures when the Ninth Circuit on August 4, 2023 said a plan's recordkeeping contract can qualify as a prohibited transaction under ERISA. AT&T's decision to amend its existing recordkeeping contract with Fidelity Workplace Services to incorporate new brokerage and investment advisory services amounts to a prohibited transaction between a plan and an interested party, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act's prohibited transaction rules are "broad" and "unambiguous," and they encompass "arm's-length service transactions". [GN] AXCESS FINANCIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Linton Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- AXCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Lakisha Linton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Axcess Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01832-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Axcess has operated an illegal "rent-a-bank" scheme whereby it has charged California residents high interest rates on loans while evading state usury laws. On April 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, or in the alternative, to require that Plaintiff obtain joinder. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Alameda County Superior Court. On June 30, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an order denying as moot the Motion to Dismiss; and granting the Motion to Remand. On July 7, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Charles R. Breyer on July 17, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Lakisha Linton v. Axcess Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 23-80066, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent LAKISHA COLE LINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq. James T. Hannink, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK, LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 Defendant-Petitioner AXCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. is represented by: Scott M. Pearson, Esq. Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park, E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4283 (310) 312-4383 BABA LOKENATH: Faces Licona Harassment Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- DELI TEPEPA LICONA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BABA LOKENATH LAUNDROMAT INC. (D/B/A BABA LOKENATH LAUNDROMAT), TAPAN MODAK, SAJIB MODAK, and GAYATRI MODAX, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05638 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law; and for being subjected to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment based on sex, retaliation, wrongful discharge/constructive discharge under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as laundromat attendant at Baba Lokenath Laundromat Inc. and Lokenath Laundromat Inc. from approximately July 2014 until January 10, 2023. Baba Lokenath Laundromat Inc. owns, operates, and controls a Laundromat situated in Corona, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time this action is certified." Alternatively, the Plaintiffs move to certify the following subclasses: -- Minimum Wage Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26, 2017, through March 30, 2020, who were required to go through a security screening. -- Overtime Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26, 2017, through March 30, 2020, who were required to go through a security screening and who worked a shift longer than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek. -- Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, whose time punches were rounded. -- Rounding Overtime Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, whose time punches were rounded and who worked shifts longer than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek. -- Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who received overtime pay in the same workweek as additional remuneration, including shift differentials and other forms of non-discretionary pay, other than regular or overtime earnings. -- Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts longer than five hours. -- Second Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts longer than ten hours. -- Rest Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts of 3.5 hours or longer. -- Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of using their personal cell phones for workrelated purposes. -- Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment: all nonexempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing personal protective gear and tools for work-related purposes. -- Wage Statement Subclass: all non-exempt direct hire employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who received wage statements from October 26, 2020 through August 31, 2021 that did not include a line item showing total hours worked. The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order: (1) certifying the derivative claims for failure to timely pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements (due to unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and meal and rest period premiums), and unfair business practices; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (3) appointing Matern Law Group, PC as class counsel. BAE Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9DVG7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia Khalili, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Kiran Prasad, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 532-8868 BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Cabrales Set for Oct. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabrales v. Bae Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02122 (S.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order setting briefing schedule to certify class: -- Responses are due by: Aug. 10, 2023 -- Replies are due by: Aug. 17, 2023 -- Sur-replies will not be accepted -- Motion Hearing is set for: Oct. 2, 2023 The nature of suit states Labor Relations. Bae Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services.[CC] BANCO POPULAR: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in Golden ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD GOLDEN, v. BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, Case No. 3:20-cv-00095-RM (D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs move for an order: -- granting certification of the settlement class; and -- final approval of the class action settlement, payment of fees and costs to Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel, and payment of a service award to the Class Representative. Banco Popular is a commercial bank in Puerto Rico. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OP6YaC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Korey A. Nelson, Esq. Leila Abu-Orf, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com labuorf@burnscharest.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 150-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com BANK OF AMERICA: Milliken Sues Over Excessive Interest Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN MILLIKEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03709-LJC (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the California Unfair Competition Law by wrongfully imposing excessive interest charges on their cardholders including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Bank of America offers credit cards with variable rates affected by increases in the Prime Rate, a third-party index. Since March 2022, the Defendant has increased the interest rates on its credit card offerings at least ten times. Specifically, the Defendant has repriced and recalculated daily interest charges imposed on Plaintiff and the Classes of cardholders before the Prime Rate index has actually increased and imposed these rate increases on cardholders' protected balances, says the suit. As a result, millions of the Defendant's cardholders have been charged and paid excessive interest on transactions that should never have endured those interest rate increases, the suit claims. Bank of America N.A. is a banking institution in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com - and - Shayne C. Stevenson, Esq. Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: shaynes@hbsslaw.com breannav@hbsslaw.com - and - Knoll D. Lowney, Esq. Claire Tonry, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC 2317 E. John Street Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com claire@smithandlowney.com BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING: Jimenez Alleges Unfair Biometric Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- BERNARDO JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. BATTAGLIA DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, Case No. 2023LA000797 (Ill. Cir., July 31, 2023) sues over alleged recording, collecting, and/or storage of biometric data, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. The Defendant did not inform in writing either the Plaintiff or class members that their biometric data was being recorded, obtained, collected, and/or stored, and the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric data would be collected, stored, and/or used, the suit contends. The Defendant also did not obtain the Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store the Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data. Likewise, the Defendant never provided the Plaintiff with the requisite statutory disclosures nor an opportunity to prohibit or prevent the collection, storage or use of Plaintiff's unique biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. The Defendant also did not disclose to the Plaintiff, class members, or the public its written retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employee biometric data, added the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same fingerprint-storing practices as other Defendant's employees. Battaglia Distributing distributes and supplies food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Infusion Pump ----------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in, that in February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned "Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.," Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), now captioned "Industriens Pensionsforsikring v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs. The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material information regarding Alaris (TM) infusion pumps, allegedly rendering certain public statements about the company's business, operations and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. After an initial without prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff filed amended pleadings, which the company in turn moved to dismiss. Ultimately, the court permitted certain aspects of the case to proceed. An answer with affirmative defenses was thereafter filed on October 3, 2022. The court has also permitted claims to be asserted on behalf of option holders. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on January 17, 2023. That motion is fully briefed and under review by the court. Becton, Dickinson and Company, also known as BD, is a multinational medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument systems and reagents. BHP BILLITON: Pennington Bid for Class Certification Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00178 (E.D. Ark., Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Court entered an order staying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: -- The Defendants are to file their motion for summary judgment on or before Friday, August 18, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs will have until Friday, September 1, 2023, to submit a response to the motion. -- The Defendants will have until Friday, September 8, 2023, to submit a reply. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Bhp Billiton was founded in 1988. The Company's line of business includes operating oil and gas field properties.[CC] BIG MONSTER: Faces Birwari Suit Over Underpayment of Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BIRWARI and JUTHAMAT BIRWARI, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG MONSTER SUSHI LLC, RUNGRUEANG KAMRAITHONG, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10, and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00323 (D. Haw., Aug. 3, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous Hawaiian wage and hour law stemming from Defendant's tip theft and failure to pay overtime practices. Plaintiff Joseph Birwari worked for Defendants as a cook while Plaintiff Juthamat Birwari worked for Defendants as a server during the relevant time period. Both Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per work week but were not paid overtime at one and a half times their hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. In addition, the Defendants unlawfully retained tips earned by employees working in tipped positions, such as servers, say the Plaintiffs. Big Monster Sushi LLC and Rungrueang Kamraithong own and operate a Sushi and Thai restaurant known as Big Monster Sushi and Thai and several food trucks on the island of Kauai. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Barna, Esq. DAYE LAW LLLC 2200 Main Street, Suit #517 Wailuku, HI 96793 Telephone: (808) 495-8880 E-mail: ab@hawaiidayelaw.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com BLACKBAUD INC: Settles Suits Over Data Breach Incident ------------------------------------------------------ Blackbaud, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in March 9, 2023, the company reached a settlement with the SEC in connection with 19 putative consumer class action cases, 17 in U.S. federal courts (which have been consolidated under multi district litigation to a single federal court) and 2 in Canadian courts, all alleging harm from a May 2020 ransomware attack where in July 16, 2020. This settlement fully resolves the previously disclosed SEC investigation of the Security Incident and is further described in the SEC Order. Under the terms of the SEC Order, the company agreed to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations or any future violations of the Exchange Act and part of the SEC Order, the company also agreed to pay, and has paid, a civil penalty in the amount of $3.0 million., the company contacted certain customers to inform them about this. In May 2020 Blackbaud discovered and stopped a ransomware attack, preventing a cybercriminal from blocking system access and fully encrypting files. The cybercriminal removed a copy of a subset of data from the self-hosted environment but no data went beyond the cybercriminal, was or will be misused, or will be disseminated or otherwise made available publicly. The plaintiffs in these cases, who generally purport to represent various classes of individual constituents of customers, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions in connection with the security incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief. To date, Blackbaud received a consolidated, multi-state Civil Investigative Demand issued on behalf of 49 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia and a separate Civil Investigative Demand from the office of the California Attorney General relating to the Security Incident. Blackbaud is a software provider exclusively dedicated to powering social impact, serving the nonprofit and education sectors, companies committed to social responsibility and individual change makers, built to accelerate impact in fundraising, nonprofit financial management, digital giving, grantmaking, corporate social responsibility and education management. BOSTON POST: Parties in Pichardo Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pichardo, et al., v. Boston Post Food Corp. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-09157-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a 216(b) conditional collective and request to stay the briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification, while the Parties finalize the scope of the conditional collective. In the event that the Parties are unable to agree on a collective stipulation, the Parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification: -- the Defendants' Opposition: Aug 11, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's Reply Aug. 25, 2023 A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DM0i72 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th street, Eighth floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com BRIGHT HORIZONS: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA RUTTER, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTERS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00233-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order striking the current case schedule and orders the parties to submit a new proposed schedule within 14 days of the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. Bright Horizons is a United States–based child-care provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kufppk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6608 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com eadams@terrellmarshall.com - and - David Seligman, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. Valerie Collins, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE PO Box 371680, PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org juno@towardsjustice.org valerie@towardsjustice.org The Defendant is represented by: Derek Bishop, Esq. Rebecca Schach, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: debishop@littler.com rschach@littler.com CALIFORNIA: MPC Seeks to File Portions of Exhibit 14 Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Non-party Marathon Petroleum Corporation File an administrative motion to file under seal portions of Exhibit 14 to joint opposition to class certification. Accordingly, Marathon requests that the Court grant its sealing request on the grounds that it has satisfied the compelling reasons standard, its request is narrowly tailored and limited to the particular portion of Exhibit 14 that contains its competitively-sensitive information, and there is no less restrictive alternative that would protect Marathon's competitive standing. The Defendants take no position as to the information that Marathon seeks to seal. A copy of Marathon's motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qteUoM at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Non-Party Marathon Petroleum Corporation, are: Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq. Danielle R. Leneck, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 E-mail: rgergesshields@jonesday.com dleneck@jonesday.com CAPRI NAILS: Li Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEQUAN LI, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CAPRI NAILS & ECO SPA INC. d/b/a Capri Nails & Spa, NY CAPRI NAILS & SPA INC d/b/a Capri Nails & Spa, SUNGJUN AN a/k/a Sung Jun An a/k/a Eric An, HEEKYOUNG AN a/k/a Heek Young An, and JAEWOO KIM a/k/a Jae Woo Kim a/k/a Darry Kim a/k/a Siri Kim, Case No. 2:20-cv-06296-KAM-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) appointing the Plaintiff DEQUAN LI to be class representative; (3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy, Aaron B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy to be class counsel; (4) permitting the Plaintiff to circulate a notice of class action by direct mail to class members and by publication; and (5) granting such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' order dated July 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/452AcJ5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com CARBONITE INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Utah Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Open Text Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in September 24, 2021, a class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United States District court, District of Utah, by Marc Richfield against the company and certain officers of the company under case 2:21-cv-00561-BSJ. In August 1, 2019, prior to its acquisition of Carbonite, Inc., one of its purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "Ruben A. Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger" (Case No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. In November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the pending securities actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions in March 10, 2020. In October 22, 2020, the district court granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. In November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the Securities Actions to the district court for further proceedings. The parties have completed discovery and defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. OpenText offers Information Management products and services that manage the creation, capture, use, analysis and lifecycle of structured and unstructured data. In December 24, 2019, it acquired Carbonite Inc., a provider of cloud-based subscription backup, disaster recovery and endpoint security. CARBONITE INC: Feng Class Suit on Server Issue Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Open Text Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in August 23, 2019, a securities complaint was filed in the in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned "William Feng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (Case No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. In November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the pending securities actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions in March 10, 2020. In October 22, 2020, the district court granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. In November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the Securities Actions to the district court for further proceedings. The parties have completed discovery and defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. OpenText offers Information Management products and services that manage the creation, capture, use, analysis and lifecycle of structured and unstructured data. In December 24, 2019, it acquired Carbonite Inc., a provider of cloud-based subscription backup, disaster recovery and endpoint security. CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA SMITH is taking an appeal from a court order in her lawsuit entitled Victoria Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Health Service Care Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-SPW, in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. This case was originally styled as Victoria Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Caring for Montanans, Inc. formerly known as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., Health Service Care Corporation, John Does 1-10, Case No. DV-56-02022-0000170-D in the MT 13th Judicial District Court, Yellowstone Co. The nature of suit was stated as Insurance. On May 23, 2022, Defendant Health Service Care Corporation filed a notice of removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. On August 18, 2022, Defendant Caring for Montanans, Inc. f/k/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice, from the case. On May 31, 2022, Health Service filed a motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2023, Judge Susan P. Watters adopted in part and rejected in part the findings and recommendations entered by Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto regarding the motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Victoria Smith v. Health Service Care Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-02627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Victoria Smith Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 2, 2023; -- Appellant Victoria Smith opening brief is due on September 25, 2023; -- Appellee Health Service Care Corporation answering brief is due on October 24, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VICTORIA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq. Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES PLLC 303 West Mendenhall Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 Defendants-Appellees HEALTH SERVICE CARE CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN 100 W. Railroad St. Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 CARNIVAL CRUISES: AG Sought to Intervene in Passengers COVID-9 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Byrne of ABC.net reports that a group of passengers from the COVID-affected Ruby Princess cruise have taken their battle for compensation to Canberra, after being excluded from a class action because they booked under United States conditions, which included a waiver on class actions. When the Ruby Princess docked and dropped its passengers in Sydney on March 19, 2020, it marked a pivotal moment in the arrival of the global pandemic in Australia. Twenty-eight of the passengers who travelled on the cruise died with COVID-19, with 660 others contracting the virus. The ship had sailed from Sydney to New Zealand and back in March 2020. A special commission of inquiry later found New South Wales Health made serious mistakes in managing the disembarkation, including classifying the ship low risk, but stopped short of apportioning specific blame, or making recommendations. The class action, which was heard over five weeks in Sydney last year, is considering a claim there was a breach of duty of care, and a failure to take appropriate measures to warn and protect passengers from the risk of infection. It also alleged breaches of Australia's consumer law, including engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. In its case, Carnival Cruises, the owner of Ruby Princess, claimed the risks could not be avoided. A number of those hoping to sue the cruise company were excluded from the class action because they had signed the US contract and were subject to a waiver on class actions. On August 3, 2023 their lawyers told the High Court the waiver is unenforceable under Australian consumer law, which voids any terms that are unfair. But the cruise company is arguing the Australian law does not extend to a law of a place outside Australia. The waiver does not prohibit individuals from attempting to sue the company. 'The contract is being forced by one party' Former nurse Susan Karpik, a Canadian citizen, is heading the class action. Ms Karpik said the company failed in its duty to take reasonable care of passengers aboard the ill-fated cruise. Her lawyer, Justin Gleeson, told the High Court a section of Australian Consumer Law made a term of a consumer contract void if it was unfair. He argued that in carrying out business in Australia, Carnival submitted to Australian laws and the term of the US contract waiving the right to engage in class action was unfair. "There were 2,600 people on the same vessel, experiencing the same cruise," Mr Gleeson said. "It is perfectly acceptable to Princess to accept a class action claim from 1,700 [Australian] passengers. "What did Princess do to prove a legitimate interest to accept they could exclude 700 other people from that action? They did nothing." Mr Gleeson went on to explain the waiver clause was unfair because it limited the rights of passengers to sue the carrier, but placed no such limit on litigation options for the carrier. "A barrier has been erected to prevent passengers engaging in litigation when there is no equivalent barrier for the carrier," he said. "Before the service has been provided or a dispute has happened … before the passenger has any option to consider pursuing class action, their decision has been made for them. "The contract is being forced by one party onto another." The cruise line's lawyers argued in their submission when a contract provided for the resolution of disputes in a forum other than an Australian court, and pursuant to a law that upholds the validity of a class action waiver, there is "no imbalance caused to those rights under the contract by the class action waiver clause". The Commonwealth attorney-general is seeking to intervene in favour of Ms Karpik. The hearing will continue on August 4, 2023. [GN] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suits Over False Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that since November 4, 2021, four shareholder derivative actions were filed alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants exposed the company to unspecified damages and securities law liability by causing it to make materially false and misleading statements, in violation of the U.S. securities laws and in breach of their fiduciary duties to the company. Two were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, one in Texas state court (Travis County District Court) and one in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 5, 2022, the three federal court actions were consolidated into a single action. Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with efforts on disorders of the nervous system. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Slam SEC Filings in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that in November 4, 2021, a shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under the U.S. securities laws and state fiduciary duty laws against certain named officers and the members of the company's board of directors. This complaint relies on the allegations made in Citizen Petitions that were submitted to (and subsequently denied by) FDA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants exposed the company to unspecified damages and securities law liability by causing it to make materially false and misleading statements, in violation of the U.S. securities laws and in breach of their fiduciary duties to the company. Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with efforts on disorders of the nervous system. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Alzheimer Meds Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that between August 27, 2021 and October 26, 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the company and certain named officers. The complaints rely on allegations contained in Citizen Petitions submitted to FDA and allege that various statements made by the defendants regarding the Alzheimer's medication "simufilam" were rendered materially false and misleading. The Citizen Petitions were all subsequently denied by FDA. These actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers. In June 30, 2022, a federal judge consolidated the four class action lawsuits into one case and appointed a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2022 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's securities between September 14, 2020 and July 26, 2022. On May 11, 2023, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims against (deceased) defendant Nadav Friedmann, PhD, MD, but otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on July 3, 2023. Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with efforts on disorders of the nervous system. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Shareholder Suit Over Incentive Plan Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that in August 19, 2022, a shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting claims under state fiduciary duty laws against certain named officers and members of the company's board of directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the 2020 Cash Incentive Bonus Plan in August 2020. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On January 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a partial answer to the amended complaint on March 10, 2023, and moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint on March 14, 2023. Defendants' motion to dismiss remains pending. Cassava Sciences, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries discover and develop proprietary pharmaceutical product candidates with efforts on disorders of the nervous system. CERTEGY PAYMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Young v. Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11037 (D. Mass., Filed June 22, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order adopting the amended proposed Scheduling Order as follows: -- Any depositions of designated experts Sept. 15, 2023 shall be completed by: -- Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 29, 2023 certification shall be filed by: -- Defendants' opposition shall be Oct. 27, 2023 filed by: -- Plaintiff may file a reply in Nov. 17, 2023 support of class certification no later than: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Certegy Payment is a specialty credit reporting agency based in Tampa, Florida.[CC] CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Reuschel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to modify scheduling order as follows: Date Case Event Relating to Class Certification Aug. 7,2023 Deadline for written fact discovery related to class certification. Sept. 6, 2023 Deadline for fact witness depositions related to class certification. Sept. 6, 2023 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve expert reports supporting class certification Sept. 15, 2023 Deadline to serve motion for class certification Oct. 11, 2023 Deadline for the Defendants to depose the Plaintiffs expert witnesses on class Certification Oct. 11, 2023 Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert reports supporting class Certification Oct. 30, 2023 Deadline for response to motion for class certification. Dec. 1, 2023 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to depose the Defendants' expert witnesses on class certification Dec. 7, 2023 Deadline for the Plaintiffs reply supporting their motion for class certification. Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates properties that provide seniors with housing and health care options. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QzcCPy at no extra charge.[CC] CIRCLES OF CARE: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Landini, et al., v. Circles of Care, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01405 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. Circles of Care provides health care services such as psychiatric diagnostic medical and inpatient treatment services. [CC] CLAY LACY: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ DIANA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. CLAY LACY AVIATION, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23VECV03224 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. Representative Plaintiff worked for the Defendants with the job title of service technician and ramp agent from December 20, 2021 until present day. Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. is an aircraft management, private air charter, and fixed-based provider operating in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, 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 melissa@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Court Stays McGrady Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGrady v Collection Professionals, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00100 (D. Wyo., Filed May 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kelly H Rankin entered an order conditionally staying class certification in place until the parties hold their scheduled mediation. -- Should the mediation be unsuccessful, the stay will be lifted and the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be due August 28, 2023. -- An in person hearing on the Motion will be held September 25, 2023, at 1:00 PM before Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper, Wyoming. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit. Collection Professionals provide complete credit card and debt collection services along with online payment solutions to organizations.[CC] COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Jarrow Suit Removed to D. New Mexico --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michelle Jarrow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH PHYSICIAN NETWORK d/b/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY and SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-2669 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01237-MEM. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the HIPAA Privacy Rule and HIPAA Security Rule. The Complaint alleges that these violations stem from Defendant's "failure to use reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and all other class members' Personal Information and not complying with applicable industry. standards" and that "Defendant's violations of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and Section 5 of the FTCA constitutes negligence per se."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Friedman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 319-7802 Fax: (215) 399-2249 Email: michael.friedman@jacksonlewis.com CR FITNESS: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- MONICA MERAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CR FITNESS CORAL SPRINGS, LLC d/b/a CRUNCH CORAL SPRINGS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61489-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Meraz accuses the Defendant of violating TCPA by engaging in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Since at least on or about June 2023, Defendant continues to harass Plaintiff with unsolicited text message advertisements on Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about 2010, says the suit. Headquartered in Florida, CR Fitness Coral Springs operates a state-of-the-art gym located in Coral Springs' Atlantic Shopping Center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 CREATORS AGENCY: Sells Unregistered Securities, Garrison et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREATORS AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00139-NDF (D. Wyo., Aug. 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's deceptive offer and sale of unregistered securities, which constitute violations of the Securities and Exchange Acts, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs file this Complaint on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated US and non-US FTX consumers, against Defendant, "Influencer" who promoted, assisted in, and/or actively participated in FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX's ("FTX Trading") and West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US's offer and sale of unregistered securities. The Defendant admittedly endorsed and promoted the sale of the FTX YBAs and did not disclose, in any of his YouTube and other social media posts, that it was paid hundreds of thousands and/or millions of dollars by FTX and profited from the sale of FTX YBAs, in clear violation of SEC, FTC and various federal and state regulations, says the suit. Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Creators Agency is a talent management firm and digital ad network which promoted FTX. The firm is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Freeburg, Esq. FREEBURG LAW LLC PO Box 3442 Jackson, WY 83001 Telephone: (307) 200-9720 E-mail: alex@tetonattorney.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Continental Plaza 3250 Mary Street, Suite 202 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com rejane@moskowitz-law.com - and – David Boies, Esq. Alex Boies, Esq. Brooke Alexander, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749–8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com CREW AVIATION: Lawson Sues Over Non-remittance of Pay Deductions ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOM LAWSON and JOHN HENDERSON, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated participants, Plaintiffs v. CREW AVIATION, LLC, CLYDE F. ENSOR III, and TIMOTHY LEE PEACE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00374-BJB (W.D. Ky., July 25, 2023) is a class action for breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants for deduction of benefit contributions from employee paychecks, failure to properly remit those withholdings to the 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, failure to remit employer's 401(k) contributions, use of those amounts withheld for purposes related to the operation of the business or personal gain, and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries. Plaintiffs Tom Lawson and John Henderson, like other similarly situated employees, participated in the Plan offered by Defendants through their employment with Crew Aviation LLC. According to the complaint, the Defendants have caused to withhold from Lawson's paycheck an amount to be determined for deposit into his 401(k) Retirement Account under the Plan, and have caused to withhold from Henderson's paycheck an amount to be determined for deposit into his 401(k) Retirement Account under the Plan without forwarding those witholdings to Plaintiffs' custodial trustee for the 401(k) Plan. Crew Aviation, LLC is a Kentucky company in the business and charter jet industry, and provides private jet management services. Crew Aviation is both the sponsor to and administrator of the Plan, and fiduciary to plan participants and Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claire W. Bushorn, Esq. THE BUSHORN FIRM, LLC 810 Sycamore Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 827-5771 Facsimile: (513) 725-1148 E-mail: cbushorn@thebushornfirm.com DEL MONTE: Court Narrows Claims in Bryan Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERSTINE BRYAN, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00865-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting in part and denying in part Del Monte's motion to dismiss: 1. To the extent Bryan seeks injunctive relief, the motion is Granted. 2. To the extent Bryan asserts in Count V claims under the laws of states other than California or Oregon, the motion is granted. 3. To the extent Bryan asserts claims based on any unidentified product, the motion is granted. 4. To the extent Bryan asserts a claim for Unjust Enrichment, the motion is granted. 5. In all other respects, the motion is denied As Del Monte has not shown leave to amend necessarily would, in all respects, be futile, Bryan's request for such leave is hereby GRANTED. If Bryan wishes to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the above-noted deficiencies, she shall do so no later than August 25, 2023. Del Monte argues Bryan's Unjust Enrichment claim fails, for the asserted reason that "California does not recognize a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment." Del Monte is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. Bryan, a "citizen of Oregon," alleges she purchased, "at retailers throughout Oregon,” fruit cups manufactured by Del Monte, specifically, "Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks," and that she did so in reliance on an assertedly false and misleading statement made on their respective front labels. Specifically, Bryan alleges that in purchasing the fruit cups, she saw and relied on the phrase "fruit naturals," with a bolded emphasis on "naturals," which she understood to mean the products "contained only natural ingredients." Del Monte Foods is an American food production and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DWxcBL at no extra charge.[CC] DEPUY SYNTHES: Faces Suit Over Dangers, Risks of Implant Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that an important development in a proposed class action on behalf of all individuals who were surgical recipients of the DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Implant which prematurely failed or is in the process of failing or have the Device implanted. A. Background The proposed class proceeding filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 12, 2022, identified as Lyon v DePuy Synthes Companies et al., Court File No. CV-22-00088312-00CP (the "Lyon lawsuit"), will be discontinued effective November 1, 2023. The Lyon lawsuit alleges negligence by DePuy Synthes Companies, Synthes (Canada) Ltd., DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Inc. in the design, constructing, manufacturing, inspecting, testing, and marketing of the ATTUNE Knee System total knee replacement implant devices used in patient knee replacement operations and their failure to warn patients and/or surgeons and other healthcare providers of the inherent dangers and risks in using its Device. The Defendants deny these allegations. B. The Proposed Class The proposed class proceeding advanced claims on behalf of putative class members defined as all persons: C. Implications on Limitation Periods Persons who believe that they come within the defined proposed classes above, SHOULD TAKE NOTICE THAT applicable and remaining limitation periods, if any, for bringing a claim which were "tolled" (i.e. paused) as of January 12, 2022, will resume running on the date of Discontinuance on November 1, 2023. On the expiry of the limitation period a person's right to sue may be extinguished. Such persons should take notice that the limitation period for bringing a claim, if there is any time left within it, will recommence running on the date of Discontinuance on November 1, 2023. If those persons do not commence their own actions within the applicable limitation period(s), then they may be prohibited from pursuing any claims they may have against the Defendants. D. Action Required As a result, surgical recipients of the DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Implant which prematurely failed or is in the process of failing or have the Device implanted wishing to claim compensation should seek legal advice and must commence their individual actions before their respective limitation period(s) expire. Failure to do so may restrict one's ability to pursue a claim for compensation. E. Contact for Further Information Do not call the Courthouse with any questions about this Notice. For further information regarding this proposed class proceeding and Notice of Intent to Discontinue, please visit https://www.gluckstein.com/class-actions/depuy-attune-knee-system-class-action or contact: SOURCE Gluckstein Lawyers [GN] DEUTSCH IMPORTS: Collinson Sues Over Defective Glass Tiles ---------------------------------------------------------- Adam Collinson and Kathie Collinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEUTSCH IMPORTS, LLC d/b/a GLAZZIO TILES, and CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a PROSOURCE WHOLESALE, Case No. 1:23-cv-04870 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for manufacturing, advertising, marketing, distributing, and selling defective glass tiles (the "Products") to Plaintiffs and Class members. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiffs ordered 160 square feet of a style of the Products called VIC 1912 Wilde Haze, part of the Victorian Icon Collection, at a cost of $3,814.52 from Prosource's location in Naperville, Illinois. Plaintiffs were falsely informed by Prosource's agents and employees that the Products were made in Italy, when they were actually made in China. At no time were Plaintiffs informed of any limitations on ordinary uses for the Products, that the manufacturer of the Products considered the Products to be made with a "delicate" backing, which deteriorates when installed with cement-based mortar, or that the Products were not compatible with cement-based mortar for shower installations. The Plaintiffs hired Winchell Woodworking and Remodeling ("Winchell"), a tile installation expert, and Plaintiffs had the Products installed in their bathroom during a bathroom renovation in the Summer 2022. Winchell installed the Products in late June 2022, using installation materials from Custom Building Products ("Custom"). Winchell used FlexBond Premium Crack Prevention Thin set Mortar for the installation of the Products in the shower due to their exposure to water. The reason this mortar is appropriate for use in this context is to prevent cracking that occurs when other methods of installation are used in wet environments. Within days of completion of the installation, Plaintiffs noticed that the tiles installed using the mortar began to display discoloration, due to separation of the decorative backing visible through the glass tile, and the backing itself was deteriorating. Plaintiffs notified Defendants immediately after discovering the issue on July 6, 2022. Glazzio incorrectly cast blame on the installation, denied that the Products were defective, and refused to cover the costs of replacement. As a result of the defective Products, Plaintiffs need to replace all of the tile in their bathroom, which will require significant renovations, including substantial costs in materials and labor. Plaintiffs also suffered losses as a result of the initial delivery and installation costs that were wasted, including shipping costs to receive the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are married and reside in Illinois. Glazzio manufactured and distributed the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com Web: www.attorneyzim.com DIGITIAL TURBINE: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GARFIELD, derivatively on behalf of DIGITIAL TURBINE, INC. and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., Plaintiff v. MOHAN S. GYANI, JEFFREY KARISH, MOLLIE V. SPILMAN, MICHELLE STERLING, AND WILLIAM G. STONE III, Defendants, and DIGITIAL TURBINE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-0755 (Del. Ch., July 25, 2023) asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against certain members of Digital Turbine's Board of Directors and asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against William G. Stone III, Digital Turbine's chief executive officer and a member of the Board. This action arises from the Board's alleged abuse of the authority entrusted to it under the Company's stockholder-approved 2020 Equity Incentive Plan. In 2020, the Board adopted and the Company's stockholders approved the Plan. Subject to certain specified conditions and limitations, the Plan authorized the Board to grant up to 12,000,000 shares of Digital Turbine common stock as equity awards to the Company's employees, non-employee directors, and consultants. In order to curb excessive compensation, the Plan imposed an annual limit on the amount of awards that could be granted to an individual participant. Specifically, the Plan provided that no individual "shall be granted an Award or Awards in any Fiscal Year in which the combined number of Shares underlying such Award(s) exceeds 500,000 Shares." When the Board sought stockholder approval of the Plan, the Board touted the limit as reflective of "the Company's continued commitment to strong corporate governance practices in the interest of its stockholders," says the suit. In May 2023, the Board's Compensation and Human Capital Management Committee granted Stone four equity awards under the Plan covering an aggregate of 827,135 shares. In granting the Stone Awards, the Compensation Committee exceeded the Limit by 327,135 shares. By granting the Stone Awards in violation of the Plan's express terms, the Compensation Committee exceeded the scope of authority entrusted to it by Digital Turbine's stockholders while unjustly enriching Stone. As a result of the above misconduct, the Company and its stockholders have been harmed, the suit claims. Plaintiff Garfield has continuously owned shares of Digital Turbine common stock since 2016. Based in Austin, Texas, Digital Turbine is an independent mobile growth platform service provider for advertisers, publishers, carriers, and device original equipment manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Anisha Mirchandani, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 DOLLAR GENERAL: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General Corporation. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Dollar General Corporation, Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00413-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is an American chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Phone: (704) 814-0729 Fax: (704) 814-0730 Email: srg@gohillaw.com EDWARD D. JONES: Late-Filed Initial Disclosures Partly Stricken --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND KEITH CORUM, and JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' late-filed initial disclosures. -- The court agrees that attempting to cure the prejudice by noticing third party depositions would place an undue burden on the Defendant, as discovery is continuing, and deadlines are approaching. -- The Plaintiffs assert that three of the late-disclosed witnesses, Mr. Paul, Mr. Malone and Mr. McCoy, were identified to rebut EDJ's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses' recent testimony in mid-June that EDJ financial advisors did not make recommendations to clients regarding transfer to advisory accounts, testimony that contradicted EDJ's own training materials and representations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. -- The Plaintiffs argue that each of these individuals "are former EDJ advisors" known to the Defendant, and that the Defendants are in control of much of the relevant information with respect to these individuals (e.g., training documents). Though the Defendant asserts that these witnesses are not truly rebuttal witnesses, the court is persuaded that the Plaintiffs identified the specific need for these witnesses at the class certification stage only recently, such that these witnesses should be permitted for rebuttal purposes only. The case was filed on March 30, 2018. The Plaintiffs are pursuing a putative class-action lawsuit limited to a single claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty by EDJ financial advisors with respect to the individual clients with whom they worked. According to operative Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), EDJ breached a purported fiduciary duty each time a FA allegedly recommended a fee-based advisory account to a "buy and hold" investor who was in a commission-based account without first conducting a suitability analysis as to account type during client-specific, one-on-one meetings. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. is a financial services firm headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ox76KS at no extra charge.[CC] ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Holmes Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss his lawsuit entitled Christopher Holmes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elephant Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00487-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the Defendants for violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, negligence, and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and omissions which led to the unauthorized access of consumers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) on its systems. Specifically, the Defendants failed to: (1) maintain adequate cybersecurity systems, (2) comply with cybersecurity guidelines, and (3) train its employees on reasonable security measures, leaving the information an unguarded target for theft and misuse. As a result of the Defendants' failure to prevent the data breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including increased risk of fraud and identity theft, monetary losses, anxiety, and emotional distress, says the suit. On Oct. 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on June 26, 2023. Judge Gibney held that the Plaintiffs lack the standing to bring claims for monetary damages and for declaratory and injunctive relief because they have not adequately pleaded facts to establish an injury-in-fact or traceability. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1782, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kate Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 - and - Kevin Biniazan, Esq. Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 600 22nd Street Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Telephone: (757) 622-6000 - and - Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 - and - Lee Floyd, Esq. Justin Matthew Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (703) 517-3514 (804) 351-9170 - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 - and - Steven Tobin Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK, LLP 300 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 Defendants-Appellees ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Benjamin Franklin Dill, Esq. MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE 3901 Westerre Parkway Richmond, VA 23233 Telephone: (804) 944-2992 - and - Richard Haggerty, Esq. Claudia Drennen McCarron, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 West Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19087 Telephone: (267) 930-4770 - and - Mark Charles Nanavati, Esq. SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC 13811 Village Mill Drive Midlothian, VA 23114 Telephone: (804) 378-7600 EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. of KSLA reports that the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE, EOSEW) between May 9, 2022 and July 27, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Eos securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Eos class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18041 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bridgelink Commodities, LLC ("Bridgelink") is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor and sold in an auction; (2) as such, Bridgelink's commitment and ability to purchase Eos products was not as secure as Eos had led investors to believe; (3) as such, Eos's backlog was overstated; (4) such overstatement negatively impacts Eos's ability to secure a loan from the Department of Energy; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Eos class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18041 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [BN] EPIC SHEET: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC SHEET METAL, a California corporation; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2303774 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., July 25, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor and practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Class, seeks relief against Defendants, for their practices of violating applicable state laws, including: (1) failure to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, overtime, and double time compensation); (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse business expenses; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and (7) violations of California's quota laws. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee during the Class Period. His job duties at ESM included a sundry of warehouse duties based on production and quotas in which he and putative class members are assigned or required to perform at a specified productivity speed, or perform a quantified number of tasks, or to handle or produce a quantified amount of material. Epic Sheet Metal owns and operates sheet metal manufacturing and servicing centers throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com - and - Christopher A. Olsen, Esq. OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC 3465 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 330 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 550-9352 Facsimile: (619) 923-2747 FASTMED URGENT: Discloses Patients' Health Info, Rodriguez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JACKELYN RODRIGUEZ, individually, and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASTMED URGENT CARE, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-403 (E.D.N.C., July 25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the North Carolina Electronic Surveillance Act. The Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendant's highly-offensive practice of placing computer code on its FastMed website and MyChart portal that intercepts both the characteristics and the contents of communications about individual patients' past, present, and future medical conditions, concerns, symptoms, appointments, providers, treatments, medications, bills, and insurance, and transmits this data to Meta for analysis and, thereafter, puts this data to commercial uses benefitting both Defendant and Meta without providing notice to, or receiving consent from, the users of FastMed's web properties. The Plaintiff has been a patient of FastMed and has used the FastMed website and MyChart portal to facilitate and inform her medical care and treatment decisions since approximately 2015. FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. is an integrated healthcare provider/payer system based in Raleigh, North Carolina that operates nearly 200 medical clinics in North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 Facsimile: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com - and - David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com FLO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order and setting procedures for class certification briefing: 1. The deadline for the expert discovery cut-off shall be extended from July 25, 2023, to September 1, 2023. 2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file the motion for class certification shall be extended from August 10, 2023, to September 11, 2023. 3. The Defendants' opposition to class certification shall be filed by October 30, 2023. 4. The Plaintiffs’ reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by November 30, 2023. 5. Dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be filed by April 4, 2024. 6. Oppositions to dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be filed by May 2, 2024. 7. Replies to dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be filed by May 16, 2024. 8. The Pretrial Conference shall be rescheduled from August 8, 2024 to October 24, 2024. 9. The start of trial shall be rescheduled from August 26, 2024, to November 12, 2024. Flo Health provides women's health mobile application services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qzl9C6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com mcanty@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - Kent Morgan Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (612) 940-4452 E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com - and - William Darryl Harris, II, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 605 N High Street, Suite 146 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Frank Busch, Esq. WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 357-8900 Facsimile: (415) 357-8910 E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com busch@wvbrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Rogers, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Lauren Blas, Esq. Joseph R. Rose, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 698-3100 Facsimile: (214) 571-2900 E-mail: ARogers@gibsondunn.com CChorba@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com JRose@gibsondunn.com ABarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Benjamin Sadun, Esq. Brenda R. Sharton, Esq. DECHERT LLP One International Place 100 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 728-7100 Facsimile: (617) 426-6567 E-mail: brenda.sharton@dechert.com benjamin.sadun@dechert.com - and - Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER One Front Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: BHur@willkie.com SAgnolucci@wilkie.com ESantacana@wilkie.com TLin@wilkie.com - and - Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. Samuel A. Danon, Esq. John J. Delionado, Esq. Jason J. Kim, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: AMortimer@HuntonAK.com sdanon@HuntonAK.com jdelionado@HuntonAK.com KimJ@HuntonAK.com FLORIDA HEALTH: Borchers Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ DAWN BORCHERS, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01728-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2023) arises out of the recent data breach that took place between May 12 and May 30, 2023 and was discovered on May 31, 2023 and alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and medical and health insurance information, which is protected health information, as defined by the HIPAA. Moreover, Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to include in its Notice Letter the reason why it took Defendant nearly three weeks to detect the Data Breach, the dates of Defendant's investigation, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, why it took approximately two months to inform impacted individuals after Defendant detected the Data Breach, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again, says the suit. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital is a Florida-based private, non-profit hospital headquartered in Tampa, Florida. As one of the largest hospitals in the state, Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. employs more than 8,000 workers serving patients in a “dozen counties with a population in excess of four million.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 3833 Central Ave. St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com FLORIDA REGIONAL: Wang Appeals Ruling in Peng Suit to 11th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- HELING WANG, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled TINA PENG and LIN FU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS A. MASTROINNI II; FLORIDA REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; HARBOURSIDE FUNDING GP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, and HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a Florida Limited Partnership, the Nominal Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80102-AMC (S.D. Fla.). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs initiated this derivative and putative class action in January 2020. In January 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which alleges that under the control and direction of Defendant Mastroianni, Defendants engaged in numerous unlawful commercial practices that harmed Plaintiffs, the Funding Partnership, and the Putative Class Members, including by breaching fiduciary duties owed to the Funding Partnership, Plaintiffs, and the Putative Class Members, and breaching the parties' EB-5 Loan Agreement. Specifically, says the complaint, Defendants Mastroianni and Richard Yellen created a group of companies to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme by which they obtained $99,500,000 from a group of immigrant investors for the purpose of funding a construction loan that was to have been repaid when it matured more than two years ago but had no intention of keeping their promise to repay. Thus, when the loan matured, the Defendants used the money they obtained for the loan to buy an equity interest in one of their companies in which the immigrant investors (including Plaintiffs Peng and Fu) have no rights and no ability to recover the money that was stolen from them. On February 1, 2023, a hearing was held before Judge Aileen M. Cannon on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. On February 6, 2023, Judge Cannon entered an order denying the Motion for Settlement, and another motion that was filed under seal. The appellate case is captioned Ting Peng, et al. v. Heling Wang, et al., Case No. 23-12446, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN] Interested Parties-Appellants HELING WANG, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: John K. McDonald, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1650 Market St., Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-2146 - and - David Stahl, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5001 Plaintiffs-Appellees TING PENG, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anisha Carla Atchanah, Esq. Robert C.L. Vaughan, Esq. KIM VAUGHAN LERNER, LLP 312 SE 17th St., Ste. 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 527-1115 - and - Andre Y. Bates, Esq. Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Yi Yao, Esq. DEHENG LAW OFFICES 7901 Stoneridge Dr., Ste. 208 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Defendants-Appellees NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI, II, et al., are represented by: David P. Ackerman, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 777 S. Flagler Dr., Ste. 1100 W West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 838-4100 - and - Richard G. Haddad, Esq. Gabriela S. Leon, Esq. William Moran, Esq. OTTERBOURG STEINDLER HOUSTON & ROSEN, PC 230 Park Ave., Fl. 29 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 905-3620 - and - Eleni Sevasti Kastrenakes, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, Fl. 37 New York, NY 10020 FOLGERS COFFEE: Sept. 27 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: FOLGERS COFFEE MARKETING LITIGATION Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their request a brief extension until September 27, 2023 to file their Reply to the Defendants' opposition to Class Certification, as well as oppositions to the Defendants' four Motions to Exclude the Plaintiffs' respective experts. On March 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On July 17, 2023, the Defendants filed their Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In addition to the significant amount of responsive pleading required to address the Defendants' July 17, 2023, filings, pursuant to the current Scheduling Order, the Defendants will be filing their responsive pleading to the Plaintiff Marcia Nupp's New York Complaint no later than July 24, 2023, requiring any opposition by the Plaintiff to be filed by August 23, 2023. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43UINw3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and - Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Lisa T. Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com lomoto@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for More Time to File Reply Denied as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riley, et al., v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 9, 2022), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response / reply order: -- Denying as moot the Defendant's motion for an extension of the deadline for the Defendant's opposition to class certification; -- Denying as moot the Defendant's Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel the Plaintiff Ambrose to Sit for a Deposition Before the August Deadline for GM's Opposition to Class Certification. As both Motions were premised on deposing the Plaintiff Ambrose, and in light of the Court's Order terminating Ambrose as a party, both Motions are moot. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company.[CC] GEORGIA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Georgia Advocacy Office, et al., v. State of Georgia, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03999-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Michael L. Brown entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order dated February 2, 2023, is amended as follows: 1) To require Initial Expert Reports by Sept. 1. 2) To require Rebuttal Expert Reports by Sept. 22. 3) To complete Expert discovery by Oct. 31. 4) To file Dispositive Motions by Dec. 15. 5) To file Class Certification Motion by Dec. 15. 6) To file Oppositions to filed Motions by Jan. 15. 7) To file Replies in Support of Motions by Jan. 31. Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal beaches, farmland and mountains. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ywazh3 at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; PFIZER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative motion to file under seal documents accompanying their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Document Portions to Be Filed Under Seal Defendants' Opposition to Page 3: line 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Page 4: lines 1-3, 4-5, 6-7, Certification 12, 13-15, 16-17, 19-20, 21-23, 27-28 Page 5: lines 1, 3-4, 5-6 Page 10: lines 27-28 Page 11: lines 1-2, 3-4, 8-10, 11-12, 15-16, 17-19, 22-23, 24-26 Page 14: lines 17-18 Page 17: lines 3-4, 4-5 Page 20: lines 18, 20, 21 Defendants' Motion to Page 3: lines 22-23 Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Page 7: lines 5-6, 12-13, 17-18, 19- Anton Toutov 20 Page 9: lines 7-9 Page 10: lines 10-11, 14-15, 20-23, 24, n.3 Page 11: lines 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13 Page 13: lines 2-3, 8-11, 14-15 Excerpts from the transcript Page 57: lines 13-25 of the deposition of Angela Page 58: lines 1-2 Eppler (Harrington Decl. Page 59: lines 1-23 Ex. 3) Pages 65 to 68: lines 1-25 Page 153: lines 1-21 Page 155: lines 3-25 Page 156: lines 1-8, 24-25 Page 157: lines 1-25 Page 158: lines 1-10 Page 159: lines 19-25 Page 160: lines 1-2 Page 161: lines 15-25 Pages 162 to 163: lines 1-25 A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45pJBtZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew F. Williams, Esq. Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. Jacqueline Harrington, Esq. DECHERT LLP One Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104-4446 Telephone: (415) 262-4500 Facsimile: (415) 262-4555 E-mail: matthew.williams@dechert.com christina.sarchio@dechert.com jacqueline.harrington@dechert.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Williams Class Suit Over YouTube Ads ------------------------------------------------------ Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Google LLC is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it inflates purported views for businesses' YouTube ads and shows the ads on "questionable" websites. "If a video advertisement autoplays for a bot on an unlisted webpage, does anyone hear it?" the YouTube class action lawsuit asks. According to Google, they do, and they charge advertisers hefty amounts for the privilege of autoplaying their advertisements into the void." Plaintiffs Dashawn Williams and Devon Holmes say they each paid Google to run ads for their businesses, but if they had known that Google's representations about the qualities of YouTube ads was inaccurate, they would not have paid for Google's services. YouTube class action says Google misrepresents ad characteristics, overcharges advertisers The class action lawsuit explains Google charges advertisers for its "TrueView" video ads, promising that the YouTube ads must be skippable and audible. Google also promises the YouTube ads cannot be played simply by a user's passive scrolling. "However, this is not true: many of the TrueView advertisements are, in fact, displayed as muted, auto-playing videos either 'out-stream' or obscured on independent sites," the class action lawsuit says. Google allegedly charges a premium price for the YouTube ads, promising that the ads will run on high-quality sites before the main video content, and that advertisers will only pay for ads that are not skipped. The plaintiffs point to a recent report by ad campaign analytics firm Analytics, which found Google violates its promises for TrueView YouTube advertisements approximately 80% of the time. They filed the YouTube class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of advertisers who paid for TrueView in-stream ads. They seek to force Google to issue refunds for alleged overpayments for the YouTube ads. A class action lawsuit filed last year alleged that Google and YouTube violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing and using YouTube users' biometric facial data without their knowledge or consent. What do you think about the allegations in this class action lawsuit? Tell us your thoughts in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by John J. Nelson and Greg M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Kristen Lake Cardoso, Jeff Ostrow, Jonathan M. Streisfeld and Daniel Tropin of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA. The YouTube ads class action lawsuit is Dashawn Williams, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-03685, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Joint Stipulation Extending Time to Seal Briefing OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Roger entered an order extending time to seal briefing in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. The deadline for any response to an Administrative Motion to Seal is extended from 4 days after the filing of the motion to 18 days after the filing of the motion. 2. The deadline for any response to an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed is extended from 7 days after the filing of the motion to 21 days after the filing of the motion. 3. The deadline for any response to a designating party's filing in support of sealing is extended from 4 days after the filing of the response to the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed to 18 days after such filing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Onxwye at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Joe Cotchett, Esq. Nanci Nishimura, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. Jeffrey G. Mudd, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 597-0577 E-mail: POmalley@cpmlegal.com nnishimura@cpmlegal.com BDanitz@cpmlegal.com JMudd@cpmlegal.com KSwope@cpmlegal.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Corban Rhodes, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue. 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 993-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com crhodes@dicellolevitt.com Julwick@dicellolevitt.com - and - James Ulwick, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC Ten North Dearborn St., 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: Julwick@dicellolevitt.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti G. Reddy, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam S. Dhillon, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Khary J. Anderson, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com kjanderson@cooley.com GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, SAL CATALDO, JULIAN SANTIAGO, and SUSAN LYNN HARVEY individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file under seal Portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Google 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 Plaintiffs motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ORlWk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Boies, Esq. Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. James Lee, Esq. Rossana Baeza, Esq. Alison L. Anderson, Esq. M. Logan Wright, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com jlee@bsfllp.com rbaeza@bsfllp.com alanderson@bsfllp.com mwright@bsfllp.com - and - Bill Carmody, Esq. Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. Steven M. Shepard, Esq. Alexander Frawley, Esq. Ryan Sila, Esq. Amanda K. Bonn, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com sshepard@susmangodfrey.com afrawley@susmangodfrey.com rsila@susmangodfrey.com abonn@susmangodfrey.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com GSF USA: Solis Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Retention ---------------------------------------------------------- HUGO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GSF USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000788 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 26, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to obtain statutory damages and other equitable relief from the Defendant under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members were required to provide Defendant with their personalized biometric indicators and the biometric information derived therefrom as past and present employees of Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. The complaint asserts that Defendant violated the law because Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information. GSF USA, Inc. is an international cleaning solutions company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply Docs ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al., v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs file administrative motion to consider whether material Filed in support of the Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief should be sealed. -- The Plaintiffs designated "Attorney's Eyes Only" sales data produced by IRI, a third-party market research company, in response to a subpoena served in this litigation, pursuant to the Protective Order. -- Mr. Weir is one of the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses and portions of his rebuttal declaration, set forth in Section II(A) above, describe this data. Happy Group is a mobile application development company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kwebd4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Nelson Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANNA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00744 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract, seeking an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from the Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive private information. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief in this action, arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of patients to hospitals and physician groups that it owns and operates, resulting in unauthorized access to its information systems around June 2023. The Defendant's exposure of that private information, has caused widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and similarly situated patients, says the suit. HCA Healthcare, Inc., a Nashville, Tennessee-headquartered company, is a healthcare organization made up of 182 hospitals and more than 2,300 ambulatory care centers in 20 U.S. states and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (953) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Exclude Airquip Expert Opinions Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the HomeAdvisor, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, Angi HomeServices, Inc., and CraftJack, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions. -- The Defendants' motion to Strike the Testimony of Basil Imburgia is denied as moot. -- The Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Proffered Testimony of Defendants' Experts: Carlos Hidalgo, Dr. Itamar Simonson, Jessie Stricchiola, and Louis G. Dudney is granted in part and denied in part. -- The Plaintiffs shall file Mr. Imburgia's supplemental report updating his damages calculations within 60 days of the entry of the order. The Plaintiffs Airquip, Inc., Kelly DaSilva, Nicole Gray, Charles Costello, Bruce Filipiak, Josh Seldner, Anthony Baumann, Kourtney Ervine, Hans Hass, Iva Haukenes, Brad and Linda McHenry, and Lisa LaPlaca bring this class action suit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated home service professionals against the defendants. HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that helps connect home service professionals with homeowners in need of home improvement services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s3R6IH at no extra charge.[CC] HOOKED UP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrow Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOOKED UP TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00642-JHR-KRS (D.N.M., August 1, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Barrow was employed by the Defendant as a tow-truck driver. HOOKED UP TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC. operates as a tow truck company, with office at Flora Vista, New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com HP INC: More Time to Depose Plaintiffs' Class Cert Expert Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE & TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: -- Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2 and subject to the approval of the Court, that the deadline for deposing the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Maronick, will be extended to August 21, 2023. The current deadline for HP to depose the Plaintiffs' class certification expert is July 27, 2023. The Plaintiffs produced documents and data relied upon by their expert, Dr. Thomas J. Maronick, on July 17, 2023, pursuant to a subpoena served by HP, and HP will require additional time to review the documents and data prior to deposing Dr. Maronick. The parties seek to extend the deadline to depose Dr. Maronick for the purpose of permitting Dr. Maronick's deposition to be taken on August 21, 2023. HP Inc. is an information technology company known for its personal computers and printers. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3saSmcX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com The Defendant is represented by: Samuel Liversidge, Esq. Ilissa Samplin, Esq. Joseph R. Rose, Esq. Sean Howell, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com isamplin@gibsondunn.com jrose@gibsondunn.com showell@gibsondunn.com HWS LLC: Hall Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARNESE HALL, et al. On Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HWS, LLC t/a HENRY'S WRECKER SERVICE (Individually), et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00996-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c), for an order certifying class defined as follows: "All persons whose vehicles, between March 23, 2019, and July 21, 2023, were nonconsensually/trespass towed by Henry’s Wrecker Service from a private Parking Lot in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Henry’s charged or was paid a fee." Excluded from the Class are those individuals who now are or have ever been Henry's, Foulger-Pratt or Wheaton executives and the spouses, parents, siblings and children of all such individuals. HWS offers professional towing, recovery, and specialized transportation to municipal, state and federal agencies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47zo97N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard S. Gordon, Esq. Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD. 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000 Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: rgordon@GWCfirm.com bcarney@GWCfirm.com INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Han Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- YOSH HAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.; GIVAUDAN SA; GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN ROURE (UNITED STATES) INC.; UNGERER & COMPANY INC.; CUSTOM ESSENCE INC.; SYMRISE AG; SYMRISE INC.; SYMRISE US LLC; DSM-FIRMENICH AG; FIRMENICH INC.; and AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04147 (D.N.J., Aug. 2, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants agreed to restrain trade by artificially stabilizing and increasing prices, artificially restricting output, and allocating the market. Defendants' agreement increased fragrance and fragrance ingredient prices above competitive levels. Price trends of fragrance ingredients cannot be explained by other economic factors. For instance, the price trend of petroleum, a key raw material from which 95 percent of synthetic fragrance ingredients are derived, does not account for fragrance ingredient price trends -- Fragrance prices stabilized at an increased level starting in 2018 despite decreasing petroleum prices. As a direct result of the Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for fragrances and fragrance ingredients during the Class Period from January 1, 2018 through the present and thus suffered antitrust injury to their business or property, says the suit. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC. is a corporation that produces flavors, fragrances, and cosmetic actives, which it markets globally. It is headquartered in New York City and has creative, sales, and manufacturing facilities in 44 different countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lin Y. Chan, Esq. Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq. Jules A. Ross, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Jason Lichtman, Esq. Emily N. Harwell, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward Pena v. International Medical Devices, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03391-SSS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order setting the deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 1, 2023 Pleadings or Add Parties Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Jan. 17, 2024 Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for the Defendant to File Jan. 31, 2024 Opposition to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply Feb. 7, 2024 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report Class Certification Hearing March 8, 2024 International Medical offers modern integrated solutions in the fields of clinical chemistry, hematology, immunology and microbiology. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ko3qK1 at no extra charge.[CC] INTERNI CUCINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON LOPEZ, CHRIS S. VALDIVIA BENAVIDEZ, PERLA MIRANDA, and KATERINE ESPINO on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. INTERNI CUCINE AMERICA LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and MARCO MASET, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01409 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for damages and other relief for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and damages resulting from retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are sui juris adult individuals who are current or former employees of Defendants and who worked for Defendants as laborers or installers within the five years preceding the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiffs assert that they were subjected to the same pay practices and policies of Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants routinely and regularly failed to compensate them for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions, says the Plaintiffs. Interni Cucine is a company that designs, creates, and installs custom-made kitchens, bathrooms, and closets designed and produced in Italy for commercial and private customers throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. P. Brooks LaRou, Esq. PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (786) 650-0202 Facsimile: (786) 650-0200 E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com brooks@peregonza.com INTEVAC INC: Settles Quiusky Labor Suit in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Intevac Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that the parties in case captioned "Quiusky v. Intevac, Inc., et al." reached a settlement resolving the case. The court approved the settlement in November 2022 and payment on the claims was made on January 20, 2023. In July 2020, Robin Quiusky, a former contract employee who worked for Itevac via a staffing agency alleged that the company failed to provide rest and meal breaks, pay overtime and reimburse business expenses for non-exempt California employees. The former employee subsequently added class action claims to his original complaint. Intevac, Inc. is into the design and development of high-productivity, thin-film processing systems for high-volume manufacturing of substrates with precise thin-film properties, such as for the hard disk drives and display cover panels. IOWA: Hilson Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HILSON and BRENT SMITH, petitioners and all those similarly situated, v. The State of Iowa, Beth Skinner, Director, IDOC, Shawn Howard, WARDEN OF NCF, and Jeremy Larson, SOTP Director, Case No. 4:23-cv-00252-RGE (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all similarly situated prisoners in the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) at the Newton Correctional Facility (NCF) in Newton, Iowa." Iowa is a state in the upper Midwestern region of the United States, bordered by the Mississippi River to the east and the Missouri River and Big Sioux River to the west. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OhJUQw at no extra charge.[CC] ISSUANCE INC: Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOVATION SOLUTIONS, INC. v. ISSUANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-WLH-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered a standing order as follows: 1. Service of Order Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve the Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must serve the Order on all other parties. 2. Pro Se Litigants Only individuals may represent themselves. A corporation or other entity must be represented by counsel. If counsel seeks to withdraw, counsel must advise the entity of the dire consequences of failing to obtain substitute counsel before seeking withdrawal−i.e., a plaintiff entity's case will be dismissed or a defendant entity will default. 3. Presence of Lead Trial Counsel Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings set by this Court, including scheduling, settlement, and pretrial conferences, as well as trials. Lead trial counsel must be prepared to address and resolve all matters within the scope of the proceeding. 4. Mandatory Chambers Copies Motions, Pleadings, and Trial Documents. The parties must provide one (1) Mandatory Chambers Copy only of Motions for Summary Judgment filings and the 26(f) Report. 5. Magistrate Judge Referral for All Discovery Matters All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. Issuance is a deal marketing platform that connects, engages, and matches digital securities issuers with interested investors. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIIjG2 at no extra charge.[CC] JCF HOUSEMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Wanda Southerland of Elk Valley Times reports that five employees have filed a collective action and class action complaint against JCF Housements Manufacturing LLC, JCF Huntsville, LLC, JCF Lebanon, LLC, JCF Living, LLC, JCF Residences Development Company, LLC, Fayetteville CRE, LLC, John Fitzmaurice, individually as trustee of JF Irrevocable trust; Julie Fitzmaurice, individually and as trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust, Ryan Fitzmaurice, Richard Jones and John Does 1-10. The complaint was filed July 10, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Winchester Division, according to the Chattanooga office. The plaintiffs are being represented by Langston & Lott, PLLC, headquartered in Booneville, Mississippi. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury on the nine counts of the complaint. Count one is violation of federal WARN act - May 2022 layoff. Federal law, known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act or WARN Act, offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of plant closings, mass layoffs and/or sale of a business. Count 2 is violation of federal WARN Act - August 2022 layoff; count three is violation of federal WARN Act - November 2022 layoff; Count four is violation of federal WARN Act - March 2023 layoff; count five is failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. . Sections 207(a); Count six is breach of contract - failure to pay wages, fringe benefits, bonuses and accrued paid time off; Count seven: breach of contract - failure to pay mileage reimbursement and accrued paid time off; Count eight: piercing the corporate veil - enterprise liability. The complaint states, "the JCF Defendants should be treated as one entity for purposes of liability. Because the separateness of the entities was not recognized in practice, the Court should not recognize it now." Count nine: piercing the corporate veil - individual liability. The complaint states the directors and officers of the JCF defendants also do not observe the separateness of the entities and used such funds for routine household expenses, personal expenses such as private airfare and vacation rental fares, paid vacation for a son who is also a high-ranking employee, and built a home without paying for labor or materials provided by JCF Living and JCF Housements. "As such, John Fitzmaurice, Julie Fitzmaurice, Ryan Fitzmaurice, and Richard Jones should be held jointly and severally liable for any of the debts of the JCF Defendants," the complaint states. The names and addresses of the defendant in the complaint are limited liability companies formed under the laws of the state of Delaware, according to court records, are as follows: JCF Housements Manufacturing, LLC, the company's principal office address is 63 East Park Drive, Fayetteville, Tennessee. The principal office address for JCF Huntsville, LLC, JCF Lebanon, LLC, JCF Lebanon Hill, LLC, JCF Living, LLC, JCF Residences Development Company, LLC, Fayetteville CRE, LLC, are all listed as 2210 Spedale Court, Spring Hill, Tennessee, according to court records. Defendant John Does 1-10 are individuals and entities whose true name, identity, and/or capacity are unknown to the plaintiffs at this time, according to the complaint. It also states the court has jurisdiction over each of the defendants "because its principal place of business is located in this state and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in this state." JCF Living, LLC, is a self-proclaimed "vertically integrated development and offsite construction company." According to its website, the company "develops income producing rental communities throughout the Southeastern United States." These communities contain residences that are termed "Housements." JCF Housements Manufacturing, LLC ("JCF Housements") is the manufacturing arm of JCF Living and wholly owned by JCF Living. The principal place for JCF Housements, 63 East Park Drive, Fayetteville, is the location for the factory where the "housements" were built. The building was purchased by another entity wholly owned by JCF Living - Fayetteville CRE, LLC, according to the complaint. JCF Living opened its facility in early 2020 and began hiring employees to assist with the manufacturing of housements. The complaint states most employees who assisted with the manufacturing of the homes were employed by JCF Housements. At its peak in the first half of 2021, the complaint states JCF Living and JCF Housements employs in excess of 200 employees. Sometime in 2021 three employees who assisted with the manufacturing of the homes "were forced by leadership at JCF Living and JCF Housements to begin travelling to three separate job sites where the "Housements" modular homes would be installed and finished. These three sites were located in Huntsville, Alabama, Lebanon, Tennessee, and Franklin, Tennessee. The employees, who were stationed in Fayetteville, Tennessee, were forced to travel in their personal vehicles to these three construction sites. "For approximately one year beginning in early 2021, Plaintiffs, and all other employees who assisted in the manufacturing of these homes, would travel in their personal vehicles to any of these three sites. Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated employees, were paid for their travel time to the facilities, but they were not paid for their travel time from the facilities," the complaint states. Housements required the plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees to clock out before making the drive back from the sites, according to the complaint. For approximately one year, the plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, were not paid overtime for the time they spent traveling back from the sites, according to the complaint, adding, the time travelling ranged from approximately 30 minutes per employee to an hour and a half per employee, depending upon which site the employee worked at that day. "Moreover, JCF Housements and JCF Living adopted a company policy in which the plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees were paid mileage at the standard IRS rate for their travel to and from the three sites," the complaint states. In reliance on this company policy, plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees used their personal vehicles to travel to and from the three sites and were paid some amount for the use of their vehicles, but the amounts paid were not in accordance with the company's policy of paying mileage at the standard IRS rate. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, are owed additional reimbursement for the mileage they travelled to and from the three sites at the standard rate set by the IRS. At the Franklin site, the locations in Huntsville and Lebanon were community development sites that contained the termed "Housements." These sites were constructed for the purpose of ultimately leasing to tenants. These sites, named "Virtuoso Living" and "JCF New Monrovia" in Huntsville and "109 Living" in Lebanon are listed as assets on the JCF Living website. The third location, however, is nothing more than a personal residence for John, Julie, and Ryan Fitzmaurice, according to the complaint. The third location is located at 5477 Leipers Creek Road in Franklin, Tennessee. The property was purchased on Nov. 1, 2021, by Julie Fitzmaurice as trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust Agreement dated Feb. 7, 2005, for $2,000,000, according to the complaint. The complaint states after purchasing the property, John and Julie Fitzmaurice had a home constructed on the property using materials purchased by JCF Living and JCF Housements. Moreover, the labor for the construction of the property was performed by employees of JCF Living and JCF Housements, the complaint says. After the home's construction was completed, the complaint states that Julie Fitzmaurice, as trustee of Julie Fitzmaurice Trust Agreement, executed a quitclaim deed on Nov. 16, 2022, divesting her property interests to John Fitzmaurice, as trustee of the JF Irrevocable Trust dated Oct. 22, 2022. After acquiring the property for $2,000,000 and building a home on the property using JCF Living and JCF Housements' materials and labor, the home is now listed for sale for $6,975,000, the complaint states. Near the middle of 2021, JCF Housements and JCF Living began conducting layoffs, which were done in waves beginning around May of 2021 and ending on June 16, 2023, the complaint states. Three waves of layoffs, each involving at least 50 employees, took place at the Fayetteville location around May 30, 2022, Aug. 22, 2022, and Nov. 21, 2022. The complaint states that none of the employees who were laid off during the three different timeframes received any advance notice nor were they provided any severance. The complaint says JCG Living and JCF Housements continued to conduct layoffs well into 2023 and around March 24, 2023, another plaintiff was laid off, as well as at least 50 employees. The last layoff occurred on June 16, 2023, according to the complaint, when CEO and "owner" of JCF Living, John Fitzmaurice, sent an email to all "JCF Factory and Corporate Employees" notifying them that all employees - other than those working at New Monrovia in Huntsville - would be laid off effective immediately. The complaint states that many of the employees who remained employed from April through June 2023 haven't received payment for the hours they worked. "These unpaid wages were acknowledged in the June 16 email sent by John Fitzmaurice," the complains states. "Mr. Fitzmaurice claims he is working "earnestly . . . to obtain funding for unpaid expenses including back pay for payroll to whom it is owed through their termination date." Despite, leadership at JCF Living and JCF Housements knowledge of these unpaid wages, the debt still remains unpaid, the complaint states. According to the complaint, JCF Living and JCF Housements adopted a company policy where all employees would be entitled to their unused vacation pay or paid time off (PTO). Despite adopting this policy, the employees were not paid their unused vacation pay or PTO at termination, and according to the complaint, are owed their unused vacation pay or PTO. "As the preceding allegations make clear, JCF Living and JCF Housements has created an employment mess," the complaint states. [GN] JLM DECORATING: Martinez Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. JLM DECORATING, INC., and JLM DECORATING NYC INC., and COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR NY CORPORATION, and MOSHE GOLD, individually, and JOSAFATH ARIAS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-02969-RA-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims for relief in the Plaintiffs' complaint as a class action with respect to the following: "Current and former non-managerial employees, who at any time from April 10, 2014, through the present, performed any manual work, including but not limited to, painting and renovation work, for the Defendants, in New York, and who were paid on an hourly basis;" (2) Appointing Plaintiff Israel Martinez as Class Representative; (3) Appointing Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel; (4) Requiring the Defendants, within 14 days of the Court's Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile telephone numbers, and all known email addresses for all putative class members who worked for the Defendants at any point from April 10, 2014, to the present; (5) Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of this action in the form attached to the Declaration of Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. as Exhibit P, via regular mail, and permitting a sixty-day opt-out period; and (6) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs are Juan Carlos Benites, Rafael Brito, Harold Pena, and Rodrigo Rojas. JLM is a full-service painting, wallcovering & decorative firm performing in the Tri-State and Florida commercial markets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OQBMrK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to Certify Putative Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Linhart will move the Court for an order: a) certifying the putative class; b) appointing her as class representative; and c) appointing John P. Bjork of Sperling & Slater, LLC, Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and David S. Klevatt of Klevatt & Associates, LLC as lead class counsel. The proposed class here contains hundreds of putative class members all with virtually identical claims, including Plaintiff, who is both typical and an adequate representative of their interests. Common evidence will prove that Defendant violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. Specifically, the Defendant violated the Statutes through its adoption of a blanket practice of lapsing for non-payment of premium hundreds of life insurance policies issued prior to January 1, 2013, without first providing the policyowner an opportunity to designate a third-party to receive notice of such pending lapses. John Hancock provides insurance products and financial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QABM04 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - David S. Klevatt, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601-1604 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Seeks to File Portions of Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting her to file under seal portions of certain documents and references, either because they are designated as "Confidential" by one of the parties in this action or because they contain information that must be redacted pursuant to Local Rule 5.2-1, found in the concurrently submitted: (i) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. (ii) Exhibits 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18 to the Declaration of Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KDG1EF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - David S. Klevatt, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601-1604 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid for Additional $32M Pelvic Mesh Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Miklos Bolza of Yahoo! News reports that a request by the law firm behind a landmark class action against Johnson & Johnson over defective pelvic mesh implants for a further cut of a $300 million settlement has been shut down. Justice Michael Lee declined a bid by Shine Lawyers for an additional $32 million, saying that this would mean the amount left over for women affected by the mesh products was unreasonable. "The settlement, cannot be characterised as a good one from the perspective of group members, whatever belated attempts are made to put lipstick on a pig (or, perhaps more fairly, on a passably attractive sow)," the Federal Court judge said. With the three women leading the class action being awarded between $555,000 and $1.2 million in damages, the thousands of remaining women, referred to as group members, would only be given a fraction of that from the $300 million settlement, especially given Shine's sought-after legal cut. "In blunt terms, the group members, rather than those who were acting as their representatives, were now going to be left holding the bag," Justice Lee said. The law firm has already been paid $82 million out of the settlement proceeds for running the 11-year-long class action. The $32 million relates to interest paid by Shine after seeking external financing to run the lawsuit. In March this year, Justice Lee approved the settlement but said it was "borderline" in terms of reasonableness. On August 3, 2023 he said that giving a further $32 million to Shine would make the settlement "less than reasonable". "Borderline means borderline. The settlement got a grudging and hesitant pass, not a credit," he said. The ASX-listed law firm had paid $45 million in dividends to its shareholders since 2016 rather than keeping this money as a "buffer" for any additional expenses, the court found. Shine had not acted prudently and reasonably, failing to take necessary steps to secure better sources of financing or to maximise recovery for the affected women, the judge said. The firm can still apply to the court for a lower amount of interest, but will have to again explain why further costs should be taken from women who have "suffered greatly". "Marriages and lives have been irreparably damaged and some ruined. The pain and anguish of the women who made representations opposing the settlement was palpable and moving," Justice Lee wrote. The judge did not find that Shine acted contrary to its legal duties. In an ASX statement, the law firm said the $32 million in interest was a "necessary cost" of running the class action. Further submissions will be prepared and given to the court as Shine seeks to recover these amounts. Managing director Simon Morrison said the firm was proud to have stayed in the fight and procure the $300 million settlement in one of the "longest running medical device class actions in Australian legal history". Johnston & Johnston and its subsidiary Ethicon aggressively fought claims its vaginal mesh and tape implants were defective, taking the case all the way to the High Court. After the medical firm failed to overturn findings its devices could cause significant injury to those implanted with them, it agreed to settle the proceeding. [GN] JUDGE GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Baez-Medina Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANIRA BAEZ-MEDINA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE JUDGE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03534-ER (E.D. Pa.), Court Entered an order approving class settlement as follows: -- The parties agreed to settle Baez and the Opt-in the Plaintiffs' claims for a gross amount of $175,00: (1) a service award1 for Named the Plaintiff Baez of $5,000; (2) the Plaintiffs' counsel’s attorneys' fees up to 40 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $70,000; (3) the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of pocket litigation costs and expenses up to $11,979.94; and (4) After subtracting these costs from the Gross Settlement Amount, the resulting Net Settlement amount is $88,020.06 The Plaintiff Yanira Baez-Medina, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brings this action against her former employer, Judge Group, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Judge Group is a professional services firm specializing in technology, talent, and learning solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul Martinez and Philippe Vieux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Knight Transportation, Inc. Which Will Do Business In California As Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): 1. Preliminarily certifying under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the proposed Settlement Class, which includes the following individuals: "All persons who are or have been employed by Knight Transportation, Inc. as employee over-the-road drivers who were California residents or assigned to work out of a location in California from April 6, 2016 through the date of Preliminary Approval;" 2. Preliminarily appointing Raul Martinez and Philippe Vieux as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes; 3. Preliminarily appointing Jonathan M. Lebe, Shigufa Saleheen, and Brielle D. Edborg of Lebe Law, APLC as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 4. Preliminarily approving the class action settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement of Class Action and Private Attorneys General Act Claims; 5. Appointing Rust Consulting as the third-party settlement administrator for mailing notices and otherwise administering the Settlement; 6. Approving the proposed Class Notice, and directing that it be disseminated to the proposed Settlement Class and PAGA Class as provided in the Settlement; and 7. Scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement, entry of a proposed final judgment, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and the Class Representatives' Service Awards. The Plaintiffs' claims stem from Knight's alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and violation of Unfair Competition Law. Under the Settlement, Knight has agreed to pay a nonreversionary Maximum Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $1,100,000.00 to resolve the Plaintiff', PAGA Class members', and Settlement Class members' claims on a class and collective basis. The settlement provides substantial recovery on Knight's alleged wage and hour violations. The average payment to Settlement Class Members is estimated at approximately $434.62, a favorable result considering the formidable defenses that the Plaintiffs faced on their claims. The principal terms of the Settlement are summarized below: -- Maximum Settlement Amount: $1,100,000.00 -- Minus Court-approved $366,666.67 attorney's fees (one-third): -- Minus Court-approved costs $25,000 (up to): -- Minus Court-approved Enhancement $10,000 Payments: -- Minus settlement administration $14,000 costs (up to): -- Net Settlement Amount: $684,333.33 -- Minus Amount paid to LWDA: $75,000 -- Total Amount Paid to $609,333.33 Settlement Class: Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KnnFaw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Shigufa Saleheen, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 Facsimile: (213) 457-3092 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Shigufa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com KROY LLC: Jones Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KROY LLC d/b/a BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01512 (N.D. Ohio, Aug.3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's employee overtime wage compensation practices that allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Ohio law. Plaintiff Jones was employed by Defendant from approximately 2014 to July 2023 as a non-exempt employee. He regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours, including overtime and non-overtime hours, worked as a result of Defendant’s time editing and/or rounding practices and/or policies, says the suit. Kroy, doing business as Buckeye Business Products, Inc., is a Nevada for-profit limited liability company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. It is a label manufacturer, whose products include, among other things, thermal transfer labels, direct thermal labels, thermal transfer ribbons, color thermal labels, freezer grade labels, and auto apply labels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com LAML LLC: Parties in Mabry Has Until Oct. 12 to Complete Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mabry v. LAML, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05468-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiffs motion Court adjourn the Court ordered mediation until after class-wide discovery is completed, and/or the Court rules on the Plaintiff's motion(s) for conditional/class certification. -- The Defendants' request to extend the deadline to complete initial discovery and mediation, is granted. -- The deadline to complete the discovery described in the Court's July 14, 2023 Order, is adjourned to September 11, 2023. -- The parties shall have until October 12, 2023, to complete mediation. Per the Court's July 14, 2023 Order, this case is referred to the Court-annexed mediation program, which shall be completed prior to a Rule 16 discovery conference. The Court encourages the parties to take mediation seriously; in the Court's experience, FLSA cases benefit from early and meaningful participation in mediation. The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants as a bartender and that the Defendants, among other things, failed to pay her for all hours that she worked, including overtime hours, and paid her at the incorrect hourly rate. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated bartenders and busboys, for (1) unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); (2) failure to pay the minimum wage as required under the NYLL; (3) failure to pay the spread of hours premium under the NYLL; (4) late payment of wages under the NYLL; and (5) failure to provide proper wage notices and statements as required by NYLL section 195. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45plo6R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael DiGiulio, Esq. D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: www.jk-llp.com LIVE NATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP of Businesswire reports that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV) securities between February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023. Live Nation is live entertainment company and concert and ticketing platform operating in 48 countries. For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (LYV) Misled Investors Regarding its Anticompetitive Conduct According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including charging high fees and extended contracts with talent, and retaliated against venues; and (2) as a result, Live Nation was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face fines, penalties, and reputational harm. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the class members have suffered significant losses and damages. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motion for lead plaintiff by October 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on August 3, 2023. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lim Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- BANDOL LIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD HIGHTOWER and ADAM KROLL, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01454 (N.D. Ohio, July 26, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class consisting of all persons and entities that acquired Lordstown securities during the period from August 4, 2022 through and including June 26, 2023, pursuing claims against Defendants Hightower and Kroll, who were Lordstown Motors' two most senior officers during the Class Period, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint relates that during the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly made and/or caused Lordstown to make false and/or misleading statements about Lordstown's relationship with Hon Hai Technology Group suggesting, or in some instances, representing that Hon Hai Technology Group was working cooperatively with Lordstown when in fact, the partnership had stalled soon after the execution of the 2022 joint venture agreement and quickly soured. Due to Hon Hai Technology Group's breach of the agreement, Lordstown executed a second agreement with Hon Hai Technology to replace the original agreement in an attempt to salvage the relationship. As the investing public would only learn fully after the Class Period, Lordstown believed throughout the Class Period that Hon Hai Technology was acting in bad faith, failing to live up to its commercial and financial commitments to the Company, and even working in direct competition with Lordstown despite Hon Hai Technology's purported commitment to the Company. Specifically, Hon Hai Technology failed to provide Lordstown access to design data, never participated in budget or timeline negotiations for the project, and generally failed to meaningfully engage with the Company even on the most basic items. Lordstown knew but failed to disclose that the financial life of the Company was imperiled by its strained relationship with Hon Hai Technology and if the partnership failed, the Company faced bankruptcy, says the suit. On June 27, 2023, before the market opened, Lordstown revealed in a court filing that, contrary to Lordstown's Class Period representations, the partnership had long been in jeopardy and Hon Hai Technology's conduct toward Lordstown had been anything but cooperative. Lordstown filed litigation against Hon Hai Technology and several of its subsidiaries in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware alleging Hon Hai Technology's fraud, bad faith, and failure to live up to its commercial and financial commitments to the Company. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.54 per share, over 21%, to close at $2.29 per share on June 27, 2023. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts. Lordstown Motors Corp. is an automotive company founded for the purpose of developing, engineering, manufacturing, and selling light duty electric vehicles targeted for sale to fleet customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. CLIMACO WILCOX PECA & GAROFOLI CO, LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621-8484 E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com - and - Ira M. Press, Esq. Lauren K. Molinaro, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com lmolinaro@kmllp.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Drop AG as Defendant in Bail Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service reports that a judge declined on August 1, 2023 to remove California Attorney General Rob Bonta as a defendant in a class action challenging the use of prearraignment cash bail in Los Angeles. Filed this past November, the lawsuit seeks to block both the LA Police Department and LA County Sheriff's Department from using cash bail to hold arrestees in jail prior to arraignment, their first chance to appear before a judge. The named plaintiffs in the case comprise six Angelenos who had been jailed within a five-day period before the complaint was filed. Lead plaintiff Phillip Urquidi was 25 and homeless when he was arrested on suspicion of vandalism and held on $20,000 bail. Each of the men were held according to a "bail schedule," a formula for determining a cash bail. Urquidi claims the use of the bail schedule is unconstitutional since it unfairly forces poor people to spend up to five additional days -- the amount of time it can take to see a judge -- in jail. During that time, the plaintiffs say, arrestees often lose their jobs, stop taking psychiatric medication or can't take care of sick relatives. While LA Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff agreed in May to temporarily block the use of prearraignment cash bail for nonviolent, low-level crimes, the injunction did not apply to those who were already out on bail, on probation or subject to an arrest warrant. The ruling has drawn criticism, including some from unlikely sources. This month, the rapper 50 Cent posted a news report on the ruling to Instagram, commenting: "LA is finished watch how bad it gets out there.” Judge Riff gave the parties 60 days to come up with a new system for how people should be treated in the days between arrest and arraignment. A hearing on those negotiations is scheduled for Aug. 7. But two weeks ago, LA County's courts announced a plan of their own: a new bail schedule largely in line with Riff's ruling -- zero cash bail for "non-violent, non-serious felonies and misdemeanors." The court also devised a system for trying to ensure that certain arrestees are monitored in some way. Under the plan, which is set to take effect on Oct. 1, most arrestees will be released right away "on their own recognizance." Some arrestees -- "persons arrested for certain crimes which pose a greater risk to the public" -- will be sent to a magistrate judge who will work out "non-financial pre-arraignment release terms and conditions" in order to "reduce the risk to the public and victim safety and the likelihood of the arrestee returning to court." For example, the arrestee could be signed up for text message reminders about court appearances, or given an electronic monitoring bracelet. The decision by the courts to implement a new prearraignment bail system represents something of a monkey wrench for the Urquidi lawsuit. On July 1, 2023 Judge Riff suggested that the plaintiffs may be planning to file an amended complaint that takes into account the new bail schedule. Bonta had not been named as a defendant in the original complaint but was later added at the the behest of the other defendants. Bonta demurred, arguing his office has nothing to do with bail schedules or cash bail. More recently, he argued the new bail schedule meant that the "landscape" of the case had "fundamentally shifted." "The new bail schedules raise significant uncertainties about the relief available in this case, including whether some or all of the case is moot," Bonta wrote. Bonta wanted the hearing on the demurrer continued, a move that drew no objection from the other parties but nevertheless failed to win over Judge Riff. "We have an operative complaint," he said. "We have a preliminary injunction in place. We have an abeyance period coming to an end. And we have a trial date. Delaying forward progress in the case... just does not seem like the right act of case management from the court." A curious feature of the case has been that none of the defendants have showed much interest in speaking up for the use of prearraignment cash bail. That likely reflects the political beliefs of elected officials in the city and county -- most of them oppose cash bail. Instead, the lawyers for the city and county have spent much of the proceedings trying to argue that they shouldn't be there at all. They don't make the laws, they've argued, or set the bail schedule. It was those arguments that led to Bonta being joined to the case, with Judge Riff's acquiesce. Bonta's demurrer thus faced long odds. Deputy Attorney General Christina Lopez dialed in remotely on August 1, 2023's hearing where she presented a familiar argument to the judge: Bonta had nothing to do with setting bail in Los Angeles. "There's no claim that the the attorney general has any power over the superior court," said Lopez. "The AG is duty bound to enforce all the laws of California. We do not have the discretion to decide a law is unconstitutional and not enforce it." The plaintiffs in the case had never particularly wanted Bonta as a defendant. But the city and county have argued that their hands are tied: if they don't enforce the system of cash bail, which was drawn up by the Legislature, they themselves could be held liable by the state attorney general. This issue led to what has become a familiar occurrence in the proceedings: a hypothetical question from Judge Riff. "Let's say, hypothetically, somehow a law got passed that said that persons of Asian descent may not go west of Fairfax Boulevard after 5 p.m.," Riff said. "And the attorney general were to learn that the sheriff of LA County is enforcing that law. Could the AG direct the sheriff, 'Don't enforce that law, it's unconstitutional'?" "I believe the answer is yes," said Rowley Rice, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "The California Constitution does give the attorney general broad enforcement power as top law enforcement official." A lawyer for the county agreed. "The attorney general has the power to override the bail schedule," he said. Lopez disagreed, and said the idea that Bonta was somehow the sheriff's "boss" was a "novel proposition." The normally loquacious Riff overruled the demur, offering little explanation. "The demur is based on the proposition that the operative complaint fails to state facts against the attorney general," he said. "The court concludes it does state facts against the attorney general." The next hearing in the case is scheduled for on August 76, 2023. The issue of prearraignment cash bail in Los Angeles is still very much a live one. And a bench trial in the Urquidi suit is currently scheduled to start in October 2024. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 12, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD (Court), Hon. Judge Christina A. Synder entered an order amending scheduling Order to continue discovery cutoff, trial, and all scheduling order deadlines: -- Last day to file motion for class Feb. 12, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline to file Reply papers in March 25, 2024 Support of motion for class Certification: -- Deadline to file Opposition to March 11, 2024 Motion for class certification: -- Class Certification Hearing: April 8, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rRAunb at no extra charge.[CC] LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Court Junks Pop Class Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, v. LULIFAMA.COM LLC, MY LULIBABE, LLC, LOURDES HANIMIAN, TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO A/K/A TEQUILA TAYLOR, ALEXA COLLINS, ALLISON MARTINEZ, CINDY PRADO, GABRIELLE EPSTEIN, HALEY PALVE A/K/A HALEY FERGUSON, LEIDY AMELIA LABRADOR, and PRISCILLA RICART, Case No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order as follows: (1) Lulifama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC, and Lourdes Hanimian's Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted. (2) the Defendants Priscilla Ricart, Taylor Gallo, and Allison Martinez's Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted. (3) Counts I, II, and III are dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendants Lulifama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC, Lourdes Hanimian, Priscilla Ricart, Taylor Gallo, Allison Martinez, Leidy Amelia Labrador, Cindy Prado, and Alexa Collins. In sum, the Court finds that Mr. Pop cannot properly state a claim for unjust enrichment based on the allegations set forth in the complaint. The Court finds that amendment would be futile, and Count II is dismissed with prejudice as to both the Luli Fama and Influencer the Defendants. Mr. Pop has not, and cannot, allege that as a consumer, he had any fiduciary-like relationship with either the Luli Fama or Influencer the Defendants. He did not have a contractual relationship with either group that would trigger a duty to disclose. The action arises from the allegedly deceptive and misleading promotion of Luli Fama products. Mr. Pop alleges that the Luli Fama the Defendants and the Influencers' "very profitable and very illegal" advertising practices led him to purchase "Luli Fama products" that were "of an inferior quality, compared with the expectations [he] had and the price he paid." Luli Fama is a "swimwear designer, manufacturer, and reseller that came to fame with the rise of Instagram." A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rSAxPI at no extra charge.[CC] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Class Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the plaintiffs in the case captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. appealed the dismissal of the putative shareholder class suit. Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc. shareholders as a result of its acquisition of Level 3. It alleged that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose various material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and in March 2022, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order in part and reversed it in part. It then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a telecommunications company that provides telephone and data communication services, including telephone, television, and high speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the United States.[BN] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voight Putative Class Suit in Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company faces the Voigt putative class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. On March 3, 2023, a purported shareholder of Lumen filed a putative class action complaint captioned Voigt v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., et al., Case 3:23-cv-00286-TAD-KDM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that Lumen and certain of its current or former officers violated the federal securities laws by omitting or misstating material information related to Lumen's expansion of its Quantum Fiber business. The complaint seeks money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a telecommunications company that provides telephone and data communication services, including telephone, television, and high speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the United States.[BN] LUMICO LIFE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Miller Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3., 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information (PII) of more than 1,300 individuals. Prior to and through May 30, 2023, Defendant allegedly shared the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, with its third-party service provider, NTT Data Services. NTT shared the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, with Pension Benefits Information, LLC (PBI), ostensibly to perform regulatory compliance and operational support services. On or before June 19, 2023, Defendant learned of a data breach involving the "MoveIT" secure file transfer application, which PBI used. Moreover, the PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including the failure to encrypt the PII and the failure to include that entities with which Defendant shared the PII maintained it in encrypted form, says the suit. Lumico Life Insurance Company is a Missouri corporation with a principal place of business in Armonk, NY. It sells life insurance, including term life policies and whole life policies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 850 3rd Ave, Suite 402 Brooklyn, NY 11232 Telephone: (212) 738-6839 Facsimile: (813) 222-2439 E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com - and - Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com M.A.C. COSMETICS INC: Maciel Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ignacio Maciel, Ruth Torres, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-599387 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03718. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding new factual allegations and three new causes of action for failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to provide final pay upon separation in violation of the California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Julianne G. Park, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com julianne.park@morganlewis.com MAIN EVENT: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, McCall Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MCCALL on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN EVENT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04892 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other employees at the mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff says he worked for the Defendant in Warrenville, Illinois as a server and was paid less than the federal minimum wage. He worked from approximately August 2021 to February 2022. He added that he was paid an hourly rate below the minimum wage of approximately $7.00 per hour. Main Event Entertainment, Inc. operates a nationwide chain of sports and entertainment restaurants under the trade name "Main Event" across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 644-3425 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com MAMCO INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alejandro A. Morales v. Mamco, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00823-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f) report and Class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 1, 2023 Pleadings or Add Parties Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Motion June 7, 2024 for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for the Defendant to File June 21, 2024 Opposition to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply June 28, 2024 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report Class Certification Hearing July 26, 2024 Mamco provides construction services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44YqyXW at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON OIL: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Royalty ----------------------------------------------------- Marathon Oil Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it was named in a lawsuit alleging improper royalty deductions in certain Oklahoma operations, and after plaintiffs lost their attempt to certify a class action, a settlement was reached, and in the first quarter of 2023 such settlement was approved by the court and paid. Marathon Oil is an oil and gas company based in Houston Texas. MARS PETCARE: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for Nov. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN, and CYNTHIA WELTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC.; ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC.; and HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and seeks proposed Order re briefing and Hearing schedule for Motion for class Certification and Daubert Motion: Deadline Amended Pretrial Schedule the Plaintiffs' (1) Reply in Support August 11, 2023 of Class Certification, (2) Daubert Motions, and (3) Oppositions to Daubert Motions the Defendants' (1) Replies to Daubert September 15, 2023 Oppositions, and (2) Oppositions to Daubert Motions the Plaintiffs' Replies to Daubert September 29, 2023 Oppositions Class Certification Hearing & Daubert November 10, 2023 Motion Hearing or November 17, 2023] Further Case Management Conference December 8, 2023 Statement Further Case Management Conference December 15, 2023 -- The Court entered its partial Case Management Schedule at the initial Case Management Conference, as confirmed by the Civil Minutes filed on February 19, 2021. -- The matter is currently calendared to come on for hearing on October 6, 2023, for a Class Certification and Daubert Motion Hearing. -- The parties are in the midst of briefing these matters with a current deadlines of: July 24, 2023 for the Plaintiffs' (1) Replies in Support of Class Certification, (2) Daubert Motions, and (3) Oppositions to Daubert Motions; August 14, 2023 for the Defendants' (1) Replies to Daubert Oppositions and (2) Oppositions to Daubert Motions; and August 24, 2023 for the Plaintiffs' Replies to Daubert Oppositions. Mars Petcare provides pet care products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DFxyNb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com mikemorrill@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com - and - Lynwood P. Evans, Esq. Edward J. Coyne III, Esq. Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq. Luke C. Tompkins, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, P.A. 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 794-4800 Facsimile: (910) 794-4877 E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com jw@wardandsmith.com LCTompkins@wardandsmith.com - and - Daniel Shulman, Esq. SHULMAN & BUSKE PLLC 126 North Third Street, Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 870-7410 Facsimile: (612) 870-7462 E-mail: dan@shulmanbuske.com - and - Ellen M Carey, Esq. FORDE & O'MEARA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, Ste 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: ecarey@fordellp.com - and - Michael A. Kelly, Esq. Matthew D. Davis, Esq. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2615 Telephone: (415) 981-7210 Facsimile: (415) 391-6965 E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Fredrick Tubach, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. Gerard Savaresse, Esq. Jeffrey A. N. Kopczynski, Esq. Anna Schneider, Esq. Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Justine M. Daniels, Esq. Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Direct: (415) 984-8876 Office: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mtubach@omm.com hchanoine@omm.com gsavaresse@omm.com jkopczski@omm.com aschneider@omm.com rgoetz@omm.com jdaniels@omm.com alaurendeau@omm.com - and - Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq. SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Office: (415) 295-1197 Facsimile: (415) 433-5994 E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com - and - Stephen D. Raber, Esq. Joseph Bushur, Esq. Campbell Curry-Ledbetter, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Office: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (2020 434-5029 E-mail: sraber@wc.com jbusher@wc.com ccurry-ledbetter@wc.com MASSACHUSETTS: Discriminates People With Mental Health Concerns --------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Becker of WBUR reports that the Massachusetts parole board is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that the board discriminates against people with mental disabilities. The suit contains new statistics about the number of people incarcerated in Massachusetts with mental health concerns. The suit, filed by attorneys from three mental health and prisoners' rights groups, alleges that the parole board does not consider the challenges incarcerated people with mental disabilities face in seeking probation, in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. It says those with mental disabilities face numerous obstacles, including: difficulty navigating the parole process; being ineligible for programs to improve their chances of parole; often receiving punishment as a result of behavior that leads to a disciplinary record and jeopardizes parole opportunities; and not always being provided with timely legal counsel for the parole process. "The Board's ongoing failure to consider the interplay between these factors and a person's mental disability has a direct, discriminatory impact on parole outcomes," the suit reads. The parole board declined to comment on the pending litigation. In a statement, a spokesperson said the board is "deeply committed to ensuring that its practices and policies are fair, equitable, and just for all incarcerated individuals, including those with disabilities and mental health challenges." The complaint says that in Massachusetts prisons, 41% of male inmates and 79% of female inmates in 2022 had an open mental health case. Overall, half the people in the custody of the state Department of Correction at the end of last year had an open mental health case, according to public records cited in the filing. The complaint claims the parole board is ignoring a 2017 state Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said the board cannot deny equal access to parole to incarcerated people with disabilities. "The Board has essentially ignored the Court's instructions," the lawsuit alleges. "It has not meaningfully modified outdated procedures and methodology and, instead, has continued to conduct business as usual — effectively denying incarcerated persons with mental disabilities fair consideration for parole." The suit outlines the cases of three plaintiffs, all men identified only as "John Doe," who have been in prison for decades and denied parole multiple times. In the case of "John Doe 1 or JD 1," the suit said he has been denied parole because he was disciplined for his mental disabilities. According to the suit, in response to mental health crises, the Department of Correction often punished JD 1 with solitary confinement, restricted access to phone calls or visits, or removed privileges such as television or recreation time. "The impact of this punitive and non-therapeutic approach is profound, as the Board regards any accumulation of [disciplinary reports] in a negative light," the suit said, regardless of whether the punished behavior was the result of an underlying mental health condition, exacerbated in prison. Given the large number of prisoners with mental illness or cognitive disabilities, the suit suggests hundreds of incarcerated people could be helped by a ruling from the court. The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction so the parole board updates its policies, to screen all people incarcerated in prisons and jails for mental disabilities and to collaborate with state agencies and nonprofits on parole release plans. [GN] MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (E.D. Va., August 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients' sensitive information, including full names dates of birth, addresses, contact information, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers, ("personally identifiable information" or "PII") and medical and health insurance information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members Private Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to the Defendant's inadequate data security practices. MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC. provides health and human care services. The Company provides consulting, child support, education, business, and workforce services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Sarah G. Sauble, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (757) 670-3939 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Sarah@bbtrial.co - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq. PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com MAXIMUS INC: Faces Bishop Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in August 1, 2023, a purported class action captioned "Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services," Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 was filed against Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arising out of the cybersecurity incident involving "MOVEit," a file transfer application used by many organizations to transfer data. The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of individuals, alleges, among other things, that the company's negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. Maximus, a Virginia corporation established in 1975, is an operator of government health and human services programs and provider of technology solutions to governments. MAXIMUS INC: Faces Buzzel Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in August 2, 2023, a purported class action captioned "Buzzell v. Maximus," Case No. 1:23-cv-01028 was filed against Maximus, Inc. and Maximus Federal Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arising out of the cybersecurity incident involving "MOVEit," a file transfer application used by many organizations to transfer data. The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of individuals, alleges, among other things, that the company's negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally identifiable Information and protected health information. Maximus, a Virginia corporation established in 1975, is an operator of government health and human services programs and provider of technology solutions to governments. MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Buzzell Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- LINDEN BUZZELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS, INC.; and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01028 9 (E.D. Va., August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). According to the complaint, Maximus uses MOVEit Transfer ("MOVEit") to exchange files and data between servers, systems and applications. Maximus claims that, on May 30, 2023, it "detected unusual activity in [its] MOVEit environment," and that MOVEit's developer disclosed the following day that unauthorized parties had exploited a vulnerability in the software to gain access to the files of multiple MOVEit users. Maximus could have prevented the recent Data Breach had it implemented adequate vendor screening, and maintained adequate data security measures and protocols in order to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' data. As a result of Maximus's negligence and breach of duties, Plaintiff and Class Members are in danger of imminent harm in that their PII and PHI, which is still in the possession of third parties, will be used for fraudulent purposes, the suit alleges. MAXIMUS, INC. provides program management and consulting services to state and local governments throughout the United States. The Company's services are designed to make government operations more efficient and cost effective while improving the quality of the services provided to program beneficiaries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com llederer@baileyglasser.com - and William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com MEDICAL SCANNING: Christensen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CHRISTENSEN; and MARTHA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL SCANNING CONSULTANTS, P.A. D/B/A CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING D/B/A RAYUS RADIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A RAYUS RADIOLOGY, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02272-JRT-DTS (D. Minn., August 1, 2023) seeks to address the Defendants' illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and other third parties (the "Disclosure") in violation of the Tennessee Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other Class Members who used the Defendants' Website thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, the Defendants have embedded a Tracking Pixel, such as the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the "Facebook Pixel"), on their Online Platforms, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to transmit to Facebook and other third parties every click, keystroke, and intimate detail about their medical treatment. Operating as designed and as implemented by Defendants, the Pixel allows the Private Information that the Plaintiffs and Class Members submit to Defendants to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook and other third parties alongside the individual's IP address and unique and persistent Facebook ID ("FID"). Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Tracking Pixel and likely CAPI into their Website and servers, the Defendants have never disclosed to the Plaintiffs or Class Members that they shared their sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information with Facebook and other likely third parties. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were unaware that their Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via the Online Platforms, or stored on the Defendants' servers to be later transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted advertising and marketing purposes, says the suit. MEDICAL SCANNING CONSULTANTS, P.A. operates in the health care industry. The Company provides health care services including medical centers, scanning, and consultation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Winston Hudson, Esq. Laura Edmondson, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com winston@yourattorney.com ledmondson@yourattorney.com MEMORIAL HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Valladolid Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Michelle Valladolid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Memorial Health Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03007-MWF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Los Angeles County of Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges three state-law claims against the Defendant for (1) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Pen. Code Section 631); (2) violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section 56.10); and (3) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on June 27, 2023. Judge Fitzgerald concluded that the Defendant fails to demonstrate that the complaint concerns conduct it engaged in while "acting under" a federal officer or agency for purposes of the federal-officer removal statute. The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it is carrying out or assisting the Government with a traditional duty or task that the National Coordinator would otherwise do itself. None of the relevant factors appear to suggest that the Defendant is acting under a federal officer or agency as required to invoke the federal-officer removal statute. Therefore, removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)) is improper. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this non-diverse action containing purely state-law claims and must remand this action to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The appellate case is captioned Michelle Valladolid v. Memorial Health Services, Case No. 23-55668, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Memorial Health Services Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2023; -- Appellant Memorial Health Services opening brief is due on November 6, 2023; -- Appellee Michelle Valladolid answering brief is due on December 4, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MICHELLE VALLADOLID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Defendant-Appellant MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES is represented by: Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 764-4013 MERCEDES BENZ: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEY SCHIMMEL, v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04973-FLA-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving further stipulation to extend deadlines pending mediation: Description of Event New Deadline -- Fact discovery cutoff Feb. 13, 2024 -- Deadline to file motion for class March 15, 2024 certification -- Deadline for expert discovery Aug. 12, 2024 -- Deadline to hear other Motions Sept. 6, 2024 -- Deadline to complete settlement Sept. 23, 2024 conference Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4567WES at no extra charge.[CC] MH CONSULTANTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 7, 2024 in Olvera ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SANCHEZ OLVERA, et al., v. MH CONSULTANTS, INC., d/b/a MANUFACTURED HOUSING CONSULTANTS and CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00746-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order as follows: 1. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by October 11, 2023. 2. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by May 7, 2024. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ow1uAd at no extra charge.[CC] MILLIMAN INC: Mattson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order denying in part and granting in part as follows: (a) The unredacted version of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, docket no. 86, shall remain under seal. (b) The version of the Declaration of Charles H. Field to which Exhibits 1–10 are attached, docket no. 87, shall remain under seal. (c) the Defendants do not object to the unsealing of Exhibits 1–3 and 5–9. (d) The Court declines the Defendants' request to "strike" Exhibits 4 and 10. The parties' joint motion to modify the case schedule is granted as follows: -- Bench Trial Date April 1, 2024 -- Disclosure of expert testimony Sept. 8, 2023 under FRCP 26(a)(2): -- All motions related to discovery Sept. 28, 2023 must be filed by: -- All remaining discovery Nov. 3, 2023 completed by: -- All dispositive motions Nov. 9, 2023 must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar no later than the fourth Friday thereafter: Milliman, Inc. provides investment advisory services. The Company offers research, management, financial, and consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44YZ2t4 at no extra charge.[CC] MITRE CORPORATION: Brown, et al., File Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON L. BROWN, PETER A. YOUNG, NINA DANIEL, RUSSELL S. CRABTREE, KIMBERLY L. NESBITT and ERIN N. WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE MITRE CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MITRE CORPORATION, THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE MITRE CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying class action on behalf of: "All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the MITRE Corporation Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan and/or the Qualified Retirement Plan (QRP Plan), at any time between June 22, 2016, through the date of judgment;" 2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class; and 3. appointing them as counsel for the Class. Mitre is an American not-for-profit organization with dual headquarters in Bedford, Massachusetts, and McLean, Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/440StVP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Suit Over Extensive Flooding ------------------------------------------------------ Rene Bruemmer of Montreal Gazette reports that hundreds of western Notre-Dame-de-Grace residents who were inundated during the July 13 storm are accusing Montreal of hiding behind "climate change rhetoric" to avoid responsibility for inadequate infrastructure they say has plagued their sector for decades. They're calling on the city to conduct public studies to determine what led to extensive flooding, and to carry out the work needed to protect them. And they're threatening to launch a class-action lawsuit that could top $20 million. "When we ask for help, they tell us it was an exceptional rainfall caused by the uncontrollable impact of climate change," said Marie-Maude Grenier, whose Fielding Ave. basement filled with eight inches of water, forcing her family to do 180 hours of demolition, cleaning and rebuilding work so far. "But how is it that in a quadrant of roughly 600 residences, the majority were flooded, while next door there were no problems? It was the same rain that dropped everywhere." The day after 85 millimetres of rain fell on parts of Montreal, city spokesperson Philippe Sabourin said "there is no city in the world that can handle the amount of rain Montreal received in a two-hour span." The city reported at the time that 130 homes were flooded. N.D.G. resident Ilana Grostern counters that a quick search shows flooding has been an issue in the area for more than 70 years. In 1950, residents started "Operation Noah" to try to deal with inundations in the Chester Ave. area. In the 1970s, a huge water retention basin was built beneath Gilbert Layton Park to cope with overflows. Now, she says, the city has been putting the blame on residents, saying they need to install backflow valves and sump pumps. "Six hundred residences were affected, not the 130 the city claimed," she said at a news conference on August 2, 2023. It was held beside a building on Coronation Ave. where residents were without power until July 31 because seven feet of water in the garage destroyed the electrical system, along with several cars. "What we take issue with more than anything else is this climate change rhetoric that the city is invoking in order to absolve itself of a very long-standing responsibility to its constituents to maintain an effective infrastructure that protects us," Grostern said. "Why are only our homes flooded? Why are other homes not touched at all?" The hard-hit quadrant is between Connaught and Coronation Aves. and between Fielding Ave. and Côte-St-Luc Rd. On average, insurance payouts for those with coverage have come in at $30,000 per property, said Grostern. She has started a Facebook page called H4_ Basement Flooding with more than 300 members to share information and spur a class-action suit. Councillor Despina Sourias, who is filling in for vacationing borough mayor Gracia Kasoki Katahwa, said in an email to the Montreal Gazette on August 2, 2023: "My heart goes out to the citizens affected by the torrential rains of July 13. . . . Our teams carried out all the necessary checks on the condition of the sewage infrastructure that is under the borough's responsibility. Our services confirm that the catch basins in the area are in good condition." The city's water department will carry out an analysis of the sector in terms of flooding, and the state of the sewer system on each street, Sourias said. "I saw first-hand the extent of the damage during my door-to-door visits in the area. I can tell you that I understand how frustrated citizens affected by flooding can be." The borough is being proactive in trying to adapt to extreme weather events, constructing rain gardens, permeable soils and vegetated valleys, she said. Stephanie Valenzuela, a Cote-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grace councillor with opposition party Ensemble Montreal, said she and her colleague Sonny Moroz filed a motion last October calling for studies to identify water drainage problems and plans to fix them. The motion was adopted in council, "but since then there has been no movement," she said. For these residents, "it's become a routine, a nightmare that happens regularly," Valenzuela said. Climate change means the problem will become even more frequent "due to a lack of investment in our infrastructure, and in the need to adapt and to make our city more resilient." Morris Weiss, who bought his house in Côte-des-Neiges on Clinton Ave. in 1991 and has been flooded numerous times, said N.D.G. residents could be in for a long battle. Soon after he purchased, his basement filled with four feet of water because the streets in the neighbourhood slope toward his home, flooding him and his neighbours. He installed backflow valves and a sump pump, to no avail, as the street in front of his home repeatedly turned into a lake. Water once came in so quickly, it covered the crib his guests were using for their baby. Thankfully, they awoke in time. Weiss and his neighbours implored the city multiple times for the issue to be fixed, only to be told it would cost too much, he said. He fought an 11-year court battle with the city before having to give it up. His basement used to have two bedrooms and a kids' playroom. Now it's a concrete floor, with the Gyprock walls cut out four feet high to prepare for the next flood. His daughter, Pearl, said she wakes in a panic every time it rains, thinking she will have to once again run over to unclog the sewers in front of her parents' home. "My parents have cried and begged and gone to war for 30 years," she said, accompanied by her family and numerous neighbours at the news conference. "Nothing happens." rbruemmer@postmedia.com [GN] MULVADI CORP: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Corker ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA; COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a KANALANI OHANA FARM; ROBERT SMITH and CECELIA SMITH, husband and wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, and SMITHFARMS, LLC on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Mulvadi Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, directing notice to the Settlement Class, and setting a schedule for the remaining steps towards final approval. Pursuant to the Court's order of July 13, 2023, the motion is amended to reflect the Order Approving Trustee's Settlements, entered yesterday in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii in Mulvadi's bankruptcy proceedings. That Order is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A. Mulvadi was formed in 1997 to provide the unique flavors of Kona, Hawaii to the world. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DFxAEN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan T. Paine, Esq. Daniel T. Hagen, Esq. Joshua M. Howard, Esq. KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 223-1313 - and – Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. Andrew Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 NCAA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Vice Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO VICE, et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-1, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06287-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. National Collegiate is a company that owns several Delaware trusts that pool multiple private student loans together. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/455vJW2 at no extra charge.[CC] NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Sues Over Illegal Kickback Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAUREN MCFALLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) alleges two counts under the Fair Labor Standards Act's Minimum Wage provision: (1) Illegal kickback of wages that bring the wage paid to Plaintiff and those similarly situated below the minimum wage, because the Defendants actually took back wages that they had paid; and (2) Failure to pay the minimum wage free and clear because the Defendants demanded at least $5,000 of wages back from the Plaintiff and those similarly situated if they were to leave their jobs before two years. The Defendants allegedly require all nurses in the purported fellowship to sign a training repayment agreement provision ("TRAP") that charges nurses a $5,000 "program fee" if they dare to leave Defendants' hospital before working for two years. The $5,000 "debt" is only forgiven if the nurse remains employed with the Defendants for at least two years. The $5,000 fee is well beyond what nurses are able to afford, as it was almost ten percent of Ms. McFalls' annual salary, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants allegedly use the TRAP to prohibit nurses from leaving regardless of the circumstance. Despite grueling work conditions, including understaffing and missing mandatory breaks and lunch, the Defendants requires nurses to pay thousands of dollars if they leave. The Defendants follow through on their threats by sending collection agencies after nurses who dare to leave. The effect of the TRAP is to penalize nurses and keep them stuck in their jobs despite poor working conditions. This violates state and federal law, undermines nurses' bargaining power, and deprives other healthcare providers of qualified nurses at a time when competent and qualified nurses are sorely needed across Florida and the United States, says the suit. Ms. McFalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their conduct and seeks all available damages, remedies, and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Antitrust Act, and the Florida Declaratory Judgment Statute. Plaintiff McFalls was employed by the Defendants as a nurse from May 2021 to April 2022 and resided in Florida during this time. NHC is a hospital system with dozens of locations throughout Collier County and Southwest Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com - and - Juno Turner, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Valerie Collins, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org valerie@towardsjustice.org - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Joshua R. Cottle, Esq. Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com jcottle@nka.com helland@nka.com NEI GENERAL: Ruiz, et al., Seek to Certify Three Overlapping Classe ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE C. RUIZ, CRUZ EDUARDO RUIZ, and LUKASZ ZAJKOWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Employees, v. NEI GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., DELTA DRYWALL AND FRAMING LLC, JOSEF RETTMAN AND DAVID ADAM VILLANUEVA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11722-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify three overlapping classes under Massachusetts wage and hour laws as described in their Memorandum filed in support of this Motion. The Plaintiffs simultaneously request the Court appoint the Named Plaintiffs as representatives for each class and Chip Muller, Esq. of Muller Law, LLC as class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should grant their motion so that all similarly-situated former employees of the Defendants can participate in the action to vindicate their rights and receive payment of damages rightfully owed to them under Massachusetts wage and hour laws. NEI provides a full spectrum of general contracting and construction management services to residential, commercial and institutional clients. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s4Mgux at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chip Muller, Esq. MULLER LAW, LLC 47 Wood Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: (401) 256-5171 Facsimile: (401) 256-5178 E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs Seek Revised Class Cert. Order ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child, et al., v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ANGELICA ALLEN-McMILLAN, Acting Commissioner of Education, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for a revised order pursuant to Rule 60 with respect to the Motion to Clarify filed by certain co-counsel on July 10, 2023. The Plaintiffs include D.O. individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; M.S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, H.S.; Y.H.S., individually and on behalf of his minor child, C.H.S.; E.M. on behalf of her minor child, C.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; L.G., individually and on behalf of her minor child, T.M.; E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.; and on behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47j1oo8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald A. Soutar, Esq. COYLE & MORRIS LLP 201 Littleton Road, Suite 210 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Telephone: (973) 370-3218 E-mail: dsoutar@coylemorris.com - and - Robert C. Thurston, Esq. THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC 433 River Road, Suite 1315 Highland Park, NJ 08904 - and - Thomas J. O'Leary, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 - and - Catherine Merino Resiman Judith A. Gran, Esq. REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN &ZUBA,LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 - and - Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Esq. WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC 1200 Route 22 East, Suite 2000 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 - and - David R. Giles, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. GILES 34 Rynda Road South Orange, NJ 07079 - and - John Rue, Esq. JOHN RUE &ASSOCIATES,LLC 100 Overlook Center, 2nd Floor, #9211 Princeton, NJ 08540 - and - Denise Lanchantin Dwyer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DENISE L. DWYER,LLC 5 Duxbury Court Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 - and - Gregory D. Little, Esq. EDUCATION LAW CENTER 60 Park Place, Suite 300 Newark, NJ 07102 The Defendants are represented by: Carolyn G. Labin, Esq. Matthew Lynch, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Department Of Law and Public Safety Division Of Law 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0112 NEW YORK, NY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.M., individually and on behalf of N.F., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-06300-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23), must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. -- In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. -- Per the proof of service of the Summons and Complaint filed on July 24, 2023, the Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is August 14, 2023. -- The Court will hold an initial case management and scheduling conference on August 21, 2023. New York City Department of Education is the department of the government of New York City that manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OTcfht at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Parties Seek Stay of Summary Judgment Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al. v. City of New York, et. Al, Case No. 1:19-cv-07211-DLI-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the parties submit a joint letter, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules, to request that the Defendants' time to file a pre-motion for summary judgment conference letter be stayed until the Court decides on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 9, 2023, the parties informed the Court that all discovery was complete. According to the case scheduling order, the parties are required to file pre-motion for summary judgment conference letters within 60 days of the close of discovery. Specifically, the parties make this request because the Defendants are unable to move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' class claims when they have not been certified or defined. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43PBHst at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Sanders, Esq. THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C. 30 Wall St 8th floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 652-2782 The Defendant is represented by: Kami Z. Barker, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007-260 Telephone: (212) 356-2440 E-mail: kbarker@law.nyc.gov NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Iannelli Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE IANNELLI, v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07887-HDV-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered a civil standing order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. -- Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). -- The Court is committed to fostering the development of new and Diverse lawyers in the legal community. Consequently, the Court strongly encourages litigants to provide opportunities for less experienced lawyers or lawyers whose identities and/or backgrounds further the diversity of the legal profession to conduct hearings before the Court, particularly where they contributed significantly to the underlying motion. -- The Court expects that everyone in the courtroom be treated with dignity and respect at all times. -- The Court hears status conferences and scheduling conferences on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the Court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. -- Unless otherwise ordered, no later than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference, counsel shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. -- All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to the Magistrate Judge. -- Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. -- No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary. adjudication. Northwestern Mutual is a mutual life insurance company organized by a special act of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1857. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QvPWQh at no extra charge.[CC] NPAS SOLUTIONS: Dickenson Appeals Once Again in Johnson TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Interested Party JENNA DICKENSON filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80393-RLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Johnson filed this class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The named Plaintiff alleged that NPAS (a collector of medical debts) had unlawfully used an automatic telephone-dialing system to call his cell phone without his consent. NPAS agreed to settle the claims with Mr. Johnson and the putative class. The settlement agreement required NPAS to pay $1.432 million into a settlement fund to compensate participating class members. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Johnson would receive $6,000 from the fund for serving as class representative. The remainder of the funds, the other 99.58% -- minus the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs, would be distributed equally among the participating class members. The parties submitted the proposed settlement agreement to the district court for preliminary approval under Rule 23, and the court gave its approval. At the same time, the district court set a deadline for any class member to file a claim for recovery or object to the settlement agreement. More than 9,500 class members submitted claims for recovery, resulting in an estimated recovery of approximately $80 per class member. No class member opted out. Only one class member, Jenna Dickenson, objected to the settlement agreement. The district court overruled the objections and approved the settlement, concluding that it was "in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class members." Dickenson then appealed. On appeal, a divided panel reversed the district court's approval of the service award, concluding that two Supreme Court cases prohibited it. The majority relied on Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882), in which the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff-creditor who sued to recover on behalf of himself and other creditors could not receive an allowance for his "personal services and private expenses." The majority also read Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), to confirm this prohibition. Reasoning that the modern-day service award functions as a "salary" (compensation for the lead plaintiff's time) and a "bounty" (incentivizing named plaintiffs to lead class actions), the majority held that Greenough and Pettus disallow it. The partly concurring and dissenting opinion noted that courts have granted service awards for decades; that the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have all approved of service awards; and that even prior Eleventh Circuit precedent has implicitly approved of service awards. Judge Martin further argued that prohibiting service awards will require named plaintiffs to "incur costs well beyond any benefits they receive from their role in leading the class," and make potential plaintiffs "less willing to take on the role of class representative in the future." A petition for rehearing was filed and a member of the Court in active service requested a poll on whether the case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc. A majority of the judges in active service on the Court voted against granting rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit denied the rehearing of the case en banc. Judge Kevin Newsom concurred. He said, it has become customary for the author of a panel opinion to file a "concurral" defending his or her handiwork against a colleague's "dissental" when the full Court declines to rehear a case en banc. Ordinarily, he'd be inclined to do just that. The case, though, has been pending too long already. The panel issued its decision in September 2020. . .The parties and the bar are entitled to closure. Given the circumstances, Judge Newsom is content to let the panel opinion speak for itself. Judge William Holcomb Pryor, Jr., joined by Circuit Judges Charles R. Wilson, Alberto Jordan, and Robin S. Rosenbaum, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. He said, the panel majority opinion fundamentally undermined class action law based on a misinterpretation of two Supreme Court cases that long preceded the creation of the modern class action. No other circuit has gone down this path. Given the panel majority opinion's novel reading of these cases, the circuit split it occasioned, and the magnitude of its likely impact, this case is more than worthy of en banc review. Unfortunately, by denying rehearing en banc, our court has struck a lasting blow to class actions as a device for righting wrongs in this circuit. The Eleventh Circuit remanded this case in part for the Court to explain its fee award to class counsel, its denial of Dickensons objections, and its approval of the settlement. On December 16, 2022, Johnson sought and obtained a court order staying the case pending the resolution of petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On January 23, 2023, an order was entered by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg dismissing/closing the case for administrative purposes. Jenna Dickenson's appellate case filed on July 18, 2023, is captioned as Charles Johnson v. Jenna Dickenson, et al., Case No. 23-12353, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due August 7, 2023 as to Appellant Jenna Dickenson; and -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before August 21, 2023 as to Appellees Charles T. Johnson and NPAS Solutions, LLC. [BN] Interested Party-Appellant JENNA DICKENSON is represented by: John W. Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DAVIS 3030 N Rocky Point Dr W Ste 150 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 533-1972 - and - Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON 6580 Avenida Mirola La Jolla, CA 92037-6231 Telephone: (858) 263-9581 Plaintiff-Appellee CHARLES T. JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 5550 Glades Rd Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 106 E 6th St Ste 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Defendant-Appellee NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented by: Michael L. Ehren, Esq. Martin Barry Goldberg, Esq. Alan D. Lash, Esq. Lorelei J. Van Wey, Esq. LASH & GOLDBERG, LLP 100 SE 2nd St Ste 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-4040 - and - Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Esq. Jacob W. Stahl, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP 66 Hudson Blvd New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Parties Must File Status Reports by August 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order directing the Parties to file by Aug. 18, 2023, status reports advising and recommending a date certain for the Court to set as a final deadline for filing of the Class Certification motion. -- All other deadlines and schedules as set forth in Order, remain in effect. The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.[CC] OLO INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ OLO Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities putative class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 26, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its executive officers. On December 21, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on behalf of the putative class, following which the case was captioned Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore - International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., et al. (Case No.1:22-cv-08228-JSR). On January 13, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class composed of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between August 10, 2021 and August 11, 2022 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Glass and Mr. Benevides as alleged controlling persons. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning its business relationship with the restaurant brand Subway and its publicly disclosed "active locations" counts, and that these alleged false and misleading statements caused losses and damages for members of the putative class. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief that the Court deems appropriate. On February 3, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2023, the Court issued a summary order denying its motion to dismiss. On July 25, 2023, however, the Court issued its full written opinion on its motion to dismiss, which dismissed the allegations in the Amended Complaint concerning its business relationship with the restaurant brand Subway. On July 26, 2023, the Court granted lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint by August 9, 2023. The Company believes the case is without merit and vigorously defending this matter. Olo Inc. is an open software as a service (SaaS) platform for restaurants. OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas Plagakis, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. OUTSOURCE UTILITY CONTRACTOR CORP., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-23-101885 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00627. In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings a single claim for alleged violation of the PAGA, Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698, predicated on alleged violations of various employment laws, including: Failure to Keep Accurate Records pursuant to Labor Code, and applicable Wage Orders; Failure to Produce Records pursuant to Labor Code; Meal Period Violations pursuant to Labor Code section 512 and applicable Wage Orders; Rest Period Violations Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; Minimum and Overtime Wage Violations pursuant to Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; Statutory Wage Violations pursuant to Labor Code; Refusal to Make Payment pursuant to Labor Code; Standard Conditions of Labor Violations pursuant to Labor Code; Business Expense Violations pursuant to Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders; Wage Statement Violations pursuant to Labor Code; Unlawful Deductions pursuant to Labor Code; Seating Violations pursuant to applicable Wage Orders, including section 12 of Wage Order 16; Sick Leave Violations pursuant to Labor Code sections 245-248.5 and 233-234; Failure to Provide Supplemental Paid Sick Leave pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Pay Vested Vacation/Paid Time Off pursuant to Labor Code; Untimely Payment of Final Wages pursuant to Labor Code section 201 and 202; and Unlawful Agreements/Unlawful Criminal History Inquiries pursuant to Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alejandro G. Ruiz, Esq. Randy R. Haj, Esq. Connor L. Kridle, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: agr@paynefears.com rrh@paynefears.com clk@paynefears.com OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Nienaber Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQ NIENABER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVERLAKE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01159 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2023) seeks redress against the Defendant's illegal and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff’s and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, alleging claims against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant owns and controls the website https://www.overlakehospital.org, along with the Overlake Patient Portal which can be accessed from its website. It allegedly installed and implemented the Facebook Tracking Pixel and Facebook Conversions Application Programming Interface on its Website, which secretly enable the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information as it is communicated to Defendant. Headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, Overlake is one of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country, operating a 349-bed hospital and over 1,300 affiliated providers on its medical staff, including more than 300 physicians and advanced-practice providers who are employed by the organization. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 16212 Reitan Road NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 E-mail: alemmon@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com -and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON LAW FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com OWENS AND MINOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eurico Mancilla v. Owens and Minor Distribution, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:23-cv-01179-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order continuing deadline to file motion for class certification to Sept. 15, 2023. Owens & Minor provides medical and surgical equipments. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/452ExMb at no extra charge.[CC] PARKVIEW LOUNGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalagasidis Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOS KALAGASIDIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKVIEW LOUNGE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 612232/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., August 1, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid compensation, including gratuities, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Kalagasidis was employed by the Defendant as a staff. PARKVIEW LOUNGE LLC is engaged in the hospitality industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 PEABODY ENERGY: Puerto Rico Municipalities Drop Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that on November 22, 2022, the Municipalities of Puerto Rico filed a class action complaint for damages against several major energy fuel producers, including Peabody Energy. On April 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dismissing all claims against the company without prejudice. This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of lawsuits that have been brought in both state and federal court around the United States, generally seeking to impose liability on the energy fuel producers for the effects allegedly caused by climate change. Many of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of governmental entities (counties, cities, and towns) by plaintiff law firms on a contingent fee arrangement. The causes of action in the Puerto Rico lawsuit include public and private nuisance, liability for failure to warn, consumer fraud, antitrust and claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Peabody Energy Corporation engages in the direct and brokered trading of coal and freight-related contracts. PEQUENOS GIGANTES: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Monzon and other similarly situated individuals v. Pequenos Gigantes Adult Day Care Inc., and Dayana Araujo, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-22845 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff drove a passenger van, and his duties consisted of driving patients to and from the adult day care center Pequenos Gigantes Adult Day Care. The Plaintiff was promised a wage rate of $12.50 an hour per day, or $500.00.00 weekly, plus meals at lunchtime. During his first week of employment, the Plaintiff was required to receive training. The Plaintiff worked four days from 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM, a total of 42 hours. The Plaintiff has deducted two hours of lunchtime. In the second week, the Plaintiff worked the same schedule, and he completed only 28 hours. On Wednesday, July 19, 2023, the Plaintiff requested to be paid for his first week of employment. The Plaintiff was told that he was not entitled to be paid for training time. However, after his complaint, business owner Dayana Araujo fired the Plaintiff using a pretextual reason, the Plaintiff asserts. At the time of his termination, the Plaintiff was not paid for his work and services. The Defendant Dayana Araujo told the Plaintiff that he was supposed to pay her $325.00 for meals provided, $100.00 for a drug test, and $100.00 for an alcohol test. Dayana Araujo requested the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants a total of $525.00. The Defendants never paid the Plaintiff for his hours worked at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law, the lawsuit claims. Plaintiff Jesus Monzon was employed by the Defendant as driver from July 10, 2023, to January 19, 2023, or 2 weeks. Pequenos Gigantes is an adult day care center for seniors and persons with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PFIZER INC: Hickox Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA HICKOX, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06436 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2023) is a consumer class action against the Defendants for common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law arising from the deceptive advertising Pfizer perpetuated for its COVID-19 Vaccine, and its COVID-19 Bivalent booster. According to the complaint, Pfizer deliberately misrepresented the efficacy, benefits, risk and approval level of the products through its uniform marketing and advertising scheme. In reality, the findings Pfizer used to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the products failed to adhere to legitimate testing protocol and wholly lacked data integrity, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Pfizer's violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class received doses of the products they otherwise would not have chosen. Indeed, quantified evidence of profits Pfizer made at the expense of unsuspecting consumers already exists, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff is a Northern District of California resident who received doses of the products in 2021 and 2022. Pfizer, Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered at The Spiral in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com PLUSHCARE INC: Class Settlement in Robbins Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ROBBINS and TIFFANY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLUSHCARE, INC. and PLUSHCARE OF CALIFONRIA, INC., A.P.C., Case No. 3:21-cv-03444-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered a final approval order and judgment as follows: -- The Court appoints Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court designates the Plaintiffs Sarah Robbins and Tiffany Smith as the Class Representatives. -- The Court has considered and finds Class Counsel and the Class Representatives have adequately represented the Class. the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, have investigated the pertinent facts and law, and have evaluated the risks associated with continued litigation, class certification, trial, and/or appeal. -- Angeion Group is finally appointed to continue to serve as the Settlement Administrator as provided in the Settlement Agreement. -- The Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs as against the Defendants and the Released Parties. On March 17, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement agreement between the parties. The Court also provisionally certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of Notice, and set a final approval hearing to take place on July 21, 2023. The Settlement Class is defined as: "all Persons who, from January 10, 2020, to August 30, 2022, enrolled in an automatically renewing Monthly Subscription with PlushCare, and who, during that time period, were charged and paid one or more Monthly Subscription payment. Excluded from this definition are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, the Defendants' subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) Persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any excluded Persons." Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the Settlement, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Paragraph 5.4 of the Settlement, shall no longer thereafter be Settlement Class Members and shall not be bound by the Settlement and shall not be eligible to make a claim for any benefit under the terms of the Settlement. PlushCare provides online health care services. The Company offers diagnosis, treatment, and prescribed medication services via phone. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OMLQlF at no extra charge.[CC] PNS STORES: Appeals Final Judgment in Wellons Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- PNS STORES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a final judgment entered in the lawsuit entitled S. Wellons, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNS Stores, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02913-RSH-DEB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Wellons filed a putative class action on Jan. 19, 2018, in the San Diego County Superior Court alleging wage and hour claims under state law against BLSI, an Ohio corporation. Six days later, Wellons filed a First Amended Complaint replacing BLSI with PNS, a California corporation. PNS and BLSI are affiliated corporations owned by Big Lots, Inc., an Ohio corporation. Both PNS and BLSI operate stores under the name "Big Lots" in several states, including California. On May 26, 2023, District Judge Robert S. Huie granted a motion to approve Settlement of PAGA Claim filed by Wellons. On July 26, 2023, Judge Huie (i) granted in part and denied in part a motion for attorneys fees; (ii) granted in part and denied in part a motion to file documents under seal; and (iii) denied Plaintiffs ex-parte motion as moot. On the same day, Judge Huie entered final judgment in this case. The appellate case is captioned S. Wellons, et al. v. PNS Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55665, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS Stores, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2023; -- Appellants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS Stores, Inc. opening brief is due on November 6, 2023; -- Appellees C. Arredondo, S. Davis, T. Deforeest, W. Duba, S. Hall, G. Kilgore, N. Lopez, S. Mejia, T. Seltzer, S. Sharma, J. Smith, K. Toft, C. Tolliver, M. Viramontes, M. Walters, L. Warner, S. Wellons, D. Williams, and J. Wright answering brief is due on December 6, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees S. WELLONS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David J. Gallo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO 12702 Via Cortina, Ste. 500 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 509-3652 Defendants-Appellants PNS STORES, INC., et al. are represented by: Cory D. Catignani, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 526-7904 - and - Daniel J. Clark, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP 52 E. Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 464-6436 POLISHED.COM INC: Oral Argument for Maschhoff Class Suit Not Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Polished.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has not yet set date for the oral argument of Maschhoff putative shareholder class suit. On October 31, 2022, a putative shareholder class action was filed against Polished.com Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current and former officers and directors, as well as certain underwriters of the Company's 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York court and is captioned Ryan Maschhoff v. Polished.com Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-06606. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from alleged misstatements and omissions made in certain of the Company's SEC filings made in connection with the IPO. On or about December 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Although that motion is fully briefed, to date, oral argument has yet to be scheduled. POLISHED.COM INC. f/k/a 1847 Goedeker Inc. operates as an online consumer goods retailer.[BN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Baker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ ERICA BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11777-NMG (D. Mass, Aug. 3, 2023) alleges claims against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the Federal Trade Communication Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all other individuals, totaling more than 37 million people and 550 organizations, who had their sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) -- as defined by the Health Insurance HIPPA) -- accessed and hacked by malicious, unauthorized third parties that accessed and removed the PII and PHI from Defendant's systems as early as May 27, 2023. It has been reported by organizations using the Defendant's MOVEit software that were affected by the Breach that PII and PHI were stolen, including name, address, SSN, and birthdate. The Defendant violated HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to use reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and the class members' PII and PHI and not complying with applicable industry standards. The Defendant's conduct was particularly unreasonable given the nature and amount of PII and PHI it obtains and stores, and the foreseeable consequences of a data breach involving PII and PHI including, specifically, the substantial damages that would result to Plaintiff and the other class members, says the suit. Headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, Progress Software Corporation is a Delaware corporation offers both solutions and products, including MOVEit, which provides secure collaboration and automated file transfers of sensitive data and advanced workflow automation capabilities without the need for scripting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and – Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Landi Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE LANDI, RICHARD E. HURLEY, and NILA HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC, dba PBI RESEARCH SERVICES; and THE BERWYN GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03839 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide adequate security to protect the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal identifiable information (PII) from being compromised, including by unauthorized access, disclosure, theft, and exfiltration. In May 2023, a group of Russian hackers known by the name "Clop" or "C10p" found a security flaw in the widely used file transfer software MOVEit, which was being used by the Defendants PBI and Berwyn to transmit the PII of millions of people. Because of this flaw, the Russian hackers were able to steal an enormous of trove of Americans' PII, including the PII of the Plaintiffs and millions of other pensioners and beneficiaries of the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") and California State Teachers' Retirement System ("CalSTRS"). The Data Breach was a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to implement appropriate security measures, failure to conduct adequate security testing and stress testing to discover vulnerabilities in the MOVEit software , and breach of their express promises and guarantees concerning the reliability and security of the MOVEit software and the PBI Defendants' digital infrastructure, the Plaintiffs assert. Despite PBI Defendants becoming aware of the Data Breach no later than May 27, 2023, the PBI Defendants did not inform CalPERS that there had been a data security incident affecting their members' PII until June 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs claim. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII in the form of full names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and zip codes were allegedly accessed and stolen by unauthorized third parties. Reporting and communications from CalPERS and CalSTRS have indicated that the PII of some of their members' former and current employers, spouses, domestic partners, and children were also accessed and stolen. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class and California subclass of all others similarly situated, for negligence, declaratory relief, and violations of the California's Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and Customer Records Act ("CRA"). Plaintiff Steve Landi has been a citizen of California, residing in San Francisco County. Mr. Landi's retirement benefits are managed and controlled by CalPERS. Plaintiff Richard Hurley has been a citizen of California, residing in Contra Costa County. Mr. Hurley's retirement benefits are managed and controlled by CalSTRS. Progress Software owns MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Niall P. Mccarthy, Esq. Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq. Owais M. Bari, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: akirtley@cpmlegal.com nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com obari@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and – Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. The Presidio of San Francisco 220 Halleck Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com - and – Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: Ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com QUANTA SERVICES: Subsidiary Faces Benton Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Quanta Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its former subsidiary Telecom Network Specialists (TNS) was named in the case captioned "Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al." where in June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations. In September 2022, the court issued a final ruling awarding attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $17.3 million. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions, and a bench trial on liability and damages was held. Liability and damages have been determined by the trial court, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest through the date of the trial court's orders, determined to be approximately $9.5 million. Separately, in 2022, the court issued a final ruling awarding attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $17.3 million. Quanta continues to contest its liability and the damages calculations asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter and believes the court's decisions on these matters are not supported by controlling law and that attorneys' fees would only be recoverable by the plaintiff class in the event Quanta's appeal of the trial court's rulings on liability and damages is unsuccessful. Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed many of the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand for indemnity. The court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision in part and instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies employed. Quanta Services, Inc. is a provider of comprehensive infrastructure solutions for the electric and gas utility, renewable energy, communications, pipeline and energy industries in the United States, Canada, Australia and select other international markets. QUICK BOX: Parties Seek to Defer Class Cert Ruling to August 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint motion for deferring Rulings on the Plaintiff's motion for class Certification pursuant to Civil rule 7.2. The parties believe that the Quick Box mediation and the discussions and any mediation between the Plaintiff and the Konnektive Parties will be most productive before a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff, the Quick Box Parties, and the Konnektive Parties agree to the relief requested by this Joint Motion. The parties request that any ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be deferred until August 31, 2023 A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454n0Dr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Kneupper, Esq. Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY 17011 Beach Boulevard, #900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher B. Queally, Esq. Ryan M. Poteet, Esq. Damon W.D. Wright, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Facsimile: (949) 474-2060 E-mail: cqueally@grsm.com rpoteet@grsm.com dwright@grsm.com QUONTIC BANK: Seeks Sept. 18 Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUONTIC BANK; QUONTIC BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION; Case No. 8:22-cv-00849-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants request a brief continuance of the currently schedule Opposition, Reply and Hearing date on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to allow for Quontic to retain new counsel and to avoid prejudice. To avoid prejudice to Quontic, Quontic requests a continuance of approximately 30 days of the currently scheduled Opposition (July 31, 2023), Reply (August 7, 2023) and Hearing date (August 21, 2023) on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to allow Quontic to retain and substitute in new counsel. To avoid prejudice to any party, the Defendants seek only an approximately 30 days continuance of the currently scheduled dates related to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants propose the following: -- The Defendants' Opposition continued from July 31, 2023, to August 28, 2023; -- The Plaintiff's Reply continued from August 7, 2023, to September 4, 2023; -- Hearing Date on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification continued from August 21, 2023, to September 18, 2023. Quontic is a U.S.-based digital bank headquartered in Astoria, New York City. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QEIwKv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 683-7971 E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com justinp@prato-reichman.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen C. Mazzara, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5818 Telephone: (213) 415-7200 Facsimile: (213) 415-7299 E-mail: smazzara@goldbergsegalla.com REALPAGE INC: Lauder Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MIA LAUDER AND RACHEL MEREDITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC.; CARDINAL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; CA VENTURES GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; UNIVERSITY HOUSE COMMUNITIES GROUP, LLC; TIMBERLINE REAL ESTATE VENTURES LLC; B.HOM STUDENT LIVING LLC; JOHN DOES 1- 10, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01025, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on July 26, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00757 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs challenge an unlawful agreement among Lessor Defendants of student housing properties to artificially inflate the prices of student housing across the United States, including near college campuses. The Plaintiffs file this complaint over the Defendants' alleged misconduct in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act as well as various state antitrust statutes. RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson, Texas. RealPage provides software and services to the residential real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith A. Ketterling, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: kketterling@stollberne.com RIBBON HOME: Williams Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMARIA LYNN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RIBBON HOME, INC. f/k/a, ACHIEVE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02873-JLB-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: A. Striking the Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses so Plaintiff may then apply for a Clerk's Default and, eventually for a Default Judgment from the Court; B. Extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification until 120 days after Plaintiff either obtains a default judgment, or is able to obtain sufficient discovery from Defendant to support a well-briefed Motion for Class Certification. The lawsuit is brought against Defendant for violation of the WARN Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUn435 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main No.: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com mkimbrou@wfclaw.com RISING RIVER RESORT: Faces Class Suit Over RV Park Rent Hikes ------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Brink of RV Travel reports that another West Coast RV park is being sued over the escalating issue of surging rents for RV dwellers and the legal implications of long- versus short-term RV park tenants, this time in Green, Oregon. The class-action lawsuit, Mary Gilbert v. Rising River Resort LLC, was filed by Troy Pickard of the Portland Defender law firm. The lawsuit mirrors other recent legal disputes that hinge upon the issues of whether or not rent increases exceed legal limits under state and local tenant protection and rent control laws, and whether RV park tenants are even protected by such laws and ordinances. As an example, in April of this year, the City of San Rafael, California, settled a lawsuit, City of San Rafael v. Chessen, et al. The lawsuit was brought by the City in December 2021 to enforce its Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The RV Park of San Rafael was acquired and managed by Harmony Communities of Stockton, CA. Back to the current lawsuit, in mid-2022, plaintiff Mary Gilbert received a notice that her rent would go from $432 to $472 per month, a 10% increase. Then, not long after, in October, she was notified of another increase to $649 starting in December -- a 37.5% increase, making the total increase in rent for 2022 more than 47%. Legal question for RVers staying indefinitely in RV parks Here lies the crux of the legal question for RVers staying indefinitely in RV parks: Is Mary Gilbert, a long-term resident of the Rising River Resort RV Park, and "those similarly situated" members of the class, protected under the Oregon Revised Statutes that apply to residential rental tenants? If so, then under Oregon's Landlord and Tenant Law, ORS 90, landlords are allowed to raise rent by up to 14.6%. Or is the resident of an RV park instead a transient and not a tenant? Jessica Nichols, director of operations for northern campgrounds of Bluewater -- the company that recently acquired the RV resort -- told the Roseburg, Oregon News Review, "Rising River is a transient campground not a mobile home park. As a campground the rates fluctuate. They (guests) don't sign a yearly lease or anything like that," Nichols said. "They have an agreement that they apply so they may stay for an extended period of time." Troy Pickard, a 13-year veteran of tenant law, disagrees. "Generally speaking, once a tenant has lived somewhere for more than 30 days, then they would be covered by the landlord tenant law." What's an unfair increase in RV space rent? Reasonable people may disagree on what constitutes an unfair increase in RV space rent. Some will argue that monthly rent of $430 or even $649 is reasonable for a well-kept waterfront RV park like Rising River RV Resort and River House. Another issue at the core of every such rent dispute is the question of private RV park property owners' rights to set rents and fees at levels that provide a reasonable return on their considerable investment in infrastructure and upkeep. Undoubtedly on August 3, 2023, there is the question of what the RV site rental market will bear. However, with the ever-increasing numbers of people who live in RVs as housing of last resort, even the rent increases allowed by the Oregon state statute become a financial burden. The rising controversy: transient or tenant? On the one hand, some RV parks like the predictable cashflow of long-term monthly tenants as an offset to the unpredictable and often seasonal itinerant RV park trade. But on the other hand, some states declare tenants of certain duration, e.g., those remaining for 30 days or more, as tenants like mobile homeowners renting space. This case will turn upon the Oregon courts' view of the difference. [GN] ROHR INC: Court Junks Bid to Strike Fulimeni Expert Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to strike Expert Reports prepared by Teresa Fulimeni and preclude testimony. -- The Court strikes Fulimeni's Second Report, because it is superseded by the Third Report. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a new version of Fulimeni's Third Report without the impermissible assumption regarding auto-deducted meal periods on or before July 31, 2023. -- However, the Court finds the Defendants' other objections without merit. the Defendants argue that Fulimeni assumes that all employees that cut their meal breaks short or took their meal breaks late, or not at all, did so at the Defendants’ direction rather than their own choice. Fulimeni's deposition clearly shows that her findings did not intend to make a showing about employee choice; she simply analyzed the data. The Plaintiffs brought this class action to recover unpaid compensation resulting from the Defendants' allegedly improper payroll practices and policies. On April 12, 2022, Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard issued a scheduling order, which provided a November 28, 2022, deadline for initial expert disclosures and a December 19, 2022 deadline for rebuttal/supplemental expert disclosures. Rohr is an aerospace manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DRB32Z at no extra charge.[CC] RTX CORP: Faces Class Suit Over GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP of Businesswire reports that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded RTX Corporation securities between February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023. RTX purports to be "an aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military and government customers worldwide." One of its four primary business segments is Pratt & Whitney, described as "among the world's leading suppliers of aircraft engines for commercial, military, business jet and general aviation customers." For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: RTX Corporation (RTX) Misled Investors Regarding the GTF Engines' Quality Control Issues According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the GTF engines produced by Pratt & Whitney had been affected from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; and (2) this quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect many of its GTF airplanes, affecting customers, and harming its business. On July 25, 2023, Reuters released an article entitled "RTX shares tumble on Pratt & Whitney airliner engine problem." On this news, RTX's share price fell $9.91 per share, or 10.2%, to close at $87.10 on July 25, 2023. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against RTX Corporation. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motion for lead plaintiff by October 2, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against RTX Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on August 6, 2023. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: DuPont Bid for Reconsideration Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE BAKER, et al., v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart entered an order: -- Denying E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company's (DuPont) Motion for Reconsideration; and -- Denying Saint-Gobain's request for the Court to impose attorney's fees on DuPont. Although DuPont clearly disagrees with this Court's analysis and exercise of its discretion over discovery, a Motion for Reconsideration is not a proper vehicle for re-arguing theories. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied. As for Saint-Gobain's request for costs and fees, Local Rule 7.1(i) provides that "a party who presents vexatious or frivolous motion papers or fails to comply with this Rule is subject to discipline as the Court deems appropriate, including sanctions and the imposition of costs and attorney's fees to the opposing party." The Defendant DuPont seeks reconsideration of this Court's prior Discovery Order, insofar as it denied DuPont's request to conduct certain Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Saint-Gobain representatives. SaintGobain has opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, and requests that the Court impose costs and fees on DuPont for vexatious conduct. Saint-Gobain is a producer of engineered high performance polymer products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSkrIB at no extra charge.[CC] SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFYSCC, an unincorporated California association on behalf of employees in Santa Clara County, et al., v. SARA H. CODY, in her official capacity as the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer, Case No. 5:22-cv-01019-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. Certifying pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(a) and (b)(3) the following Class: "All individuals who: 1) work or worked for the County and/or are or were subject to its vaccine policies and orders, including the Risk Tier System; 2) were forced by the County to choose between taking the vaccine to maintain their jobs and/or their employment- related benefits or being placed on unpaid leave; 3) are, or have been, classified as working in high risk jobs pursuant to the County's Risk Tier System; and 4) received, or will receive, a religious exemption from the County between August 5, 2021, and September 27, 2022. 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Advocates for Faith and Freedom and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Class Counsel. All the prerequisites and requirements for class certification are met and therefore certification is warranted. The Plaintiffs include TOM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARIA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and ELIZABETH BALUYUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The Defendants include JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as the County Counsel of Santa Clara County; JEFFREY SMITH, in his official capacity as the County Executive of Santa Clara County; and SANTA CLARA COUNTY. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qu3wU3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com - and - Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Mariah Gondeiro, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM 25026 Las Brisas Road Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 600-2733 Facsimile: (951) 600-4996 E-mail: btyler@faith-freedom.com mgondeiro@faith-freedom.com SCHENKER INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Wickham Due Nov. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WICKHAM, v. SCHENKER, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00946-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as follows: (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise below. (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is July 27, 2023. (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (5) Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order. (6) The parties shall comply with the Court’s standing orders, which are available on the Court's website and in the Clerk’s Office. The Court further ordered that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case: Event Date or Deadline Last Day to Request Leave to Amend 60 Days from Date the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15 of this Order Last Day File Motion Class Nov. 20, 2023 Certification Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions July 24, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference Oct. 23, 2025 Trial Dec. 8, 2025 Schenker provides transportation and logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rYQ54D at no extra charge.[CC] SEABOARD CORP: Court Certifies Class in Pork Price-Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the motion of plaintiffs to certify the classes of pork price-fixing antitrust class suits is granted by the Minnesota District Court. On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota District Court") against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. The complaint also named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and three additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints, but the Minnesota District Court later dismissed all claims against Seaboard Corporation without prejudice. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes. Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins, and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors, food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam, Kansas. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: PERS of Mississippi Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC, WILLIAM DAVID MOSLEY, and GIANLUCA ROMANO, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03711-EJD (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Seagate common stock between September 15, 2020 and October 25, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Seagate repeatedly assured investors that the Company "continually monitor and remain in compliance with all the rules and regulations" imposed by U.S. regulators. Seagate also stated that it "conducts full and rigorous export control assessments to ensure compliance with trade laws and regulations." Despite the imposition of trade restrictions, Seagate reported significant growth in hard disk drives sales during the Class Period, which it attributed to, among other things, superior execution and significant and growing demand for HDDs. As a result of these representations, the price of Seagate common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, says the suit. Following the end of the Class Period, on April 19, 2023, after the market closed, U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security announced that it had imposed a $300 million civil penalty against Seagate for violating the ban on HDD sales to Huawei -- the largest standalone administrative resolution in the agency's history. According to the BIS order, through its investigation, BIS determined that between August 2020 and September 2021, Seagate sold 7.4 million HDDs to Huawei, which were valued at more than $1.1 billion. Making matters worse, throughout 2021, after Seagate's competitors had already stopped selling HDDs to Huawei, Seagate "repeatedly authorized extending lines of credit to Huawei totaling more than $1 billion dollars," which further fueled sales to Huawei, benefiting both Huawei's alleged criminal activity and the Chinese Communist Party, the suit further claims. As a result of Defendants' alleged actions detailed herein, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff is a pension fund established for the benefit of the current and retired public employees of the State of Mississippi. The Plaintiff purchased shares of Seagate common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Seagate Technology Holdings PLC is an American data storage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson FLSA Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Brandon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00667 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06031-HDV-PVC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. Siemens AG -- http://www.siemens.com/-- is a German multinational technology conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brielle Edborg, Esq. Shigufa Kazi Saleheen, Esq. Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW APLC 777 South Alameda Street, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: Brielle@lebelaw.com Shigufa@lebelaw.com jon@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: September Rea, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-1801 Fax: (310) 556-1802 Email: srea@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com - and - Christopher William Decker, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: christopher.decker@ogletree.com - and - Jessica H. Thomas, Esq. Lauren H. Zeldin, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4800 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 881-1300 Fax: (404) 870-1732 Email: jessica.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com lauren.zeldin@ogletreedeakins.com ST MARY PARISH: La. Bid to Participate as Amicus Curiae Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, ET AL., v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST MARY PARISH, ET AL., Case No. e 6:65-cv-11351-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Robert R. Summerhays entered an order granting in part and denying in part the State of Louisiana's Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae. -- The School Board's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling denying the Board's Motion to Amend Protective Order is denied. -- All deadlines in the parties' Plan of Work are extended 60 days from issuance of this Ruling. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's denial of the Defendant's Motion to Amend Protective Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. On August 31, 1965, five African-American students attending public schools in St. Mary Parish filed suit for injunctive relief against the St. Mary Parish School Board and its superintendent, alleging that the Defendants were maintaining racially segregated schools in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After the case was reopened, the Court formally certified the case as a class action and modified the class definition as follows: "(1) All Black students currently enrolled or who will in the future enroll in schools operated by the St. Mary Parish School Board; (2) all Black students who previously attended the foregoing schools and would remain eligible to attend such schools, but for the fact they were expelled from such schools due to discriminatory policies of the St. Mary Parish School Board; and (3) the custodial biological or custodial adoptive parents of the foregoing students." A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43T9iBW at no extra charge.[CC] ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Miller Suit Seeks Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Bradley Miller, Kayla Kilpatrick, and Blake Bumann, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. St. Clair County Emergency Management Administration, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02597 (S.D. Ill., July 26, 2023) is a collective action against Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, for unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Miller, Bumann, and Kilpatrick worked for St. Clair County EMA as telecommunicators for the period of three years prior to the commencement of this action to the present. St. Clair County EMA is an Illinois-government agency responsible for the disaster preparedness of the unincorporated areas of the County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. Edward Rolwes, Esq. Hannah Strong, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, Suite 1400 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 Facsimile: (901) 474-7926 E-mail: poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com erolwes@cronelawfirmplc.com hstrong@cronelawfirmplc.com ST. LOUIS, MO: To Pay $43,000 Each Protesters Over Misconduct ------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Solomon of KSDK reports that Seven dozen people who accused St. Louis police of violating their rights following downtown protests in 2017 are now picking up their settlement checks. The city agreed to pay the plaintiffs nearly $5 million. The protests followed the acquittal of former police officer Jason Stockley. People who were around at that time won't soon forget the protests, chaos, and violence that occurred after the officer who fatally shot Anthony Lamar Smith was cleared of murder charges. When protests broke out, activists said, police violated their civil rights. "I was told that everyone was under arrest and to get on the sidewalk," said Nicole Warrington, who had never been arrested before. She was there to document how police were interacting with activists, Warrington said. Her charge was later dropped. The memories of what she says happened that night are crystal clear. "The sound of the batons. There were officers lining wall to wall . . ." Warrington said. "The batons were just beating, and the officers were all saying in unison, 'Move back. Move back.' I think I will always remember the sound of all of those batons hitting the ground. They were pushing us all into the center of the intersection, so there's no way to get out." "Once we saw the videos, we knew that what the police did was wrong," attorney Javad Khazaeli said. Khazaeli sued the city on their behalf. "At first we filed 12 different lawsuits for 14 different people, and slowly, we started realizing there were close to 100 people. So, we turned this into a class action [lawsuit]." In the settlement agreement, the city denied any wrongdoing: "Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms and provisions, nor any of the negotiations connected with it, shall be construed as an admission or concession by the Defendant City, or any current, former, or future employee, agent, or officer of Defendant City, of any legal violations, any legal requirements, or any failure to comply with any applicable law." On August 4, 2023, 5 On Your Side was there as some of the 84 people who filed suit came to pick up their checks. "I would hope that moving forward, people are allowed to use their voices as we're supposed to be able to do here -- as citizens. There needs to be some basic protection of our rights and basic recognition of each other's humanity," Warrington said. Each plaintiff is receiving an average of $43,000 after attorney fees. Before the settlement, the city told 5 On Your Side it would not comment on pending litigation. Now that the case is settled, a spokesperson said the city's stance, cited in that settlement agreement, still stands. [GN] STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] SUBURBAN PROPANE: Dismissal of Consumer Class Suits Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 3, 2023, that in April 12, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the consumer statute and breach of contract suits the company was facing. The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint alleged a number of claims under various consumer statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding pricing offered to electricity customers in those states. After the court granted summary judgment in favor of the partnership on the remaining counts and the complaint was dismissed in full. Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership principally engaged, through its operating partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, renewable propane, renewable natural gas, fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as the marketing of natural gas and electricity in deregulated markets and producer of and investor in low-carbon fuel alternatives. SUMO LOGIC: Michel Files Suit Over Merger with Francisco Partners ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MICHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMO LOGIC, INC., RAMIN SAYAR, and STEWART GRIERSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2023) is a putative class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, which arose in connection with the solicitation of public stockholders of Sumo Logic to vote in favor of a merger transaction pursuant to which Sumo Logic merged into an affiliate of Francisco Partners Management, L.P. in exchange for $12.05 per share in cash. On February 9, 2023, Sumo Logic announced that its board of directors had approved the sale of the Company to Francisco Partners, pursuant to a merger agreement. On April 5, 2023, Defendants caused a materially false and misleading definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A to be filed with the SEC and disseminated to Sumo Logic stockholders, including Plaintiff, in alleged violation of the federal laws. In preparing and approving the projections, Defendants utilized a material assumption that they knew was entirely unreasonable and completely inconsistent with Sumo Logic's recent financial performance and their own genuine expectations for the Company's performance. Specifically, Defendants prepared the projections assuming a decline in revenue growth to just 14 percent for fiscal year 2024. The Defendants knew that preparing the projections assuming a decline in revenue growth to just 14 percent in fiscal year 2024 was entirely unreasonable and completely inconsistent with Sumo Logic's recent financial performance and their own genuine expectations for the Company's performance, says the suit. The special meeting of Sumo Logic stockholders to vote on the merger was held on May 10, 2023. 84,039,824 of the 124,088,187 outstanding shares of Sumo Logic common stock voted to approve the Merger. As a result of the materially false and misleading proxy, shareholders were misled when they voted to approve the unfair Merger, which closed on May 12, 2023, the suit alleges. Sumo Logic, Inc. provides cloud-based software-as-a-service solutions with its principal executive offices in Redwood City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (213) 446-6652 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com jlerner@monteverdelaw.com SWCA INCORPORATED: Roberts Suit Removed to D. New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Roberts, individually and for others similarly situated v. SWCA, INCORPORATED, Case No. D-117-CV-2023-00200 was removed from the First Judicial District Court in and for Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00627. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's employment with SWCA. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied unpaid wages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that SWCA paid him and other workers "on a day rate basis" without paying "them overtime wages in violation of the NMMWA," and "daily per diems" without including those "per diems in calculating their regular rate of pay for overtime purposes."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Douglas (Trey) Lynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602.778.3700 Fax: 602.778.3750 Email: trey.lynn@ogletree.com SYGMA NETWORK: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 25, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mudrich v. The Sygma Network, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04932 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Oct 1, 2021), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motion for Extension of Time Fact June 25, 2024 discovery due: -- Motion for Class Certification due: July 25, 2024 Dispositive motions due 90 days after ruling on the Plaintiffs motion for class certification, or August 23, 2024, if a motion for class certification is not filed. Expert disclosures due 45 days after a ruling on any dispositive motions. The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Sygma Network is a food service supplier that specializes in serving large, national restaurant chains, including Wendy's.[CC] SYNEOS HEALTH: Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on July 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors. San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Syneos Health Inc., 2023 WL 4688178 (4th Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors about its projected growth following its merger with another company. The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter, and that they also failed to allege that the alleged misstatements were material, stating that "not every financial disappointment is actionable under federal law." The Company specialized in assisting biopharmaceutical companies conduct clinical trials as part of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process. In 2018, the Company merged with a private company that provided commercialization services for approved drugs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors when it described its projected post-merger growth in its press release, earnings calls, and proxy materials because they did not disclose that the counterparty to the merger had not executed several significant sales contracts that would drive that growth. The district court held that plaintiffs failed to prove scienter, and that the Company had provided sufficient disclaimers as to not make any misrepresentations material. Reviewing the district court order de novo, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. With respect to plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants must have known about the importance of the sales contract to the commercial business based on the due diligence conducted prior to the merger. To adequately allege scienter, plaintiffs' allegations must support a strong inference of both that defendants knew that the sales contract information was relevant, and also that they omitted that information with the intent to mislead plaintiffs, or at least with a reckless disregard for the risk that leaving out the information would render the projections misleading. The existence of due diligence meetings alone, however, was insufficient to make such a showing. First, the Court noted that plaintiffs' allegations were, at most, that defendants should have known about the status and significance of the sales contracts of the commercial business, and thus were negligent in not learning these facts in the due diligence process. But plaintiffs must plead, at a minimum, recklessness. Second, even if the Court were to assume knowledge, plaintiffs still failed to allege the intent (or reckless to a risk) to mislead investors where the due diligence meetings took place in May, and there were still seven months left to sign the sales contracts during the year. With respect to plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim, the Court held that because the Company included specific warnings in their proxy materials tailored to address the exact complaints that plaintiffs brought, any omission about the Company's lack of sales contracts was immaterial. Specifically, the Court found that the proxy materials contained specific statements related to plaintiffs' alleged misrepresentations including that "assumptions underlying their projections were uncertain and potentially flawed," and that the post-merger growth projections were based on "pipeline discussions' with customers rather than finalized deals," as well as other specific warnings about the risk and competition of the commercialization services business. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Company's inclusion of cautionary language in the proxy materials negated plaintiffs' arguments that these omissions were material. Finally, having affirmed dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' control-person liability claims under Section 20(a). Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. [GN] SYNERGY AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lu Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGITTE K. LU and other similarly situated individuals v. SYNERGY AUTO DEALS LLC, STEEVE VIRGILE, FRANTZ DERALUS, individually, Case No. 0:23-cv-61465 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable Attorney's fees on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked for the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after June 2023, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff's duties consisted of making outbound calls to set up appointments between the potential buyers and the car dealer. She had a mandatory schedule, and she worked five days per week an average of 10 hours daily, or 50 hours weekly. She did not take bonafide lunchtime hours. In her last week of employment, the Plaintiff worked seven days per week or 70 hours for the week. Within her eight weeks of employment, the Plaintiff was paid only twice. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff irregularly and on partial payments. The remaining balance was always carried forward to the next payment period, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff was not in agreement with the lack of payment for commissions earned, and she complained several times to the owners of the business, Steeve Virgile, and Frantz Deralus, but they never fixed the problem. On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiff was forced to leave her employment because she was working too many hours and she was not being paid minimum wages, overtime hours, and her commissions, as agreed. At the time of her resignation, the Defendants allegedly refused to pay Plaintiff her unpaid wages and commissions earned, says the Plaintiff. Synergy Auto is a used automobile dealership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: Zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TAKARA SAKE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 11, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered a case management order as follows: Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Nov. 26, 2023 Deadline to Move for Class Certification Apr. 11, 2024 Deadline to File Opposition to Class June 10, 2024 Certification Motion Deadline to File Reply in Support of Class Aug. 9, 2024 Certification Motion Hearing on Class Certification Motion Oct. 3, 2024 Close of Fact Discovery Mar. 6, 2025 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses Apr. 3, 2025 Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses May 15, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery June 12, 2025 Deadline to File Dispositive Motions July 10, 2025 Hearing on Dispositive Motions Aug. 14, 2025 Exchange of Pretrial Disclosures Oct. 16, 2025 Deadline to File Pretrial Documents Oct. 30, 2025 Deadline to File Oppositions to Nov. 6, 2025 Motions in Limine Pretrial Conference Nov. 20, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference Dec. 18, 2025 Takara Sake manufactures alcoholic beverages. The Company specializes in producing sake, as well as plum, mirin, shochu, and JPOP. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qqyLVt at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Parties Stipulate Extending Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DAVIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John F. Murphy entered an order the Parties stipulate extending deadlines set in the Court's March 28, 2023, Order for briefing on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification: a. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification no later than October 4, 2023. b. The Defendant shall file a response to any motion for class certification no later than October 18, 2023. c. Affirmative expert reports in support of a motion for class certification, if any, shall be served no later than August 4, 2023. Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no later than September 5, 2023. On March 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification no later than August 4, 2023, and requiring disclosure of any affirmative expert reports to be used in support of class certification no later than June 9, 2023, with any responsive reports due July 7, 2023. Since the Court's Order, the Parties have actively engaged in discovery. The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's initial discovery questionnaire and produced documents. Due to the Parties' ongoing discovery disputes and because the Defendant has not yet produced any documents, the Plaintiff is not able to complete discovery that it would need to move for class certification by the current deadline, including the potential preparation of an expert report and taking deposition of defense witnesses. Target is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yl07J9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Jessica L. Barranco, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 995-2820 Facsimile: (215) 995-2801 E-mail: jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com TAXACT INC: Kirkham Sues Over Sensitive Taxpayer Data Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES KIRKHAM, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAXACT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 230702464 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 25, 2023) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Pennsylvania residents against TaxAct for sharing sensitive taxpayer data with Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC and its affiliates without their knowing and voluntary consent in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. According to the complaint, the confidential tax return information TaxAct unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, disseminated, and transmitted to third-parties, including Meta and Google, included taxpayers' full names, email, country, state, city, zip codes, phone numbers, gender, date of birth, first names of dependents, buttons that were clicked, names of text-entry forms that the taxpayer navigated to (both of which could indicate, for example, whether taxpayers were eligible for certain deductions of exemptions), web browser used, year of return, and website referral, if any. Plaintiff Kirkham used TaxAct's online tax preparation and filing services in 2021. TaxAct, Inc. focuses on providing individuals and businesses with solutions to prepare and file taxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Goslee, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-3500 Email: jgoslee@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com TD BANK: 60-day Extension of Case Deadlines Sought in Nelipa Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa et al. v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties jointly request a 60-day extension of the current case deadlines. This is the parties' fourth request to extend deadlines related to discovery and class certification. There is no current trial date. The proposed class action involves Accountholder's claims that TD Bank did not credit their accounts for unauthorized transactions as required under Regulation E. As a large financial entity, TD Bank retains information about various accountholder issues in several different databases for varying purposes. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4459QEW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad St Ste 1301 New York, NY 10004 - and - Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 The Defendant is represented by: Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq., Esq. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP 601 13th Street,NW Ste.1000 South Washington, DC 20005 TD BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 1, 2021), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete Discovery 1 -- Terminate Deadlines and Hearings: -- Granting motion for extension of time to complete Discovery by October 3, 2023. -- Motion for Class Certification is due Oct. 31, 2023. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. The nature of suit states Banks and Banking -- Breach of Contract.[CC] TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Putative Stockholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone and Data Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the putative stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and US Cellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period") regarding US Cellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. TDS is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of this action would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. TDS intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the merits. Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., is a diversified telecommunications company providing high-quality communications services to customers with approximately 5.1 million wireless connections and 1.2 million wireline and cable connections at December 31, 2017. TDS conducts all of its wireless operations through its majority-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular Corporation (U.S. Cellular). As of December 31, 2017, TDS owned 83% of the combined total of the outstanding Common Shares and Series A Common Shares of U.S. Cellular and controlled 96% of the combined voting power of both classes of U.S. Cellular common stock. TDS provides broadband, video, voice and hosted and managed services, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TDS Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom). TDS was incorporated in 1968 and changed its state of incorporation from Iowa to Delaware in 1998. TESLA INC: Corona Sues Over Deceptive EV Mileage Driving Range -------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Corona and Cabanillas & Associates, P.C., on behalf of themselves and the general public, Plaintiffs v. Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03902 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2023) seeks public injunctive relief arising from the Defendant's unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice of misrepresenting to consumers the mileage driving range of its electric vehicles in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the New York's General Business Law. On approximately July 27, 2023, public sources reported that Tesla has engaged in a practice of inflating projections on its vehicle dashboards for the driving range of its electric vehicles. Tesla dashboard range meters indicate to drivers that its vehicles will travel 350 to 400 or more miles on a full electric charge. However, as the battery is depleted, the dashboard range meters mileage projections drop at a rate faster than miles are actually driven, resulting in an overall mileage range significantly less than originally projected on the dashboard. Additionally, the public source reports included allegations that Tesla had orchestrated a practice to quash nationwide consumer complaints from this defect and service appointment requests related to this mileage range issue by creating an internal "Diversion Team" whose purpose was to unilaterally cancel the service appointments of customers complaining about the rate at which their car's driving range was being depleted, says the suit. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, Tesla, Inc. is Delaware corporation that manufactures automotive vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 Facsimile: (646) 964-9620 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com - and - Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 259-6990 Facsimile: (866) 848-1368 E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com TETHER LTD: Wins Anderson Class Suit Over Illegal USDT Stablecoin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Encila of Bitcoinist reports that Tether has just announced a key victory in its continuing legal conflict, marking a crucial legal milestone. The company reported that the court had officially dismissed a class action lawsuit involving its extensively utilized USDT stablecoin. This development indicates a favorable turn of events for Tether and emphasizes the firm's dedication to maintaining its leadership in the cryptocurrency sector. According to the stablecoin issuer, US District Court for the Southern District of New York Chief Judge Laura Taylor invalidated a class action lawsuit Matthew Anderson and Shawn Dolifka brought against Tether and Bitfinex due to a lack of "plausible allegations of injury." Dismissal Based On Lack Of Plausible Injury Claims A "lack of plausible allegations of injury" describes a case in which there is not enough believable testimony or evidence to support the assertion that a person has suffered harm due to a particular event or action. Suppose a plaintiff's claims of suffering damage are not reasonable by a court. In that case, it may impact the viability of a case since they lack persuasive evidence and fail to demonstrate that they have genuinely incurred any adverse effects. Following this legal triumph detailed in the six-page judgment, Tether and Bitfinex reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the interests of their users and the community. The company executives also affirmed their dedication to keeping their word and protecting customers. The stablecoin issuer stated in a blog post on their website: "The entirety of the class action complaint being dismissed at this very early stage of the proceedings punctuate the fact that plaintiffs' claims were void of legal merit." Tether Steady Performance The plaintiffs failed to mention any price changes in the USDT that would have impacted the value of their investment in their initial filing. Later, Tether maintained that the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate a decline in the value of USDT to prove their case. A case based on USDT's value does not appear plausible given that, despite slight fluctuations, the stablecoin has maintained chiefly its $1.00 price peg. At the time of writing, Tether (USDT) was trading at $0.998671, nearly unchanged in the 24-hour and weekly timeframe, data from coin market tracker Coingecko shows. The victory of Tether, the eleventh-largest Bitcoin holder in the world, comes just after the company announced a net profit of $850 million for the second quarter. Paolo Ardoino, the company's chief technical officer, revealed the information and emphasized its importance as a "Good Friday" event for Tether and Bitfinex. [GN] TIVITY HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Stay Proceedings in Strougo ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (Court), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting Tivity's Motion to Stay Proceedings: -- The case is stayed pending resolution of the proceedings in the Sixth Circuit. Within seven days of disposition by the Sixth Circuit, the parties shall file a motion requesting that the stay be lifted and that a status conference be held. With this ruling, the Plaintiff's motion to ascertain status is denied as moot. On June 7, 2023, the Court certified the following class: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of TivityHealth, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and February 19, 2020, inclusive." Excluded from theClass are Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their immediate families, and any entity of which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, or assigns of any excluded party. Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness and social engagement solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P32Nsd at no extra charge.[CC] TMX FINANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Kolstedt Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolstedt v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076 (S.D. Ga., Filed March 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to consolidate cases. -- The Court orders that Case Numbers 4:23-cv-78, -80, -81, -83, - 84, -85, -88, -89, -96, -97, -98, -99, -100, -102, -105, -108, - 113, -121, -124, -129, -134, and -168 are consolidated with and into the instant case (Case Number 4:23-cv-76). -- Additionally, as stated during the July 25, 2023, hearing, the Court directs any attorney (or group of attorneys) for any Plaintiff(s) in this now-consolidated case who wish to be appointed interim class counsel to file a motion seeking such appointment (along with briefing as described by the Court during the July 25, 2023, hearing) on or before August 15, 2023.[CC] TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Mock Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY MOCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TOMPKINS COMMUNITY BANK, Case No. 3:22-cv-00995-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Stacy Mock, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) to: (1) Granting Preliminary Approval to the Settlement; (2) Certifying for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (3) Appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; (4) Approving the Notice Program and approve the form and content of the Notices attached to the Agreement as Exhibits 1 and 2; (5) Approving and order the opt-out and objection procedures in the Agreement; (6) Staying the Action against Tompkins Community Bank pending Final Approval of the Settlement; (7) Appointing Tyler Ewigleben of the Johnson Firm and Sophia Gold of KalielGold PLLC as Class Counsel; and (8) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing of the Settlement. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47koc7a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: tyler@yourattorney.com TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert. Opposition -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC., and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants move the Court to seal the following: (1) portions of the Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification; (2) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Matt Powers in Support of the Defendants' Opposition; (3) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Peter Kitt in Support of the Defendants' Opposition, (4) certain exhibits accompanying the Declaration of Robert Gallagher in Support of the Defendants' Opposition, and (5) portions of the Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Gregory Fanoe. Travel Guard provides insurance services. The Company offers travel insurance plans and assistance programs. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QuG1KO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Eric A. Ormsby, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com eormsby@omm.com TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to Jan. 15, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Livingston v. Trustco Bank, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01030 (N.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 2, 2020), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order resetting the deadlines and schedules as follows: (a) The Defendant's Expert Disclosure Oct. 7, 2023 Deadline is: (b) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Nov. 7, 2023 Deadline is: (c) Mandatory Mediation shall be Nov. 7, 2023 completed by: (d) All Discovery (including merits, Dec. 15, 2023 class, documentary, and all depositions) shall be completed by: (e) Any class certification motion Jan. 15, 2024 shall be filed by: (f) Dispositive motions shall be Jan. 6, 2024 filed by: (g) The parties shall file next Oct. 19, 2023 detailed status reports by: The parties are advised that these deadlines and schedules are final and will not be extended. The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Trustco Bank specializes in residential mortgage lending.[CC] UNISYS CORP: Conditional Collective Status Sought in Brunswick -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BRUNSWICK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00289-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the Parties file a stipulated motion for conditional certification and authorization of notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) seeking conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") of a collective of employees for the purpose of sending notice only. -- Physical Call Center Collective "All current and former Customer Service Representative employees, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked in a physical call center for Unisys Corporation at any time in the last three years." -- Remote Call Center Collective "All current and former Customer Service Representative employees, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked remotely for Unisys Corporation at any time in the last three years." Unisys is an American multinational information technology services and consulting company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45oSrYR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612)436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and- Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jacob W. Nelson, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, PC 50 West Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com jnelson@aklawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew S. Rosenman, Esq. Lauren A. Shurman, Esq. Ruth Zadikany, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 E-mail: arosenman@mayerbrown.com lshurman@mayerbrown.com rzadikany@mayerbrown.com UNITED STATES: Elbert Bid for Attorney's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICH ELBERT, JEFF A. KOSEK, REICHMANN LAND & CATTLE LLP, LUDOWESE A.E. INC., and MICHAEL STAMER, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 0:18-cv-01574-JRT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs: 1. The Plaintiffs shall recover from the Defendants attorneys' fees in the amount of $256,945.00. 2. The Plaintiffs shall recover from the Defendants costs in the amount of $1,119.00. 3. The Court awards the Plaintiffs $256,945.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,119 in costs because they are the prevailing party on the most critical issues in this litigation and because the Defendants' position was not substantially justified both during and prelitigation. United States Department of Agriculture is the federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OJWto7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Tallman, Esq. JOHN D. TALLMAN, PLLC 4020 East Beltline Avenue Northeast, Suite 101, Grand Rapids, MI 49525 - and - Markus C. Yira YIRA LAW OFFICE, LTD, P.O. Box 518 Hutchinson, MN 55350 The Defendants are represented by: David W. Fuller, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 UNITED STATES: Omaha Widow Joins Suit Over Water Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Bella Caracta of Wowt reports that Poe Jr. took great pride in being a Marine. Although he didn't share much with his wife Lynnelle. "He said sometimes, 'Lynn, they would have us thinking the country's at war as part of the basic training,'" she said. When nearly 300 people died in the Beirut bombing of 1983, he survived. What his wife said he couldn't survive is something he never thought twice about. "Of course, they weren't worried about drinking water. They had to be worried about war," said Lynnelle Poe. Eddie Poe Jr. lived at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in the early 80s during the four decades the US government now admits water was contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals. Last year, Veterans Affairs doctors delivered the devastating news to Poe: stage four lung cancer. "It seemed like the sickness just took over," said his wife. The same month as the diagnosis, President Joe Biden signed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. That allows families like Poe's to take legal action against the government for harm caused by the water contamination. "The best trained fittest warriors in the world had come home with headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer," said Biden last year. When TV ads flooded homes across America, Eddie and Lynnelle started connecting the dots. "You find out when it comes on TV. Well, he could have been getting treated for this." The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs granted Poe disability in March of this year. They determined the sickness was linked to his service. Poe's health declined quickly after that decision. He died last month at the age of 60. "What am I supposed to do now?" asked his wife. Now she's joining tens of thousands of people seeking compensation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates up to 1 million people may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that Camp Lejeune settlements will cost the US 6.1 billion dollars over the next eight years. The bipartisan law gave people two years to file a claim. There's just one year left, with the deadline in August 2024. "If you're still here, you need to fight for this. Don't turn that down," said Poe. "So that's what I plan on doing. I've got to keep advocating."[GN] UNITED STATES: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED, ABDUL, AMIR, SIDDIQA, RAHMATULLAH, FATIMA, and MURSAL SADAT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS); UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her official capacity as Director of USCIS; TED H. KIM, in his official capacity as Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate at USCIS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the Class Certification Hearing until September 11, 2023. The Court set a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification and Classwide Preliminary Injunction, and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Dismiss, for July 27, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The Parties have been engaging in settlement talks and believe they would benefit from more time to negotiate. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QxRIQI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Hillenbrand, Esq. Michael F. Williams, Esq. Joseph A. D'Antonio, Esq. Morgan Lily Phoenix, Esq. Michael P. Quinn, Esq. Sanjay Nevrekar, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 E-mail: edward.hillenbrand@kirkland.com mwilliams@kirkland.com joseph.dantonio@kirkland.com morgan.phoenix@kirkland.com michael.quinn@kirkland.com sanjay.nevrekar@kirkland.com - and - Richard Caldarone, Esq. Keren Zwick, Esq. Collen Cowgill, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1370 Facsimile: (312) 660-1505 E-mail: rcaldarone@heartlandalliance.org kzwick@heartlandalliance.org ccowgill@heartlandalliance.org The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Boynton, Esq. William C. Peachey Yamileth G. Davila Alexander J. Halaska Richard G. Ingebretsen Ruth Ann Mueller OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-4848 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 E-mail: richard.ingebretsen@usdoj.gov VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Breyonna Marie Abercrombie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VESTRA LABS LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00336600 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California July 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00710. On June 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges 10 causes of action against Defendant, alleging: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Violation of Business and Professions Code; and (10) Enforcement of Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq. Hernandez, Esq. Ryan M. Estes, Esq. Jose Pomposo Barajas, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Phone: 310.595.3000 Fax: 310.595.3300 Email: ben.gipson@us.dlapiper.com steve.hernandez@us.dlapiper.com ryan.estes@dlapiper.com jose.pomposo@us.dlapiper.com VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Lavin Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Lavin class suit in the Eastern District of New York. On May 28, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the safety of the Company's ships and success of its commercial flight program. Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and other unspecified equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on November 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ filed a second amended complaint on December 12, 2022. The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations as in the first amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 24, 2023 and their motion was fully briefed as of May 23, 2023. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this matter. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an American spaceflight company founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an 18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is headquartered in California, USA, and operates from New Mexico. VYSTAR CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 21, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANTA MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, MELISSA RANSOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and ALL JAKD UP MOTORSPORTS, INC., v. VYSTAR CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00461-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation: Deadline for providing mandatory initial July 28, 2023 disclosures. Deadline for moving to join a party or amend Sept. 18, 2023 the pleadings. Deadline for disclosing expert reports. the Plaintiff: May 1, 2024 the Defendant: May 1, 2024 Rebuttal: May 17, 2024 Deadline for moving for class certification. June 21, 2024 Deadline for filing dispositive and July 19, 2024 Daubert motions (Responses due 21 days after service unless otherwise ordered; summary judgment replies (limited to 7 pages) permitted 14 days after service of a response) Deadline for completing discovery and filing Aug. 9, 2024 motions to compel. Mediation Deadline: Aug. 9, 2024 Date and time of Class Certification and Oct. 17, 2024 Dispositive Motions hearing Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Dec. 12, 2024 statement and all other motions including motions in limine. Date and time of the final pretrial conference. Dec. 18, 2024 Trial Term Begins Jan. 6, 2025 VyStar is a member-owned financial cooperative that is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YnSUbm at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Arrison Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- WALMART INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Kathy Arrison, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Walmart Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants implemented a companywide policy requiring workers to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 screening each shift. Workers were instructed to arrive before their scheduled shift to complete the requisite questionnaire, screening, and body temperature. The Defendants' workers continued to work through the COVID-19 pandemic. The workers put in the time necessary to comply with the Defendants' COVID-19 policies so that the Defendants' store can remain in operation. However, the Defendants failed to pay the workers for the time that the Defendants require them. As a result, Walmart is unjustly enriched at the expense of its workers, the suit says. On Mar. 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Susan M. Brnovich on July 11, 2023. The Plaintiffs sought Rule 23 class certification on behalf of a punitive class of Arizona non-exempt Walmart associates alleging claims for unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act and civil penalties for related record keeping violations. The motion for Rule 23 class certification for the proposed class and subclass was granted. Lear Werts LLP was appointed as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned Kathy Arrison, et al. v. Walmart Inc., et al., Case No. 23-80065, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents KATHY ARRISON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Defendants-Petitioners WALMART INC., et al. are represented by: Erin Norris Bass, Esq. Douglas Janicik, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 850 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 508-3967 (602) 508-3970 - and - Mark David Harris, Esq. Shiloh Rainwater, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 - and - Gregory William Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP 2029 Century Park, E, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 (310) 284-4588 WASHINGTON: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Aiona Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CALEB AIONA, et al. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled Caleb Aiona, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. PATRICK GARRETT, WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity, Respondent, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 on the grounds that they are being unlawfully held in custody of the Washington County Sheriff based on a pending criminal prosecution in violation of their federal constitutional rights. The Petitioners filed a class complaint which alleges violations of the right to counsel, due process liberty and the Eighth Amendment, procedural due process by prosecution without counsel, and equal protection and due process based on indigency. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CALEB AIONA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Fidel Cassino-DuCloux, Esq. Stephen R. Sady, Esq. Julie Vandiver, Esq. Jessica Snyder, Esq. Robert Hamilton, Esq. Michael Benson, Esq. Peyton E. Lee, Esq. Megha Desai, Esq. 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 326-2123 Facsimile: (503) 326-5524 E-mail: Fidel_Cassino-DuCloux@fd.org Steve_Sady@fd.org Julie_Vandiver@fd.org Jessica_Snyder@fd.org Robert_Hamilton@fd.org Michael_Benson@fd.org Peyton_Lee@fd.org Megha_Desai@fd.org WASTE CONNECTIONS: Subsidiaries Hit Over Noxious Odors from Sites ----------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Connections, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that separate lawsuits seeking class action status were filed against its subsidiary Louisiana Regional Landfill Company (LRLC) and certain other company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state court, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in New Orleans. The court later consolidated the claims of the putative class action plaintiffs. These cases are still ongoing. Beginning in December 2018, a series of 11 substantively identical mass actions were filed in Louisiana state court against LRLC and certain other Company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation. The claims of the mass action plaintiffs were removed to and consolidated in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, also before Judge Susie Morgan. The putative class actions and the Addison action assert claims for damages from odors allegedly emanating from LRLC's JP Landfill. The consolidated putative class action complaint alleges that the JP Landfill released "noxious odors" into the plaintiffs' properties and the surrounding community and asserts a range of liability theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict liability—against all defendants. The putative class is described as all residents of Jefferson Parish who have sustained legally cognizable damages as a result of odors from the JP Landfill, but the complaint proposes to revise the geographic definition based on further evidence. The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for nuisance and unidentified property value diminution. The Addison plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, negligence, and (with respect to the Parish) unconstitutional takings under the Louisiana Constitution; on behalf of two plaintiffs, the Addison complaint also asserts claims for wrongful death and survivorship. The Court held an eight-day trial on general causation during January and February 2022. In November 29, 2022, the court issued a 45-page decision on the general causation trial. The Court concluded that all putative class and mass action plaintiffs established general causation—specifically that emissions and gases from the JP Landfill were capable of causing certain damages alleged by the plaintiffs. The court held that it only needed to determine the level of exposure necessary to result in injuries and that the level existed somewhere offsite, and that it was not required to delineate this level of exposure within a geographic area. The court did, however, limit the time period for damages, to between July 2017 and December 2019, and the types of alleged injuries for which the plaintiffs are able to seek damages, to headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of life, and loss of enjoyment or use of property. The Addison plaintiffs' claims of diminution of property value were put on a separate track from these damages and not addressed. The court has held several case management conferences since the general causation decision to discuss how to proceed with the class and mass action cases, and the Court has proposed trying certain Addison plaintiffs' cases on the merits prior to class certification being determined as to the putative class case. The company has opposed that sequence by motion, and the court has recognized its objection on the record. Subject to that objection, the company jointly proposed a case management order with the Addison plaintiffs that allows for fact and expert discovery on a subset of 8-13 Addison plaintiffs who will proceed to trial. The court adopted and so-ordered that case management order on April 17, 2023, under which trial was scheduled for September 2023. In April 17, 2023, the company and the other defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the April 17 case management order's sequencing of a merits trial before class certification. The Defendants also filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court until the Fifth Circuit issues a decision on the writ petition. On June 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit stayed proceedings in the district court, and oral argument was held on July 12, 2023. Following oral argument, the Fifth Circuit clarified that its stay applies only to the Addison action but has not yet issued a decision on the writ petition. The company has already obtained dismissal of approximately one third of the original Addison plaintiffs, the number of which now totals 544, and believes it has strong defenses to the merits of the Addison action, including specific causation issues due to other odor sources in the area. The company also believes it has strong defenses to certification of the putative class actions, although the court has not yet indicated when it will allow certification to be briefed and decided, and sequencing of that process may be affected by the Fifth Circuit's decision on the writ petition. Waste Connections is the third largest solid waste management company in North America. WEGMANS FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loeper v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02044-MEM (M.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Malachi E. Mannion entered an amended scheduling order extending to Oct. 2, 2023, deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OksJOn at no extra charge.[CC] WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Fixing Suit in Quebec Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that beginning in October 2020, class action proceedings were filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec as well as before the Federal Court. These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015 through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court. Defendants allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. In December 10, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec stayed its proceedings until after a final certification decision is released in the Federal Court proceedings. Westlake operates as an integrated global manufacturer and marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and infrastructure products including residential construction, flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, materials used in turbines to generate wind energy, water treatment, coatings as well as other durable and non-durable goods. WESTLAKE CORP: Caustic Soda Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NY Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that the company and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin), Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shintech Incorporated and Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the U.S. The plaintiffs in the putative class for such direct purchasers seek $861 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs in the putative class for such indirect purchasers seek approximately $500 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages (if permitted under applicable state law) and injunctive relief. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser lawsuits was denied. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser lawsuits was granted in part and denied in part. Both groups of cases have proceeded to discovery. Westlake operates as an integrated global manufacturer and marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and infrastructure products including residential construction, flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, materials used in turbines to generate wind energy, water treatment, coatings as well as other durable and non-durable goods. WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Faces Munt ERISA Suit in WI Court ----------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Electric Power Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in May 2022, a putative class action captioned "Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division. The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight of WEC Energy Group's Employee Retirement Saving Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The class is alleged to be participants in the plan from May 10, 2016 through the date of judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. WEC Energy Group is vigorously defending against the allegations made in this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so. Wisconsin Electric Power Company provided approximately 1.2 million electric customers and 0.5 million natural gas customers. All of the common stock of Wisconsin Electric Power Company is held by WEC Energy Group, Inc. WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO CONTRERAS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WORLDWIDE INDUSTRIES CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00532-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered a case management order as follows: -- Amended pleadings & joinder of parties: Nov. 13, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's expert reports are to April 30, 2024 be served by: -- The Defendant's expert reports are to May 30, 2024. be served by: -- Class expert depositions are to be June 28, 2024 completed by: -- Discovery shall close on: June 28, 2024 -- Motion for Class Certification with July 29, 2024 brief in support is due by: -- Brief in opposition is due by: August 29, 2024 -- Any reply brief is due by: September 12, 2024 Worldwide Industries was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of industrial machinery and equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s1xbd5 at no extra charge.[CC] X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan Hits Sale of Geolocation Data ------------------------------------------------- NORMA EGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. X-MODE SOCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11651-DJC (D. Mass., July 25, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act by first acquiring and tracking Plaintiff and other consumers' precise geolocation data and other data through the use of spyware called "XDK" and then profiting from that data by selling it to others. Egan is a resident of Somerville, Massachusetts. In January 2021, she downloaded a third-party phone application designed to allow users to know the location of their children or other family members. At the time, Plaintiff believed that the geolocation data generated by the App would be used solely by the third-party App developer for App functionality. However, that was not the case: the developer of the App later confirmed that it sold location data to the Defendant when Plaintiff used the application. During that entire time, the App tracked the geolocation of the Plaintiff and her family. In turn, Defendant tracked Plaintiff's geolocation in Massachusetts, and then sold that data for profit. The Plaintiff suffered her primary injury in Massachusetts, says the suit. X-MODE Social, Inc. is primarily a location data broker that provides its customers amounts of precise geolocation data collected from consumers' mobile devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, 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 - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com YATSEN HOLDING: Court Appoints Wong & Park as Lead Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MAESHIRO, et al., v. YATSEN HOLDING LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08165-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order: 1. Granting Wong and Park's motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of selection of Lead Counsel; and 2. Denying the competing motions of Xu and Zhang. Lead Counsel shall have the following duties and responsibilities on behalf of the Lead the Plaintiffs and the putative class: (a) briefing and argument of motions; (b) coordination and supervision of discovery proceedings, including depositions; (c) coordination and supervision of pretrial preparation and the conduct of trial; (d) coordination and supervision of settlement negotiations; (e) coordination and supervision of any other matters concerning the prosecution, resolution, or settlement of this action. Additionally, Lead Counsel shall have the responsibility of receiving and disseminating court orders and notices to all the Plaintiffs and serving as the contact point with the Defendants' counsel, who may effect service of papers on all the Plaintiffs by serving them upon Lead Counsel. Nancy Maeshiro, represented by Scott+Scott, commenced this putative class action on September 23, 2022, against Yatsen Holding Limited (Yatsen or the Company), various Yatsen officers and directors, and the underwriters of Yatsen's November 19, 2020 initial public offering (IPO). Yatsen is a Chinese company "engaged in the production and sale of cosmetics and skincare products." The Plaintiff alleges that these statements were false and/or misleading, but were not fully corrected until a series of disclosures were made in 2021 and 2022: First, on August 26, 2021, during an analyst call discussing Yatsen's second-quarter results, the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) stated that the performance of its "Perfect Diary" brand was deteriorating and that Yatsen needed to "refocus and also to devote more resources to continue the growth trend." Yatsen Holding is a China-based holding company engaged in production and sales of cosmetics and skincare products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47nZenu at no extra charge.[CC] YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- William Williams of Nashville Post reports that after recently administering significant layoffs and now facing potential bankruptcy, troubled Nashville trucking and logistics company Yellow Corp. is battling a class-action lawsuit from four former employees. Filed in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee, the four plaintiffs in the suit allege Yellow management failed to provide proper notice (60 days) related to the layoffs and as required by U.S. Department of Labor regulations. An unknown number of Yellow employees were laid off in late July (read here), with the company having previously been home to about 30,000 workers nationwide. The plaintiffs — Ricky Adcock, Matthew Brewer, Michael Cottrell and Johnny Martinez — have filed the suit on behalf of all Yellow employees who had their jobs terminated on July 30. The plaintiffs are seeking a court judgment including 60 days worth of wages and benefits, litigation costs and attorneys' fees "to the fullest extent" permitted under the federal WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act, the lawsuit notes. Nashville law firm Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski and Wall is representing the plaintiffs. Focused on workers' rights, the firm was created earlier this year via a split with partners of longtime Nashville law firm Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings (read here). Though two additional lawsuits have been filed in Delaware related to the Yellow layoffs, the suit involving the four former employees is the only one brought by workers representing each of Yellow’s four operating subsidiaries, Joe Leniski, a member of the firm, emailed the Post. "This lawsuit is a crucial step in protecting and enforcing the rights of the Yellow workforce, which is still reeling from this news," Leniski said. "Without exception, these layoffs were entirely foreseeable, and the required notice should have been provided for the benefit of these workers, their families, and the communities in which they live." Yellow officials could not be reached for comment regarding the lawsuit. [GN] YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE: Mason Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY MASON, individually and for others similarly situated v. YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00867 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2023) arises from the Defendant's uniform jobsite pay scheme by depriving Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Mason worked for Yellowstone as a landscaper in and around Houston, Texas from approximately January 2021 until August 2022. He asserts that Yellowstone violated, and is violating, the FLSA by employing him and the Putative Class Members in a covered enterprise for workweeks longer than 40 hours without paying such employees overtime wages at rates not less than one and a half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek. Yellowstone Landscape, Inc. is a commercial landscaping company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com YUMMYEARTH: Asks Court to Impose Terminating Sanctions v. Marino ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MARINO, v. YUMMYEARTH, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02739-VC (N.D. Cal.), YumEarth moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to impose terminating sanctions against the Plaintiff for serially failing to appear for her duly-noticed deposition, or in the alternative, an order preventing the Plaintiff from offering any evidence until she appears for her deposition. The Defendant further moves the Court for monetary sanctions for the Defendant's reasonable attorney's fees incurred in preparing for the deposition and bringing this motion. To date, those fees amount to $9,712.50. YumEarth has sought to take the Plaintiff's deposition for more than eight months since discovery opened in November 2022. The Plaintiff has twice failed to appear for her own deposition, most recently on July 11, 2023. The Defendant contend that the Court should impose terminating sanctions. YumEarth specializes in producing organic candies. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QuG1KO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Borden, Esq. David H. Kwasniewski, Esq. Tracy O. Zinsou, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 351 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 Facsimile: (415) 599-0210 E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com kwasniewski@braunhagey.com zinsou@braunhagey.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***