/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230830.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 174 Headlines 3M CO: Tabb Suit Over Toxic Chemicals Removed to N.D. Ala. AHRC HEALTH: Onate Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ALICO INC: M.D. FL. Sinder Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid AMERICAN HONDA: Harmon Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Coluzzi et al. Sue Over Miscalculation of Wages BROADWAY JOE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Claims CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Bell Class Suit Under Appeal CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Get $72K in Attorneys' and Expert Fees COINBASE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aggarwal Suit COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Class of Plan Participants Certified in Goodman COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Bids for Judgment in US Sugar Suit Granted CR CLICKS: Faces Meilan Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages D'URSO LANDSCAPING: Calles Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT DAEMEN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DE LONGHI AMERICA: Ghaznavi Suit Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Issue DIOCESE OF EL PASO: Grant of Second Plea to Jurisdiction Affirmed DO IT BEST CORP: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York DST SYSTEMS: Court Approves Suit Settlement Over 401(k) Profit EP GLOBAL: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Breached Personal Info ERICSSON INC: Gutierrez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. EXONE COMPANY: Campanella Sues Over Desktop-ExOne Merger Deal FLORIDA HEALTH: Andriano Sues Over Alleged Data Breach GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Disclosure Suit GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Wins Prelim. Nod HOVG LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Collection of Debt HP INC: Court Rejects Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Printer Ink HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Delays $200M Settlement in Theft Suit INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Foster Children Care INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct 16 INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces DeCarvalho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime KING'S COLLEGE: Dantone Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund LADLES SOUPS: S.C. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chappell Suit LIVE NATION: Faces Donley Securities Suit Over Anticompetitive Acts M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAMCO INC: Court Dismisses Morales Class Suit Without Prejudice MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Kostov Seeks to Certify Class of Employees MAURICES INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Bivens Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin MEMORIAL HEART: Jackson Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Swath of Medical Privacy Class Action METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Appeal on May 25, 2023 Order Withdrawn MIKU INC: Clardy Suit Removed to C.D. California MILLIMAN INC: Soto Files Suit in W.D. Washington MISSFRESH LIMITED: Faces Chen Securities Suit in NY Court MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Rezendes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee MULTICOIN CAPITAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida MULTIPLAN CORP: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit NABORS COMPLETION: Figueroa Awarded $713K in Damages & Attys.' Fees NEW YORK TIMES: Class Suit Settlement Over Auto-Renewals Vacated NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Deadline in Teagle Suit NEWMAN MEMORIAL: Ketner Files Appeal with Kansas Supreme Court O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Cull Suit Removed to C.D. California OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Suit Over Stock Offer Ongoing OSATA ENTERPRISES: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PARK AVENUE: De La Cruz Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages PEACHTREE ORTHOPAEDIC: Snider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Files Suit in D. Minnesota PREMIER WASH: Greer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PROCTER & GAMBLE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS: Stout FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Outage Ongoing ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court OK's Settlement in Mehta Securities Suit ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Federal Antitrust Suit Under Appeal ROCK-IT CARGO USA: Birdsong Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania RUA & SON MECHANICAL: Villacana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAFETY SHOE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAFEWAY INC: Settles Stewart Meat Sale Dispute for $107M SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appellate Court Denies DRAM Suit Certification SAN ANGEL 2: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage SARA COMPANION: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful & Unfair Compensation SEBA ABODE: Court Certifies Classes in Wofford Lawsuit SECURIX LLC: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi SEVERN PEANUT COMPANY: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York SHAMROCK TOWING: Faces Anderson Suit Over Labor Law Violations SOTERA HEALTH: Sued Over SEC Misfiling in IPO Issue STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ELM STERLING INVESTMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in Coleman Appealed STREAMLINE PERFORMANCE: Neadle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO SUNRISE GROWERS: Correa Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Marketing SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to E.D. California SUNWEST MIILING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Brittany Suit Removed to C.D. California SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington THOMSON REUTERS: Appeals Certification Ruling in Brooks Suit TIGER GLOBAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida TODD ROKITA: Simpson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana TORONTO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Carding Practice by Police TRACTOR SUPPLY: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis TRES COLORI: Fields Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls TRUPHAE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TSG INTERACTIVE: Alcantar Files Suit in D. Delaware ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Court Certifies Anti-Trust Class Action Suit UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Mansor Class Action UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Glusky Suit Removed to S.D. Florida VITALITY GROUP: Elias Files Suit in N.D. Illinois VO HOLDINGS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over False and Misleading Representation WALMART INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Oettle WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Aiona Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Storage Devices' Failures WESTSIDE VETERINARY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WHITMAN COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Nov. 3 WOODMAN'S FOOD: Final Collective Certification Bid Due Sept. 19 WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Cantarero Suit Removed to C.D. California YAMAHA CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* 3M CO: Tabb Suit Over Toxic Chemicals Removed to N.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JIMMY TABB, et al., Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 01-CV-2023-902361.00, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on August 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01061-RDP to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams and/or firefighter turnout gear that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com AHRC HEALTH: Onate Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO ONATE, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHRC HEALTH CARE, INC., and CARE DESIGN NY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-AS-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying an Hourly Employees Class: "all hourly paid and non-exempt employees of Defendant AHRC Health Care, Inc. for the period from six years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in this case, excluding employees in the Home Health Department;" 2. certifying a class of a salaried Employees Class: "all salaried and overtime eligible employees of Defendant for the period from six years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in this case, excluding employees in the Home Health Department" 3. appointing Plaintiff Antonio Onate Jr. and Opt-in Plaintiff Ciara Jones-Best as the Class Representatives of the Salaried Employees Class, and Opt-in Plaintiff Natia Guillouete and Opt- in Plaintiff Roxanne Brazil as the Class Representatives of the Hourly Employees Class; 4. appointing McLaughlin & Stern, LLP as Class Counsel; and 5. awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. AHRC is a licensed home care services agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s94gnE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com ALICO INC: M.D. FL. Sinder Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ Alico, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 17, 2023, a class action complaint was filed in the Middle District of Florida captioned "Sinder v. Alico, Inc. et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-00107 asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the company's common stock between February 4, 2021 and December 13, 2022. All discovery is stayed in the Sinder action pending a ruling on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its current and former officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the company's financial reporting and December 13, 2022 restatement of the company's previously issued financial statements. Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. The court overseeing the Sinder case has ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before August 28, 2023. In response, the company anticipated moving to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of all defendants, on or before October 27, 2023. Alico, Inc. is a Florida agribusiness and land management company owning approximately 72,000 acres of land and approximately 90,000 acres of mineral rights throughout Florida AMERICAN HONDA: Harmon Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs David Harmon, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled David Harmon, Ivan Kosin, Matthew Kosin, Shirley Dunn, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06150-CPO-SAK, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Between July 2018 and June 2021, Plaintiffs David Harmon, Ivan Kosin, and Matthew Kosin entered into automobile lease agreements with several of Defendant's franchised dealers. Plaintiff Shirley Dunn entered into an automobile purchase agreement with one of Defendant's franchised dealers on June 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, by neglecting to itemize or disclose the metric used to calculate the fees, arbitrarily inflates the purchase prices of its vehicles at the expense of New Jersey consumers. They allege that such conduct constitutes deceptive and unconscionable business practices in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and has resulted in Defendant's unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed this suit on October 18, 2022. On December 14, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. On July 12, 2023, Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an Order granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The matter was stayed pending the results of arbitration; all other pending motions were deemed moot and administratively terminated. The appellate case is captioned as David Harmon, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co Inc., Case No. 23-2444, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID HARMON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Donovan C. Bezer, Esq. 30 Park Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 Telephone: (201) 677-8693 - and - Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP 275 7th Avenue 7th Floor, Suite 410 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 BANK OF AMERICA: Coluzzi et al. Sue Over Miscalculation of Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE COLUZZI, MICHAEL MARCHELOS, and GARY LIEB individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06885 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Diane Coluzzi, one of the Plaintiffs, was an hourly, non-exempt senior financial lending officer who worked for Bank of America in the state of New York from 1998 through May 2021. Throughout the Paycheck Protection Program loan program, Plaintiff Coluzzi worked a substantial amount of overtime hours, often more than 30 in a workweek. These overtime hours were paid at a rate of one-and-a-half times her lower, base hourly rate, and did not include her nondiscretionary PPP incentive pay. Moreover, by failing to include nondiscretionary PPP incentive pay -- a significant part of an employee's total weekly earnings -- Bank of America violated the law and miscalculated its employees' regular rates of pay. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America is a financial services company that offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matt Dunn, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair Streets Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. Yasmin Zainulbhai, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com zainulbhai@stuevesiegel.com BROADWAY JOE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Claims --------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ORIGINAL BROADWAY JOE'S PIZZA, INC. d/b/a BROADWAY JOE'S PIZZA, LOUIS PORCO, and ROBERT PORCO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06866 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023), alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Escobar was employed by Defendants at The Original Broadway Joe's Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Joe's Pizza, from in or around January 2002 through the present. Throughout his employment period, Plaintiff performed primary duties as a delivery person, re-packer of kitchen goods, and cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties. However, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all his hours worked. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $636,300. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Original Broadway Joe's Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Joe's Pizza, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 5985 Broadway, Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, New York 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Bell Class Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that in January 9, 2023 class action suit against the company and several defendants captioned "Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foodset al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-246, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division was dismissed on January 9, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's judgment to the United States court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 23-50112. Case filed in March 15, 2022 alleged that the defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act by allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other defendants from selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each violation impacting anyone over 65 years old.. On August 12, 2022, the company and other defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' class action complaint. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in producing, grading, packaging, marketing, and distributing fresh shell eggs based in Mississippi. CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Get $72K in Attorneys' and Expert Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, awards the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and expert fees in the amount of $71,652.50. On June 12, 2023, the Court issued an order finding that the Defendants did not fully comply with its discovery orders regarding the production of transactional data and concluding that monetary sanctions are appropriate. DPPs ask for an award of sanctions in the amount of $167,489. The Defendants object that this amount is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court's June 12, 2023 order. Judge DeMarchi finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. In its prior order, the Court concluded that the Defendants failed to timely complete production of their transactional data, as required by the Court's prior discovery orders, and that they had been careless in their representations to the Court about the available sources of transactional data and the completeness of their productions. Observing that DPPs should not have had to file a motion to compel in order to obtain meaningful information about the Defendants' sources of transactional data or the production of responsive transactional data in usable form, the Court found that DPPs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses associated with the filing of the motion and supporting materials, the preparation of the reply (with the exception of expert Christopher Groves' reply declaration), and preparation for and participation in the April 4, 2023 hearing on the motion, under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). At the Court's direction, DPPs filed an application for an award of attorneys' fees and expert fees for time spent preparing their motion to compel, opposing the Defendants' request to have the motion taken off calendar, preparing their reply in support of the motion to compel, and preparing for and participating in the hearing on their motion. In their application, DPPs also ask for an award of fees for time associated with meet and confer efforts over the course of nine months preceding the filing of their motion to compel. They do not seek fees for time their expert spent preparing his reply declaration or for time associated with conferences of counsel after the April 4, 2023 motion hearing. The Defendants do not object to the rates DPPs use to calculate the attorneys' fees at issue, nor do they object that the time spent for any particular task was unreasonable or excessive. However, they strongly object to the DPPs' request for attorneys' fees associated with meet and confer efforts as outside the scope of the Court's June 12, 2023 order and not reasonably compensable in any event. In addition, the Defendants contend that DPPs' counsels' time entries are "impermissibly vague" and include block billing, making them difficult to evaluate. As a remedy, they suggest a "minimum 20% reduction" of DPPs' claimed hours for work performed in connection with briefing and argument on the motion to compel. Judge DeMarchi agrees with the Defendants that DPPs are not entitled to recover fees for time spent engaged in "meet and confer efforts" with defendants before DPPs filed their motion to compel. Those efforts are an ordinary part of discovery, and parties are required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as this District's local rules, to engage in such efforts before burdening the Court with a discovery dispute. As the Court previously ordered, DPPs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees for time spent on briefing and argument associated with their motion to compel. Having carefully reviewed the time records submitted by DPPs and the supporting declaration of counsel, Judge DeMarchi finds that the claimed rates are consistent with the prevailing rates in this District for similar legal services. She also finds that the number of hours claimed by DPPs for this work is reasonable, and the time spent does not appear to be unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive. As the Defendants do not contest the reasonableness of Mr. Groves' billing rate or the number of hours claimed for his work, Judge DeMarchi concludes that DPPs may recover expert fees in the amount of $4,387.50 as part of the sanctions award. Based on the foregoing, DPPs' application for attorneys' fees and expert fees is granted in part and denied in part as follows: the Defendants must pay DPPs a total of $71,652.50, comprising an award of $67,265.00 in attorneys' fees, and $4,387.50 in expert fees. Payment must be made no later than 30 days from the date of the Order unless the parties stipulate to a different date. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wc3bk35 from Leagle.com. COINBASE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aggarwal Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANISH AGGARWAL and MOSTAFA EL BERMAWY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-04829-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stays all further litigation pending the completion of arbitration. Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to compel arbitration filed by Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc. (together "Coinbase"). Coinbase operates an online platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrencies. To access its services, a user is required to create a Coinbase account and agree to its User Agreement. Plaintiff Aggarwal and El Bermawy were previously both Coinbase users. On Dec. 18, 2017, El Bermawy created a Coinbase account and accepted the Coinbase User Agreement that was in effect. On Feb. 8, 2021, Aggarwal created a Coinbase account and accepted the Coinbase User Agreement that was in effect. Coinbase periodically updates its User Agreement. It emailed Aggarwal on Jan. 26, 2022 and Bermawy on Jan. 27, 2022, informing them of a forthcoming update to the User Agreement, effective Jan. 31, 2022. Coinbase's email bore the subject line, "Update to Coinbase User Agreement." The body of the email contained a bulleted outline of the User Agreement updates present in the 2022 User Agreement. The landing page advised users that Coinbase was updating the User Agreement. The full text of the updated 2022 User Agreement was provided to Coinbase users in a scroll box. Underneath the scroll box, users were presented with a blue button labeled, "Accept terms." If a user clicked the "Accept terms" button, they agreed to the terms of the 2022 User Agreement. A disclaimer appears, regarding Appendix 5 ("Arbitration Agreement"), in bold and all-caps towards the top of the 2022 User Agreement. The American Arbitration Association's ("AAA") rules, including the AAA's "Consumer Arbitration Rules," are incorporated into Section 1.4 ("Rules and Forum") of the Arbitration Agreement. On Feb. 4, 2022, El Bermawy logged into his Coinbase account via Coinbase Pro iOS mobile app and agreed to the updated 2022 User Agreement. Similarly, Aggarwal logged into his Coinbase account via Coinbase Pro iOS mobile app and agreed to the updated 2022 User Agreement on Feb. 5, 2022. Aggarwal alleges that in April 2022, hackers gained access to his Coinbase account and "drained it of more than $200,000" of cryptocurrency. He alleges that he attempted to alert Coinbase of the theft but was instead routed through its automated complaint process. Similarly, El Bermawy alleges that in July 2022, hackers robbed his account of cryptocurrency. He alleges that Coinbase failed to assist him in recovering his stolen cryptocurrency and he canceled his account. On Sept. 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. They brought claims against Coinbase for: (i) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq., (ii) violation of the EFTA and Regulation E Customer Service Provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(f)(6) and 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.11(a)(7), (iii) violation of the EFTA and Regulation E Disclosure Provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693c and 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.7, (iv) violation of California Uniform Commercial Code Division 8, Cal. Com. Code Section 8507(b), (v) bailment, California Common Law and Civil Code Sections 1813, et seq., (vi) conversion, (vii) breach of contract, (viii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ix) negligence, (x) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq., (xi) violation of California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq., (xii) violation of Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq., and (xiii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs bring the case on behalf of themselves, and all persons similarly situated. They seek certification of the following class: All current and former Coinbase users and/or consumers in the United States who registered for a Coinbase account from April 1, 2021 through such time as Class notice is given, who maintained funds and/or cryptocurrency in their Coinbase accounts, and who were subsequently deprived of access to, or lost their funds and/or cryptocurrency. Coinbase now moves the Court to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. Judge White finds that Coinbase's unilateral contract modification provision is silent as to whether contract changes apply to claims, accrued or known, so applying the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Coinbase's Arbitration Agreement is not illusory. He also finds that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit arbitrability issues to an arbitrator. A court must enforce an agreement that, as in the case, clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, the only remaining question is whether the particular agreement to delegate arbitrability -- the Delegation Provision -- is itself unconscionable. In addition, Judge White finds that a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability arising from the adhesive nature of the Delegation Clause. The Plaintiffs and Coinbase effectively delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator and because he finds the Delegation Clause is not substantively unconscionable, it is enforceable. Judge White therefore compels arbitration. For the reasons he stated, Judge White grants Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration and stays all further litigation pending completion of arbitration. The parties will file a joint status report every 180 days apprising the Court of the status of arbitration proceedings, including when the stay may be lifted. The parties will alert the Court within five court days of the completion of arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ea3spmr9 from Leagle.com. COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Class of Plan Participants Certified in Goodman ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BARBARA GOODMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-15 (CDL) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division: a. denies Columbus Regional's motion to dismiss Count III; and b. grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiffs were participants in a defined contribution plan sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional. They brought the putative class action alleging that Columbus Regional breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), by failing to prudently monitor and control the Plan's investment options, investment expenses, and administrative expenses. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Count III, a new prohibited transactions claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a)(1)(C). Columbus Regional moved to dismiss Count III, asserting it fails to state a claim. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiffs were participants in an ERISA defined contribution plan sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional. Transamerica Retirement Solutions provided recordkeeping and other services. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. provided investment advisory services and other services to the Plan and its participants. The Plaintiffs allege that Transamerica and Merrill were parties in interest to the Plan, which imposes certain duties upon Columbus Regional regarding their involvement with the Plan. In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that Columbus Regional, as the Plan sponsor, caused the Plan to enter contracts with Transamerica and Merrill. According to them, these contracts are prohibited transactions under ERISA because the compensation was unreasonable and because Transamerica and Merrill did not make certain disclosures that are required under the statute and applicable regulations. The Amended Complaint does not contain specific factual allegations about when the Plan entered the allegedly prohibited transactions. Columbus Regional initially entered a pension services agreement with Transamerica in 2010. It first entered a defined contribution investment consulting services client agreement with Merrill in 2014. In 2016, the Plan entered new agreements with Merrill and Transamerica that restructured the roles, responsibilities, and compensation of Merrill and Transamerica, resulting in a net increase in service provider compensation. In their response brief, the Plaintiffs clarified that Count III is premised only on the 2016 agreements. With this clarification, the First Amended Complaint alleges that Columbus Regional caused the Plan to engage in the 2016 transactions with Transamerica and Merrill, and as a result, the Plan paid unreasonable compensation to these two parties in interest using Plan assets, all of which Columbus Regional knew or should have known about. Judge Land denies Columbus Regional's motion to dismiss Count III. He finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Transamerica 2016 Agreement was a prohibited transaction. He also unconvinced that the present record contains enough information to decide whether the safe harbor defense applies as a matter of law. And, given the Plaintiffs' allegations that the compensation to Merrill under the Merrill 2016 Agreement was unreasonable, he finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately stated a plausible claim. The Plaintiffs propose that the following class be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1): All persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Columbus Regional Healthcare System Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan) and had account balances in the Plan as of Feb. 2, 2015 or after, through the termination of the Plan. Judge Land finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the following class should be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1): All persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Columbus Regional Healthcare System Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan) and had account balances in the Plan as of Feb. 2, 2015 or after, through the termination of the Plan. He grants Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vj7bmtk from Leagle.com. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Bids for Judgment in US Sugar Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-21737-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants in part and denies in part both US Sugar's motion for summary judgment and C&I's motion for summary judgment. The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by both Plaintiff United States Sugar Corp. ("US Sugar") and Defendant Commerce and Industry Insurance Co.'s ("C&I"). US Sugar first filed its motion for summary judgment. C&I responded in opposition, and US Sugar timely replied. C&I then filed its motion for summary judgment. US Sugar responded in opposition and C&I timely replied. The matter is a coverage dispute between US Sugar and its then-general commercial liability insurer, C&I. The dispute arose over US Sugar's defense of a putative class-action lawsuit relating to US Sugar's practice of pre-harvest sugarcane burning (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). US Sugar defended the Underlying Lawsuit successfully, despite C&I's refusal to provide a defense under the insurance policy that US Sugar held with C&I at the time. Now, US Sugar seeks to recoup the Defense Expenses it incurred defending the Underlying Lawsuit through a breach of contract claim based on the Policy. The Court previously ruled on US Sugar's motion for judgment on the pleadings that US Sugar is entitled to reimbursement of its Defense Expenses, finding that US Sugar's Defense Expenses incurred defending the Underlying Lawsuit erode the Policy's Self-Insured Retention. That "Self-Insured Retention" limit, which functions much like a typical insurance deductible, establishes that US Sugar is responsible for the first $1,000,000 of its Defense Expenses. Above that $1 million, C&I is responsible for reimbursing US Sugar for any Defense Expenses relating to the Underlying Lawsuit, pursuant to the Court's prior decision. The Court reserved ruling on what qualified as Defense Expenses in the present Order. Next, C&I moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to have the Court exclude certain categories of fees and costs from US Sugar's Defense Expenses -- namely, expenses from either before the Underlying Lawsuit or after the filing of the second amended complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit. The Court found that (1) US Sugar is not entitled to reimbursement of its pre-suit expenses for "scientific and legal work" related to its practice of pre-harvest sugarcane burning; but (2) C&I is responsible for all of US Sugar's Defense Expenses incurred above the $1,000,000 Self-Insured Retention, even after the filing of the second amended complaint. Once again, the Court made no observations regarding the actual value of US Sugar's incurred Defense Expenses in ruling on C&I's motion. Now, both US Sugar and C&I seek a final determination of the amount of US Sugar's Defense Expenses. Neither party disputes the veracity of the figures that US Sugar has submitted in support of its motion. Nor does either party dispute that US Sugar has actually paid that amount to its attorneys and experts in the Underlying Lawsuit. Both parties agree that US Sugar's actual payments to its attorneys and experts in the Underlying Lawsuit total $9,464,929.51. And both parties agree that, following the Court's entry of partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of US Sugar on the Policy's meaning, C&I paid $2,072,453.32 to US Sugar as payment of its Defense Expenses. The parties' only remaining dispute is the determination of the actual value of US Sugar's Defense Expenses that C&I must pay. US Sugar argues that C&I owes the entirety of its Defense Expenses under Florida law and the Court's prior orders. C&I, on the other hand, argues that it may only ever be held liable for US Sugar's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as Defense Expenses in the Underlying Lawsuit based on Florida law. According to C&I, it has already paid US Sugar the "reasonable" value of its Defense Expenses, so it owes US Sugar nothing more under Florida law. After careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, Judge Scola grants in part and denies in part both US Sugar's motion for summary judgment and C&I's motion for summary judgment. He finds the following as a matter of law: (1) US Sugar is entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as its Defense Expenses in the Underlying Action in excess of the Self-Insured Retention amount; (2) US Sugar is therefore entitled to $6,529,005.82 in Defense Expenses from the Underlying Action; (3) because C&I has already reimbursed $2,072,453.32 of US Sugar's Defense Expenses and US Sugar's Defense Expenses are subject to the Policy's $1,000,000 Self-Insured Retention, US Sugar is entitled to judgment in the amount of $3,456,552.50; and (4) US Sugar may raise its reserved requests for pre- and post-judgment interest and its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this action by separate motion. US Sugar is directed to submit such a motion, should it desire to do so. The Court will separately enter judgment, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, after resolution of US Sugar's motion for pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The status conference scheduled for Aug. 9, 2023, at 9:00 A.M., is canceled. All currently pending motions are denied as moot. The matter will remain open pending the potential resolution of a motion by US Sugar for pre- and post-judgment interest and its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr39f3pk from Leagle.com. CR CLICKS: Faces Meilan Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- GINGER MEILAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CR CLICKS ECOMM INC. dba Charlotte Russe, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-22904-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On or about May 26, 2023, June 8, 2023, June 29, 2023, July 10, 2023, July 12, 2023, July 24, 2023, Defendant sent solicitation text messages even if Plaintiff have already registered her telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct and statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. CR Clicks Ecomm Inc. owns and operates retails stores that sell clothing and accessories in the US. [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 D'URSO LANDSCAPING: Calles Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS CALLES, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D'URSO LANDSCAPING, INC., CARMINE D'URSO, Individually, and CIRO D'URSO, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04773 (D.N.J., Aug. 16, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law by engaging in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation. Plaintiff Calles was employed by Defendants as a landscape laborer performing duties in furtherance of Defendants' business, from May 2022 until the end of July 2023. D'urso Landscaping, Inc. is a family owned and operated full service landscape company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com DAEMEN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daemen University. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Daemen University, Case No. 1:23-cv-07147 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Daemen University -- http://www.daemen.edu/-- is a private university in Amherst and Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com DE LONGHI AMERICA: Ghaznavi Suit Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HAMZA GHAZNAVI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DE LONGHI AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 1871 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Ghaznavi would like to tinker, or have someone of his choosing tinker, with his "slightly malfunctioning" coffeemaker. He has refrained from doing either, however, for fear of voiding the manufacturer's warranty, which permits repairs only by authorized service providers. Instead, the Plaintiff brings the putative class action lawsuit, challenging the repair restriction as unlawful under both a federal statute that regulates consumer warranties and New York laws barring deceptive and fraudulent business practices. In May 2020, the Plaintiff, a New York resident, purchased a De'Longhi Eletta Fully Automatic Espresso Cappuccino and Coffee Maker. Although the Coffee Maker is manufactured by Defendant De Longhi America, Inc., the Plaintiff purchased his online from Costco.com for $1,099.99. Costco shipped the Coffee Maker to his home. At the time of his purchase, the Plaintiff believed that the Coffee Maker's warranty, which was available on Costco's website, complied with state and federal law. The Plaintiff's Coffee Maker is protected by a two-year warranty that applies to products purchased from the Defendant and its authorized distributors. The Warranty guarantees that the Defendant will provide two years of "free parts and labor" to remedy defects in the Coffee Maker's material and workmanship. To take advantage of the warranty, the consumer must ship the malfunctioning product to an authorized De'Longhi Group service center at their own expense. For added protection and secure handling, the Defendant recommended that consumers use a trackable insured delivery method. The Defendant may then either repair the product with new or remanufactured parts, or replace the product entirely, either with a new or certified remanufactured product at no additional charge to the consumer. It bears the cost of return shipping. The warranty does not apply to any product that has been repaired or altered outside its factory, any product that has been subjected to misuse, negligence, or accidents, or any product lost or damaged while in transit to be repaired. Shortly after the Plaintiff purchased the Coffee Maker, it began to slightly malfunction. He wished to repair it himself but did not because doing so would void the product's warranty. He also did not send the Coffee Maker to the Defendant to repair, because he did not want to pay for postage and insurance, did not want to assume the risk of it being lost or damaged in transit, and did not want to be temporarily deprived of its use. Instead, the Plaintiff retained his slightly malfunctioning Coffee Maker and filed this lawsuit. He believes the Warranty to be unlawful and alleges that had he known of such unlawfulness at the time of his purchase, he would not have purchased the Coffee Maker or would have paid significantly less for it. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on March 4, 2022. e brings several claims: (i) a federal claim under the anti-tying provision of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the "MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2302(c), and state-law claims for (ii) unjust enrichment, (iii) fraud, (iv) fraudulent omission, and (v) deceptive business practices. He seeks damages and a declaration that the Warranty is unlawful under the MMWA's anti-tying provision. On April 8, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's request for an extension of its deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Subsequently, the parties advised the Court by letter of the Plaintiff's intent to amend his pleading. The Court adopted the parties' proposed deadlines for such amendment and for the Defendant's response. In line with that schedule, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on June 13, 2022. On July 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a letter requesting a conference to discuss its anticipated motion to dismiss in accordance with Rule 4.A. of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. Two days later, the Plaintiff filed a letter detailing his intended opposition to such motion. The Court held a conference on July 20, 2022, at which it set a briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion. The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and accompanying papers on Aug. 31, 2022. In its motion, it asserts both that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that the Plaintiff has failed to plead any of his claims adequately. The Plaintiff filed his opposition along with a request for the Court to take judicial notice of certain documents posted to the website of the Federal Trade Commission on Sept. 30, 2022. The motion became fully briefed upon the Defendant's Oct. 14, 2022 reply filing. Subsequently, each party filed notices of supplemental authorities decided after the motion was briefed. Judge Failla begins by considering whether she has authority to consider the merits of the action. She finds she does not. Among other things, Judge Failla holds that even if the Warranty were in fact unlawful, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he was concretely harmed by it. For one, the Coffee Maker still retains its full value because the Warranty is currently operative -- the Plaintiff has not voided it by attempting to repair it himself or by taking it to an unauthorized repair shop. And he has not yet incurred any expense in complying with the Warranty; he has not, for instance, shipped the Coffee Maker to the De'Longhi facility for repair and so has not paid for shipping, insurance, or other incidentals that would certainly be cognizable economic injuries. The only injury the Plaintiff has suffered is possessing a possibly unlawful warranty, an injury that plainly falls within the category of bare procedural violations that alone are insufficient to confer standing. The Plaintiff raises the specter of financial harm if he were to pay out-of-pocket to ship the Coffee Maker to the Defendant for repair or if he were to void the Warranty by repairing the Coffee Maker on his own. But federal courts are not in the business of remedying speculative harms. Because the Plaintiff has not yet suffered an actual, concrete injury because of the Warranty and disclaims any intent to do so in the future, his MMWA claim is premature. Judge Failla also finds that she lacks authority to hear the action for an additional reason: The Plaintiff has not satisfied the statutory jurisdictional requirements for a federal class action under the MMWA. He rightly concedes that his pleading does not satisfy the MMWA's jurisdictional criteria. The plain language of the relevant statutes, considered in context, makes clear that the MMWA is the exclusive source of federal jurisdiction over federal warranty claims. Nothing in Judge Failla's Opinion prevents the Plaintiff from refiling the suit in state court, unrestrained by the MMWA's limits on federal jurisdiction. Having dismissed the sole federal claim, Judge Failla considers how to proceed with the Plaintiff's remaining common-law claims for unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission, and his claim of deceptive business practices under Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. Because the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's MMWA claim, it also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over his related state-law claims. Judge Failla thus dismisses the Plaintiff's state-law claims without prejudice as to their refiling in the proper forum. Finally, Judge Failla denies the Plaintiff leave to amend because such amendment would be futile. It well may be that the Plaintiff can replead an injury-in-fact to Article III's satisfaction. But the Court has no reason to believe that the Plaintiff could meet the MMWA's jurisdictional requirements; the Plaintiff has not indicated that ninety-nine additional named Plaintiffs are waiting to join his suit. Because amendment would not cure the pleading deficiencies that led the Court to dismiss the suit in the first instance, the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is denied. Because the Court lacks both constitutional and statutory authority to reach the merits of the Plaintiff's federal claim, Judge Failla grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7xtxx9 from Leagle.com. DIOCESE OF EL PASO: Grant of Second Plea to Jurisdiction Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NORA SALADO, JESUS MARTINEZ, BERTHA PEDREGON, ELSINA AVALOS, NATY RUBALCAVA, RAMON TIRRES, OFELIA MALTOS, ROSA SERNA, LUZ ELENA ABASTA, HERIBERTO ABASTA, PORFIRIO ROJAS, JOSEFINA SALAZAR, PARISHIONERS OF SAN JOSE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Appellants v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, MARK J. SEITZ, BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, Appellees, Case No. 08-22-00204-CV (Tex. App.), Judge Yvonne T. Rodriguez, writing for the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Eighth District, El Paso, affirms the trial court's grant of the Diocese's second plea to the jurisdiction. The case involves a dispute between a group of parishioners who raised funds to build a new church and the diocese that accepted the funds but ultimately decided not to build the church. The Appellants/Parishoners sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso and Bishop Mark J. Seitz (together, the Diocese) alleging promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and conversion. The Diocese filed two pleas to the jurisdiction: the first was granted in part, and the second was granted in full. The Parishioners appeal the grant of the second plea to the jurisdiction. On Feb. 5, 2020, the Parishioners filed a lawsuit against Bishop Seitz and the Diocese alleging the misappropriation of church funds and seeking relief in the form of specific performance under the theory of promissory estoppel. They alleged their community had raised $1.4 million dollars for the purpose of building a new parish church, and the Diocese then misappropriated the money by refusing to approve the construction of a new church and by extinguishing the San Jose Parish and merging it -- and its assets -- into a new parish. They later amended their pleadings to assert additional claims for fraud, misappropriation of funds, and violations of the DTPA. The Diocese and Bishop Seitz responded with a combined answer, motion to dismiss, and plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction in part, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review Bishop Seitz's decision not to build a new church as it involved a matter of internal church governance. It further found it lacked jurisdiction to order Bishop Seitz to authorize the building of a new church or to otherwise grant specific performance. Bishop Seitz and the Diocese then moved for summary judgment, alleging the statute of limitations for the Parishioners' claims had expired and Bishop Seitz was never properly served. The Parishioners responded, producing an affidavit of Nora Salado, a parishioner from San Jose Parish, who averred that over the past decade leading up to the dispute the Parishioners were repeatedly told the money raised by the Parish was in a "restricted fund" dedicated for "the sole purpose of building a new parish church." After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bishop Seitz and denied the motion as to the Diocese. While the summary judgment motion was pending, the Parishioners filed a second amended petition on Sept. 23, 2021 -- renaming Bishop Seitz as a defendant. In it, they alleged the same claims for promissory estoppel, fraud and misappropriation of funds, violations of the DTPA, and adding a claim for conversion. The Church filed its second plea to the jurisdiction alleging the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve the Parishioners' claims. The Diocese included numerous declarations from various church leaders, a copy of the Decree merging San Jose Parish and Santa Lucia Parish, and copies of Salado's internal petition and appeal of the Decree which was denied by the Congregatio Pro Clericis. The Diocese's second plea to the jurisdiction argued the Parishioners' complaints required the trial court to adjudicate matters of canon law and internal governance related to the alleged misappropriation of money in the restricted building fund through the promulgation of the Decree. Adjudicating this conflict, the Diocese argued, would require the courts to evaluate the rights, duties, and authority of bishops to merge, create, and transfer assets between parishes and other entities within the hierarchy of the church, all of which are inherently ecclesiastical in nature. Because the Decree was a purely an ecclesiastical act, the Diocese argued that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine barred all of the Parishioners' claims. The trial court granted the Diocese's second plea to the jurisdiction as to all claims against it. The instant appeal followed. The Parishioners second amended pleading asserted claims for promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the DTPA, and conversion. The Court of Appeals opines that the fundamental allegation underlying each of the Parishioners' claims is the funds raised by San Jose Parish was misappropriated by the Diocese when Bishop Seitz issued the Decree that the San Jose Parish would cease to exist, and all assets transferred to the newly created Saint John Paul II Parish. Although the Parishioners assert their claims can be resolved by neutral principles of law, the Court of Appeals finds that each claim implicates an ecclesiastical matter of church organization and governance. The Parishioners' causes of action for promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the DTPA, and conversion are actually claims for misappropriation of funds—evidenced by their pleadings which seek redress under each cause by stating they seek damages for the misappropriation of the money in the restricted fund. To resolve the dispute of whether the funds raised by the Parishioners on behalf of Sant Jose Parish were misappropriated when they transferred to the new Saint John Paul II Parish would require the Court of Appeals to interpret Cannon Law and policies of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the rights and authority of bishops regarding the patrimony of a parish. Churches have a fundamental right to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government. Because the Parishioners' pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction and seek only the resolution of conflict that is purely ecclesiastical, the trial court did not err in granting the Diocese's second plea to the jurisdiction. The Panel overrules the Parishioner's issue on appeal. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wvetpk4 from Leagle.com. DO IT BEST CORP: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Do It Best Corp. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Do It Best Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-00816 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Do It Best Corp. -- http://www.doitbestonline.com/-- formerly known as Hardware Wholesalers, Inc., is a member-owned hardware, lumber, and building materials cooperative based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DST SYSTEMS: Court Approves Suit Settlement Over 401(k) Profit -------------------------------------------------------------- Fox 19 Now reports that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit participants in the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan. A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Michael L. Ferguson, Myrl C. Jeffcoat, and Deborah Smith (collectively, "Named Plaintiffs"), on behalf of the Settlement Class and the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"), against Defendants Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("RCG"); DST Systems, Inc. ("DST"), the Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Advisory Committee"), and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc. (the "Compensation Committee," and together with DST and the Advisory Committee, the "Ferguson DST Defendants"), as well as Robert D. Goldfarb ("Goldfarb," a defendant in a separate related action). RCG, the Ferguson DST Defendants, and Goldfarb are collectively referred to as "Defendants." Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). This Settlement will provide $124,625,000.00 to the Plan, subject to certain deductions for Court-approved fees and expenses, including attorney's fees; administrative costs; and civil penalties paid to the United States Department of Labor. The net settlement amount after these deductions will be allocated to Plan participants who had Plan accounts during the Class Period. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action Settlement (the "Summary Notice") have the meaning provided in the Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") available on the Settlement website (provided below). If you currently have a Plan account, you will receive an allocation to your Plan account without taking any further action. If you previously had a Plan account but no longer have one, you will be sent a check unless you submit a Former Participant Rollover Form. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York authorized this Summary Notice. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? If you were a Participant in the Plan at any time during the period from March 14, 2010 until July 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), or you were a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of any such Participant, then you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class Member"), UNLESS you: (i) were a member of the Advisory Committee of the Plan during the Settlement Class Period; (ii) were a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc. during the Settlement Class Period; (iii) otherwise served as a fiduciary of the Plan during the Settlement Class Period; or (iv) are a beneficiary, immediate family member, estate or executor of (i)-(iii). WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated ERISA by, among other things, investing an inappropriate amount of the PSP's assets in the stock of Valeant Pharmaceuticals ("VRX"), failing to timely reduce and/or eliminate the PSP's investments in VRX, and, in the case of the Ferguson DST Defendants, failing to adequately monitor the fiduciaries managing the PSP's investments. Plaintiffs' allegations are described in more detail in the Complaint(s) available on the Settlement website. The Court has not made any finding that the Defendants have done anything wrong or violated any law or regulation. Both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Defendants have agreed to provide $124,625,000.00, which will be divided among eligible Settlement Class Members after payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, to counsel who represent certain Settlement Class Members who pursued arbitrations ("Arbitration Counsel"), and to counsel who represent certain other Settlement Class Members who filed separate actions in the Southern District of New York ("Canfield/Mendon Counsel"); Case Contribution Awards to Named Plaintiffs; payment of other costs and expenses of the Settlement, including notice and claims administration, as the Court may allow; and civil penalties payable to the United States Department of Labor. The total attorneys' fees and expenses to be requested from the Settlement Fund will be no more than $25,125,000.00, with Class Counsel requesting an award of $9,500,000.00; Arbitration Counsel requesting $15,500,000.00; and Canfield/Mendon Counsel requesting up to $250,000.00, half of which amount will be paid by Arbitration Counsel. Arbitration Counsel are also paying a portion of their fees to Canfield/Mendon counsel on account of assistance he provided in the arbitration matters. The Settlement Agreement, other related documentation, and a list of Frequently Asked Questions, available at the Settlement website identified below, describe the details of the proposed Settlement. Your share (if any) of the settlement fund will depend upon the amount and value of your Plan account(s) during the Settlement Class Period and certain other factors, including whether you previously obtained any payment from any of the Defendants related to the PSP's investment in VRX. Please note that, if you executed a release in favor of any the Defendants or had an award or judgment entered in connection with any related proceedings against any of the Defendants (regardless of whether you won or lost), you may still be able to obtain a payment as part of the Settlement. If you already have received an arbitration award related to claims concerning the PSP's investment in VRX, as part of this Settlement you will receive at least the amount of any unpaid damages against DST included in that arbitration award. If you already received consideration (meaning a monetary payment, account allocation or financial benefit of any kind) as an arbitration claimant in return for execution of a release in favor of any of the Defendants, you will retain that consideration and, if you are entitled to a share of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement that is greater than the amount of that consideration, you will receive a "top-off" payment in the amount of the difference. This Settlement releases any claims against Defendants relating in any way to the allegations made in this case or in other lawsuits or arbitrations involving the Plan, as well as any claims in any way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary. This means that if the Court approves the Settlement, you will not be able to pursue any other lawsuit or other legal proceeding, including arbitration, against any of the Defendants that asserts any claims in any way related to any of the allegations made in this case or in other lawsuits or arbitrations involving the Plan, or any claims in any way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary. The Settlement also will resolve a separate proceeding brought by the Department of Labor alleging ERISA violations in connection with the Plan. HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT? If you are a Settlement Class member, a current Participant in the Plan, or a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who has an active account in the Plan, and you are entitled to a share of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you are not required to do anything to receive a payment. Your Settlement Payment will automatically be calculated by the Settlement Administrator, deposited into your Plan account, and invested in accordance with your investment elections for new contributions. If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan Participant who does not have an active account in the Plan, you will receive your Settlement Payment directly in the form of a check. If your address has changed since you closed your Plan account(s), please contact the Settlement Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4044 or by email to info@strategicclaims.net to advise of the change of address. If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who does not have an active account in the Plan and you would prefer to receive your Settlement Payment through a rollover to a qualified retirement account instead of a check, you will need to submit a Former Participant Rollover Form by the deadline contained on the Settlement website. You may download the Former Participant Rollover Form on the Settlement website. CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT? This is a mandatory settlement. You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement in this case, but you do have the right to object to it by writing to the Court. Your objection may include objecting to the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses requested by Class Counsel or any other counsel, the amount of Case Contribution Awards requested by the Named Plaintiffs, and the amount of civil penalties to be remitted to the United States Department of Labor. You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be deemed to have released the Defendants and associated persons from all claims that were or could have been asserted in this case, including all Released Claims as defined under the Settlement Agreement, other than your right to obtain the relief provided to you, if any, by the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing in this case on October 23, 2023 at 4:00 PM via telephone conference, with the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel, as well as other counsel, for attorneys' fees, for Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, for other case-related expenses, and the civil penalties amount payable to the United States Department of Labor. If approved, these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by filing a Notice of Intention to Appear no later than October 13, 2023, but you are not required to do so. Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to all or any part of the Settlement and/or the Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Class Counsel, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by other counsel, and the request for award of Case Contribution Awards in accordance with the instructions included in the long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing available at the Settlement website below. Objections must be received by the Court, by filing or by mail, by no later than October 13, 2023. Please note that the time, place and date of the hearing may change without a further mailing. Class Counsel will update the Settlement website below if the hearing time or location is changed. Please check the website or contact Class Counsel if you wish to confirm that the hearing time has not been changed. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive additional information or to receive a copy of the long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing, you can obtain such information by (a) sending a letter to DST Settlement Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; (b) sending an e-mail to info@strategicclaims.net; (c) visiting the Settlement website at www.strategicclaims.net/dst; or (d) calling toll-free at (866) 274-4004. View original content: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/miller-shah-llp-announce-proposed-class-action-settlement-on-behalf-of-participants-in-the-dst-systems-inc-401k-profit-sharing-plan-301896983.html [GN] EP GLOBAL: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Breached Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- Hopelyn Ferguson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EP Global Production Solutions, LLC d/b/a Entertainment Partners, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06732 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the California Customer Records Act arising from the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Entertainment Partners' failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and approximately 470,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) Plaintiff's PII being disseminated on the dark web; (ii) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (iii) lost or diminished value of their PII; (iv) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach, including but not limited to lost time; (v) invasion of privacy; (vi) loss of benefit of the bargain; and (vii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Entertainment Partners and/or production companies that contracted with Entertainment Partners for services. EP Global Production Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Entertainment Partners, provides payroll solutions, software solutions for management and enterprise purposes, and data and analytics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com ERICSSON INC: Gutierrez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSUE GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERICSSON INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants, Case No. CVRI2303202, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Riverside County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 16, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06717 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges individual, class and representative action claims against Ericsson pursuant to the California Labor Code, applicable Wage Orders, and Unfair Competition Law. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Ericsson violated the Labor Code by failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods, rest periods and recovery periods; failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay timely wages; failing to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failing to maintain required records; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements; and failing to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties. Ericsson Inc. is a telecommunication services provider with principal place of business in Plano, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Victoria R. Carradero, Esq. Tatyana Shmygol, Esq. Nathan Norimoto, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 260 Homer Avenue, Suite 202 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194 Telephone: (650) 847-4150 Facsimile: (650) 847-4151 E-mail: vcarradero@duanemorris.com tshmygol@duanemorris.com nnorimoto@duanemorris.com EXONE COMPANY: Campanella Sues Over Desktop-ExOne Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Desktop Metal, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on November 22, 2021, purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed a class action lawsuit against its wholly owned subsidiary, The ExOne Co., Desktop Metal, Inc., and former ExOne directors and officers alleging breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the ExOne merger captioned "Campanella v. The ExOne Company et al.," Case No. 2021-1013. Campanella alleges that ExOne's proxy statement and supplemental disclosures did not adequately disclose information related to a whistleblower investigation at one of Desktop Metal's subsidiaries, EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of EnvisionTEC's CEO. Desktop Metal, Inc. is into 3D printing solutions for engineers, designers, and manufacturers, designing, producing and marketing 3D printing systems and services to a variety of end customers. FLORIDA HEALTH: Andriano Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ MARY A. ANDRIANO, 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-01745-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant, who failed properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant had obligations created by Federal Trade Commission Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, contract, industry standards, and representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their private information confidential and to protect it from unauthorized access and disclosure. However, the Defendant breached its duties and were negligent by failing to use reasonable measures to protect Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves 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 Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. is a private hospital and "one of the largest hospitals in Florida with more than 8,000 team members" serving patients in a “dozen counties with a population in excess of four million. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Disclosure Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Klein, Keith Blackman, Rachel B. Goldman, and Russell W. Gallaro of Bracewell report that A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court's class certification in the decade-long Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group litigation regarding allegedly false public disclosures made by Goldman regarding its corporate governance and ethics policies and procedures. The question of class certification, and whether Goldman's generic statements regarding its corporate principles could support the presumption of investor reliance necessary for a securities fraud class action to proceed, has been addressed in a series of decisions over the long history of the case. Most prominently, the US Supreme Court addressed these questions in a decision issued in June 2021, which reversed a prior grant of class certification in the Goldman case. Following the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, the case was remanded back to the district court -- where, in December 2021, the court ruled for a third time that the case could proceed as a class action, based on a finding that the plaintiff class had presented sufficient evidence to support the presumption that they had relied on Goldman's statements, regardless of their generic nature. The Second Circuit's latest decision once again reverses the district court on class certification, and provides new guidance on investor class actions and the impact of generic corporate statements and disclosures. Background of the Goldman Sachs Litigation The class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs was filed nearly a decade ago. It was led by three pension funds, including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of a class of Goldman shareholders. The class plaintiffs alleged that they had been misled by Goldman's written public statements and disclosures related to corporate governance issues and Goldman's handling of conflicts of interest. Goldman argued that the public statements at the heart of the litigation were too generic and aspirational to have been misleading or to have induced investor reliance. They included statements contained in the company's annual report to shareholders such as "Our clients' interests always come first" and "Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business," as well as a disclosure in Goldman's Form 10-K that asserted: "We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the improper sharing of information among our businesses." The plaintiff class of Goldman shareholders alleged that these statements were rendered false by several events in 2010 -- most notably, an SEC enforcement action against Goldman related to several collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions involving subprime mortgages. The SEC's allegations led Goldman's stock price to decline 12.79 percent the day after they became public. Plaintiffs in the Goldman lawsuit first achieved class certification at the district court level back in 2015. The court's decision, however, was reversed on appeal to the Second Circuit, and remanded back to the district court. After another class certification battle in the district court, and another subsequent appeal, the case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court. In its June 2021 opinion, the Supreme Court confirmed that defendant corporations bear the burden of establishing that their public statements did not impact the firm's stock price, but also acknowledge that the generic nature of the statements should be included in a court's assessment of that impact. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the "generic nature of the misrepresentation often will be important evidence of a lack of price impact." The Supreme Court thus reversed class certification once more and remanded the case, directing the lower courts to "consider all record evidence relevant to price impact and apply the legal standard as supplemented by the Supreme Court." After the district court certified the class action for a third time, the case once again made its way to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit Opinion In its opinion issued on August 10, 2023, the Second Circuit ruled that, in light of the Supreme Court's 2021 decision and guidance, the class plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to warrant class certification. At bottom, the Second Circuit held that claims like those brought by the plaintiffs in Goldman "require special attention to the generic nature of the disclosure," because "the duty to disclose more is triggered only where that which is disclosed is sufficiently specific." The Court further noted that: "Were it otherwise, securities plaintiffs could find a road to success in the rearview mirror: they would need only find negative news, such as the revelation that a company may have committed securities fraud, and then point to any previous disclosure from the company which touches upon a similar subject, such as that company's commitment to complying with the law -- no matter how generic that statement is." Going forward, courts considering class certification in similar cases will be guided by not only the 2021 Supreme Court opinion, but also the Second Circuit's new guidance, which counsels that courts must conduct "a searching price impact analysis" where the claims are based on a company's generic risk disclosures. The Future of ESG Litigation and Investor Class Actions The latest guidance from the Second Circuit in the Goldman Sachs case holds lessons for both litigants in investor class action lawsuits, and companies issuing statements and disclosures related to ESG, or Environmental, Social and Governance, issues. With respect to securities class actions, the Second Circuit's opinion widens the opportunity for corporate defendants to rebut the presumption of investor reliance established by the landmark case of Basic v. Levinson. In the future, where investor lawsuits are based on merely aspirational statements made by a company, defendants will have an easier time marshaling evidence to show that such statements were too generic to have induced investor reliance. However, investor lawsuits premised on more specific corporate disclosures are likely to remain a prominent part of the securities litigation landscape. As for companies' public ESG statements, it now appears clear that, where such statements remain aspirational and sufficiently generic, courts may grant companies wider latitude, and such disclosures may be less likely to expose companies to liability. Nevertheless, ESG disclosures and corporations' aspirational statements related to issues like workplace diversity, corporate principles, and environmental goals, are likely to remain a target for class action and shareholder derivative plaintiffs. Companies in every industry should remain mindful of the recent guidance on such disclosures from both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, and should scrutinize any disclosures closely to ensure they are on safe ground in light of that guidance. Bracewell has a multi-disciplinary team focused on ESG and securities litigation issues. We advise and support our clients drawing on our expertise in environmental strategies, securities matters, regulatory issues, government enforcement, labor and employment, commercial litigation, and crisis management, and we are at the forefront of the transition to sustainable energy. Please contact your Bracewell team member for more information. [GN] GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Wins Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Rita Grenier and Edwin Grenier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Granite State Credit Union, Does 1 through 5, Civil No. 21-cv-534-LM (D.N.H.), Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire: (1) preliminarily approves the parties' proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement; (2) preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes; (3) appoints KCC LLC to administer the settlement and provisionally appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel of record as the settlement class counsel and the Plaintiffs as settlement class representatives; (4) approves the opt-out and objection procedures outlined by the parties, subject to one change; and (5) directs the parties to submit updated proposed notice forms. Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier bring the putative class action against Granite and "Does 1 through 5," alleging injuries arising from Granite's overdraft fees and policies. The Plaintiffs argue that Granite's overdraft policies -- specifically, its failure to adequately explain to consumers how it assesses overdrafts -- violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act's, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 ("EFTA"), implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005 et seq. ("Regulation E"). The Plaintiffs allege that Granite violated Regulation E by charging them overdraft fees without adequately explaining how Granite determines what constitutes an overdraft. Granite's opt-in notice (the "Opt-in Disclosure") states that an overdraft "occurs when you do not have enough money in your account to cover a transaction, but we pay it anyway." It does not disclose how it determines whether an account has "enough money." There are two different methods by which financial institutions can calculate an account's balance to determine whether it has "enough money" to cover a transaction at any given time. One such method, referred to as the "available balance," is calculated by subtracting from the amount of money in the account any "holds" on deposits and pending debits that have not yet posted. The other method, known as the "actual balance," is the actual amount of money in the account at any particular time, irrespective of any holds. Calculating overdrafts based on the available balance tends to result in more frequent overdrafts. Granite uses the available balance method. Its failure to inform accountholders of the difference between the two methods of calculating overdrafts, and of which method Granite employs, forms the basis of the suit. After the court denied Granite's motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in discovery. The Plaintiffs served document requests and interrogatories on Granite, and Granite provided written responses, including transactional data. Both parties conducted depositions, and the plaintiffs' data expert completed an extensive analysis of the transactional data provided by Granite. Based on the data, the Plaintiffs' data expert concluded that between June 22, 2020, and April 30, 2022, Granite assessed 35,053 overdraft fees on 1,229 customers for transactions that constituted overdrafts under the available balance calculation, but not under the actual balance calculation. Those fees totaled $1,051,410. The expert extrapolated those results to estimate the fees assessed through March 28, 20232. In total, the expert estimated that Granite assessed $1,587,963 in fees between June 22, 2020, and March 28, 2023. The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated settlement of their dispute. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. Judge McCafferty has carefully reviewed the parties' proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and the supporting exhibits. The Plaintiffs seek preliminary certification of the settlement class for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as "all current and former members of Defendant with consumer accounts, who were charged an overdraft fee during the Class Period." The class excludes "Granite State Credit Union, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors; DOES 1 through 5; all Settlement Class members who make a timely election to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members." All eligible impacted individuals will be included in the settlement unless they opt out. First, Judge McCafferty finds that the four requirements of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy -- have been met: The record establishes that the settlement class includes at least 1,229 members; all class members allege the same injury, which is that they were charged overdraft fees in violation of Regulation E; the parties' interests align; and the counsel is qualified and experienced. Next, Judge McCafferty finds that predominance is likely satisfied because there is similarly no dispute that Granite calculated overdrafts using customers' available balance rather than their actual balance and the class members are likely to benefit by aggregating their claims. Judge McCafferty then finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel of record may properly serve as the class counsel in the matter under Rule 23(g). The counsel has shown it is fit to represent the class. It identified the Regulation E claim, took steps to investigate it, and successfully negotiated a resolution of the parties' dispute. The counsel also has ample experience litigating class actions in general, and particular expertise in overdraft fee class actions. For these reasons, Judge McCafferty preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes. She provisionally appoints the Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier as the settlement class representatives, and their chosen counsel, McCune and Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., as the settlement class counsel in this matter. In the event the Court ultimately denies final approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement, the Court's preliminary certification of the class and provisional appointments of class counsel and class representatives will be vacated. Judge McCafferty now determines whether she will likely be able to find that the class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. She says because the proposed payments to class members constitute provision of substantial relief to the settlement class without requiring class members to incur the risks, burdens, costs, or delay associated with continued litigation, trial, and possible appeal, the settlement proposal appears fair, adequate, and reasonable at this stage. She therefore preliminarily approves the parties' proposed settlement, pending final approval following a fairness hearing. Because Judge McCafferty has concluded that it will likely be able to certify the proposed class for the purposes of settlement and approve the proposed settlement, she must direct notice to all class members who would be bound by the Agreement. She finds that the form and substance of the notices proposed by the parties will comply with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) after several corrections are made. With respect to the Email and Postcard Notice the notice informs class members that Granite unlawfully assessed certain "Relevant Fees," but it does not include the definition of that term. The notice should specify the type of fees at issue in the suit. Additionally, the notice states that Granite "has agreed to issue a credit to your Account, payment to you if you are no longer a member, and/or to return certain Relevant Fees." Stating that Granite may return "certain Relevant Fees" could confuse class members because class members will only receive a pro rata portion of the net settlement fund. The Long Form Notice is also deficient in several respects. First, it refers to a single class representative when there are two class representatives. Second, section one of the notice states that the "Class Representative has asserted a claim for breach of the Account agreement and violation of consumer protection laws." The class representatives did not assert a claim for breach of the account agreement, only a claim for violating Regulation E. Third, section four refers to "one or both of the Settlement Classes." There is only one settlement class in this case. Finally, the notice states that objections need only be sent to the Settlement Administrator. The parties will submit the proposed notices reflecting the changes. The Court will review the amended notices on an expedited basis. Once the court approves them, it will schedule the fairness hearing and other related deadlines. Finally, the Agreement affords settlement class members the opportunity to opt-out by sending written notice to the Settlement Administrator. Judge McCafferty approves and adopts the procedure and manner governing all requests to be excluded from the Class as outlined in the Agreement. The Agreement also affords class members the opportunity to object by sending written notice to the Settlement Administrator, class counsel, defense counsel, and the clerk of the court. As already noted, the Court will only require written notice of objections to be sent to the clerk of the court. The Court otherwise approves and adopts the manner for objecting to the proposed settlement outlined in the Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCafferty grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and finds she likely will be able to certify the proposed class for the purposes of settlement. She appoints KCC LLC to administer the settlement and provisionally appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel of record as the settlement class counsel and the Plaintiffs as the settlement class representatives. Once the Court approves the updated notices, Judge McCafferty will schedule the fairness hearing and other related deadlines. She approves the opt-out and objection procedures outlined by the parties, subject to the change she noted, and directs the parties to submit updated proposed notice forms to bring them into conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6btuc7 from Leagle.com. HOVG LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Collection of Debt ---------------------------------------------------------- Mikegibb of Accounts Recovery reports that whether or not to use the Model Validation Notice is a debate that has existed since Regulation F went into effect. Some collection operations have chosen not to use the MVN, and just tried to make sure they had all the information in their letters that is required. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for not including all the information that is purportedly required in an initial communication. The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid medical debt. On the back of the letter was a disclosure, under the heading "Consumer Rights." The disclosure said: Unless you notify this office by April 3, 2023 that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing by April 3, 2023 that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of the judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request this office in writing by April 3, 2023, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. Go to www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection to learn more about consumer protections in debt collection. The complaint accuses the defendant of not informing the plaintiff that if the consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof that the defendant would cease collection of the debt or the disputed portion of the debt until the defendant sends the consumer either verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment. That portion of the disclosure is included in the Model Validation Notice. Along with being distressed, embarrassed, and humiliated, the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer various emotional harms including, but not limited to, increased heartrate, difficulty with sleep, anxiety, and stress associated with the number of calls she was being disturbed with for a debt that should have never been associated with her, according to the complaint. The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone in Texas who received similar letters from the defendant where all of the required disclosure notice under Section 1006.34(c)(3)(i) of Regulation F was not included. [GN] HP INC: Court Rejects Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Printer Ink ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zak Killian of Hot Hardware reports that anyone who has ever owned an inkjet printer, or worked in IT for any amount of time, is almost certainly aware of this reality: when the ink runs out in your multi-function printer-scanner-copier thingamajig, you can't use it -- even if you just want to scan a document, which has nothing to do with the remaining ink. There's no denying it, either; it's been well-known for at least a decade. Despite this, HP is trying to dodge a class-action lawsuit brought against them by angry customers who would really like to be able to scan and fax documents even when they are out of ink. Actually, the judge, Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California, originally dismissed the complaint on legal grounds, but did not address the lawsuit's claims and allowed the plaintiffs to amend the claim and resubmit it. They did so, and on August 10th, the judge then rejected HP's request to dismiss the now-revised complaint. That means the case will proceed. In the past, HP has issued firmware updates to block customers from using third-party or refilled ink cartridges as well. However, HP is hardly the only company that does this, though it is the only printer company that also has an ink subscription service that sends you ink cartridges which can't be used if your subscription expires. Which isn't to say that other printer manufacturers are innocent of similar behavior. Epson also got called out for blocking third-party ink with firmware updates, and caused outrage last year when it came out that its printers could brick themselves over a minor maintenance issue. In a more humorous issue, Canon had to teach customers how to break their own DRM protection on its cartridges, and it also got dinged by a lawsuit in 2021 for the very same thing HP is being accused of doing now. Hopefully, the outcome of these legal proceedings will result in consumers being treated more fairly with respect to the products that they buy, own and maintain. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Delays $200M Settlement in Theft Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- WISN reports that a federal judge on August 16, 2023 delayed approval of a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit prompted by a surge in Hyundai and Kia vehicle thefts, saying it fails to provide "fair and adequate" relief to vehicle owners. The proposed settlement, announced in May, could be valued at $200 million and covers about 9 million 2011-2022 model year Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the U.S., the companies said at the time. These cars are not equipped with push-button ignitions and immobilizing anti-theft devices. That has allowed thieves to easily steal them using just a screwdriver and a USB cord, creating a recent rash of auto thefts across the country. The proposed settlement would offer vehicle owners cash payments for theft-related damage and a voluntary recall to update theft-protection software. But U.S. District Judge James Selna raised concerns about the process for calculating payments and the adequacy of the software update in preventing future thefts. The two automakers announced that update early in 2023, saying it would address a security flaw that was exposed on TikTok and other social media sites. But in May, The Associated Press reported that thieves were still driving off with Kia and Hyundai vehicles at alarming rates. The news agency gathered data from eight U.S. cities and found that in seven of them, police had reported substantial year-over-year increases in theft reports through April. In an Aug. 11 letter, the attorneys general of six states and the District of Columbia urged Judge Selna to require automakers to install antitheft technology known as engine immobilizers in all theft-prone Hyundai and Kia vehicles, possibly in combination with a vehicle buyback program, in place of the update and cash payments. [GN] INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Foster Children Care -------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Downard of Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that ten children in the state's foster care system sued the Indiana Department of Child services (DCS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on August 16, 2023, alleging that the agency failed to provide for the children's care and left them in placements known to be "dangerous." "DCS's system failures are well-known to state officials, who have failed to act to address those failures. The lawsuit seeks a range of remedies, including lower caseloads, the development of additional, appropriate placements and services, and far better accountability," a press release from the national nonprofit A Better Childhood said. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. and the court issued summons to the defendants on August 17, 2023. The state has 21 days to reply. Attorneys with A Better Childhood, SouthBank Legal and Kirkland & Ellis LLP are representing the children and pursuing class action status on behalf of all children in the state's foster system. Defendants include Gov. Eric Holcomb and DCS Director Eric Miller. The filed complaint includes a detailed account of each child's experiences, noting places where attorneys believed DCS failed to protect the children such as unsuitable placements with caregivers who ignored treatment plans as well as not securing immediate therapeutic services for severely traumatized children. All of the children named in the suit use pseudonyms. The children are between the ages of 8 and 16 and many have spent more than half of their lifetimes in the foster system. A few examples include Joshua, a 16-year-old boy who has been in DCS custody for nine years. During that time, DCS bounced Joshua between 22 placements. Another young boy was reunified with his mother and then his step-father killed his brother. The group filed a similar lawsuit in 2019 that ultimately was dismissed. Caseworkers are in short supply and experience high turnover, according to the complaint, aggravating a child's trauma following abuse or neglect. The complaint accuses DCS of prematurely closing cases as recently as 2021 to reduce caseload numbers in order to comply with an internal policy directing caseworkers to refer 50% of their cases for expedited closure. The suit also claims that average time in foster care has increased by more than 100 days -- 490 days to 596 days -- since 2017 when former DCS Director Mary Beth Bonaventura retired in a blistering resignation letter to Holcomb calling then-Chief of Staff Eric Miller, "the greatest threat to this agency and child welfare." Miller was appointed to lead DCS in May 2023. Additional accusations include filing petitions to terminate parental rights to meet a federal requirement but quickly dismissing them in a way that delays reunification or permanent placements as well as the over-reliance upon psychotropic medication and institutionalization of foster children due to a statewide shortage of foster homes. "Children in Indiana are literally dying," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, the executive director of A Better Childhood in a release. "Tragically, the child welfare system in Indiana continues to ignore the needs of its most vulnerable children. It is critical that this agency and the state are held accountable for what they are doing to the children they are required to protect. These children have nowhere else to turn and that's why we are seeking the assistance of the federal court." [GN] INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm of Businesswire reports that the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: INFI) between January 5, 2022 and July 24, 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 16, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Infinity 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 Infinity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18465 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 16, 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: The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements. On February 23, 2023, before the stock market opened, Infinity announced via a webcast(the "Webcast") that it had entered into a merger agreement with MEI Pharma, Inc. ("MEI") The proposed transaction was all stock, pursuant to which Infinity shareholders will receive shares of MEI common stock. During the Webcast, Defendant Perkins stated Infinity would "prioritize head and neck cancer." No mention at all was made of breast cancer treatments. It was as if MARIO-4 and MARIO-P never existed, and TNBC was never a priority for eganelisib treatment. This pivot did not go unnoticed by the stock market, and the value of Infinity stock plummeted. Infinity stock had closed at $0.55 on February 22, 2023. On July 24, 2023, Infinity announced that it was terminating the merger, because MEI did not obtain stockholder approval for the merger. On July 24, 2023, Infinity announced that it was terminating the merger, because MEI did not obtain stockholder approval for the merger. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Infinity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18465 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 [GN] INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces DeCarvalho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DECARVALHO, individually and for others similarly situated v. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE STAFFING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-01138-MO (D. Or., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff DeCarvalho was employed by Integrated Healthcare Staffing, LLC as a corporate recruiter from approximately July 2020 until October 2020. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but IHS never paid these recruiters overtime compensation. Instead of paying overtime, IHS misclassified DeCarvalho and the Putative Class Members as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime wages, says the Plaintiff. IHS provides nationwide medical staffing solutions that employ recruiters to find and place technicians, caregivers, medical assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Whitney Stark, Esq. ALBIES, STARK & GUERRIERO 1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1850 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 308-4770 Facsimile: (503) 427-9292 E-mail: whitney@albiesstark.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, 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 rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com KING'S COLLEGE: Dantone Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ----------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DANTONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING'S COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01365-MEM (M.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for damages and restitution resulting from King's retention of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person education and services that were contracted for but were not provided. In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, King's College, like many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the pro-rated, unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other putative Class members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of whom they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial prorated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product that they received. Plaintiff Dantone is an adult, who at all relevant times, is and was a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Halfway through the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff was forced to take his classes remotely, retrain from visiting campus, and prevented from utilizing various on-campus services for which he paid. King's College is a private liberal arts college founded in 1946.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com LADLES SOUPS: S.C. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chappell Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Teri Chappell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellant v. Ladles Soups - James Island, LLC, et al., Respondents, Opinion No. 2023-UP-277 (S.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirms the circuit court orders granting summary judgment to the Respondents. The other Respondents are Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups at Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun, LLC; Ladles Soups Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC; Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet, LLC; Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC; Ladles Franchising, Inc.; Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles Knightsville, LLC; Ladles West Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy Allen; Steve Traeger; Erik Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol Sutton; Jason Dalter; Kellie Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown Operating Company and Management Company Owners); John Doe 25-40 (Management Personnel), Defendants, Of Which Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC, Erik Dyke, and Julie Dyke, are Respondents. and Teri Chappell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Ladles Soups — James Island, LLC; Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups at Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun, LLC; Ladles Soups Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC; Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet, LLC; Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC; Ladles Franchising, Inc.; Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles Knightsville, LLC; Ladles West Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy Allen; Steve Traeger; Erik Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol Sutton; Jack Dalter; Kellie Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown Operating Company and Management Company Owners); John Doe 25-40 (Management Personnel), Defendants, Of Which Ladles Franchising, Inc., Ladlessoups, LLC, Sue Allen, and Tracy Allen, are Respondents. and Teri Chappell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Ladles Soups — James Island, LLC; Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups at Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun, LLC; Ladles Soups Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC; Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet, LLC; Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC; Ladles Franchising, Inc.; Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles Knightsville, LLC; Ladles West Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy Allen; Steve Traeger; Erik Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol Sutton; Jack Dalter; Kellie Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown Operating Company and Management Company Owners); John Doe 25-40 (Management Personnel), Defendants, Of Which Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC, Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC, Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC, Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC, Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC, Ladles Franchise Development, LLC, Ladles Fort Mill, LLC, Ladles Knightsville, LLC, Ladles West Ashley, Steve Traeger, Stan Sutton, Carol Sutton, and Kellie Henderson. Appellant Teri Chappell, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Craig Chappell, appeals the circuit court orders granting summary judgment to the Respondents in this class-action lawsuit against multiple locations and entities of Ladles Soups. As to all Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in (1) granting summary judgment because he did not have a full and fair opportunity to complete discovery and (2) finding the Appellant lacked standing. As to the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Charleston Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court additionally erred in granting summary judgment because the court had not heard his motion for class certification. As to the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Franchising Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in not finding an issue of triable fact for the jury existed. As to the Franchising Respondents, he argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because the Franchising Respondents were employers liable under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA). Finally, as to the Charleston Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in failing to deem admitted certain requests for admission. Chappell was an employee at the Ladles Soups restaurant on James Island and was paid an hourly wage, plus tips. Although he worked for and earned credit card and cash tips, he was allowed to retain only some cash tips while the restaurant retained the credit card tips. Chappell asserted he was immediately terminated when he complained about the policy of withholding credit card tips. On Feb. 14, 2018, Chappell brought a lawsuit against the Respondents on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging class-action causes of action for failure to pay wages under the SCPWA, breach of contract, and conversion. He alleged Ladles Soups, as part of a company-wide policy, wrongfully and intentionally withheld credit card tips that were rightfully intended for himself and others similarly situated in violation of the SCPWA. It is undisputed that Chappell was an employee of Ladles Soups James Island only, and he was never employed by any other Ladles Soups store. Each Ladles Soups is independently owned and operated, and Chappell had no contractual relationship with any of the defendants except Ladles Soups James Island, which is not a respondent in these appeals. Numerous of the Respondents testified in depositions. Julie Dyke, co-owner with Erik Dyke of Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC, testified that she and Erik were the sole members of Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, a separate franchise. Dyke stated Chappell never worked at Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant. She testified that each month, all credit card tips for Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant are "distributed among all the employees based on how many hours they work." She also testified she attended meetings once or twice a year with the Ladles Soups franchisor and other Ladles Soups franchisees where a tipping policy and wages were discussed. At an Oct. 29, 2019 hearing, the Mount Pleasant Respondents' counsel stated that they "urn over the tips, the credit card tips, through a bonus program to the employees. Sue Allen, a Franchising Respondent and Chief Executive Officer of Ladles Franchising, testified that while she owned Ladles Soups locations, she paid her employees hourly wages and retained the credit card tips to subsidize the employees' hourly wage. The employees split the cash tips. However, Allen stated there was no company-wide policy concerning the handling of credit card or cash tips. Non-respondents also testified in depositions. Corey Paul, a franchise owner, testified that his employees did not get credit card tips, but they received cash tips as a bonus to their hourly wage. Paul explained that employees were hired as non-tipped employees. Teri Owens, owner of Ladles Soups James Island, stated the credit card tips went into the business to pay employees a higher pay rate and the cash tips were kept by the employees. Chappell filed a motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on June 13, 2018, when he was unable to effect service on all parties. The Mount Pleasant Respondents filed their answer to the complaint on June 20, 2018. The Franchising Respondents filed an answer on Aug. 1, 2018. The Charleston Respondents filed six separate answers on July 18 and 26, 2018. On July 24, 2018, the Charleston Respondents filed a motion to disallow class certification and a motion to dismiss improper parties pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court held a hearing on the Charleston Respondents' motions to disallow class certification and to dismiss, and the court denied the motions on Jan. 29, 2019, by form orders. In denying the motions, the court stated, "the Plaintiff, despite filing the present action as a 'class action,' never moved to certify the class." The Respondents also filed motions for summary judgment. On Sept. 11, 2019, Chappell filed a motion for class certification. By orders issued Jan. 7, 2020, the court denied Chappell's motion for class certification by form order and granted the Mount Pleasant Respondents' motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment to the Franchising Respondents and the Charleston Respondents by orders filed Jan. 30, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2020. Chappell moved to reconsider the orders granting summary judgment. The court denied the motion as to the Charleston Respondents, finding no hearing was necessary. The records on appeal indicate no hearing was held or orders issued as to the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Franchising Respondents. These appeals follow. First, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because he did not have a full and fair opportunity to complete discovery. The Court of Appeals disagrees. Viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Appellant, the Court of Appeals finds Chappell did not provide a sufficient reason why further discovery might create a genuine issue for trial. Therefore, it finds the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment. Next, Appellant argues the circuit court erred in finding Chappell lacked standing. Again, the Court of Appeals disagrees. Chappell admitted he was employed only by Ladles James Island, LLC; thus, the Court of Appeals finds under the SCWPA, which requires an employer/employee relationship to maintain a claim, he did not have statutory standing as to the Respondents. Thus, it finds the circuit court did not err in finding Chappell did not have standing. The Appellant also argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment prior to hearing Chappell's motion for class certification and prior to allowing discovery on the class action issues. The Court of Appeals disagrees. It says a plaintiff cannot maintain a class action where the record indicates he was not directly harmed by the defendant's actions. Because it determined Chappell was not directly harmed by any Respondents in its discussion of standing, it finds the circuit court did not err in granting the Respondents' motions for summary judgment while the class action status was pending. The Appellant then argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because the Franchising Respondents were employers liable under the SCPWA. The Court of Appeals disagrees. It finds that the Franchise Agreement is devoid of any reference to the franchisees' compensation policies. Even if all franchises had a policy of withholding tips, no evidence an agency relationship existed that changed the relationship of Chappell to employee-employer with any of the Respondents. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Respondents on Chappell's SCPWA claim because none of Respondents were Chappell's employers. The Appellant further argues the circuit court erred in not finding an issue of triable fact for the jury regarding the tipping policies of the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Franchising Respondents. As expected, the Court of Appeals disagrees. Viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Appellant, it finds the evidence as a whole is susceptible of only one reasonable inference -- that the Franchising Respondents never came into possession of Chappell's credit card tips. Thus, no jury issue existed and the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Franchising Respondents. Finally, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in failing to deem admitted certain requests for admission by the Charleston Respondents. The Court of Appeals disagrees holding that the Appellant's failure to appeal the Jan. 7, 2020 order prohibits review by this court, and the issue concerning the denial of his requests for admissions is the law of the case. Accordingly, the orders on appeal are affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vk5msyfp from Leagle.com. Benjamin Scott Whaley Le Clercq -- ben@leclercqlaw.com -- and David D. Ashley -- david@leclercqlaw.com -- both of the Le Clercq Law Firm, P.C., of Mount Pleasant, for the Appellant. Peter Brandt Shelbourne, of Shelbourne Law Firm, of Summerville, for Respondents Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC, Erik Dyke, and Julie Dyke. Kerry W. Koon, of Kerry W. Koon, Attorney at Law, and Michael Evan Lacke, of Lacke Law Firm, LLC, both of Charleston, for Respondents Ladles Franchising Inc., Ladlessoups, LLC, Sue Allen, and Tracy Allen. Paul B. Ferrara, II -- paul@ferraralawfirm.net -- and Janel Kleinhardt Ferrara -- janel@ferraralawfirm.net -- both of Ferrara Law Firm, PLLC, of North Charleston, for Respondents Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC, Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC, Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC, Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC, Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC, Ladles Franchise Development, LLC, Ladles Fort Mill, LLC, Ladles Knightsville, LLC, Ladles West Ashley, Steve Traeger, Stan Sutton, Carol Sutton, and Kellie Henderson. LIVE NATION: Faces Donley Securities Suit Over Anticompetitive Acts ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICHAEL RAPINO, and JOE BERCHTOLD, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06343 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the alleged Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation securities between February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including charging high fees and extended contracts with talent, and retaliated against venues; (2) that, as a result, Live Nation was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face fines, penalties, and reputational harm; and (3) that, 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, says the suit. Live Nation is live entertainment company and concert and ticketing platform operating in 48 countries. The company owns, operates, and has exclusive booking rights for a number of global venues and claims to be one of the world's leading artist managements companies. Through Ticketmaster, Live Nation provides ticket sales and resale services for concerts, sporting events, performing arts experiences, festivals, museums, and theaters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.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 M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M-F Athletic Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. M-F Athletic Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06211-SHS (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. M-F Athletic Company, Inc. doing business as Everything Track & Field -- https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/ -- provides sporting and recreation goods. The Company offers training in various track and field events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com - and - Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MAMCO INC: Court Dismisses Morales Class Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sunshine S. Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismisses without prejudice the case, ALEJANDRO A. MORALES, Plaintiff v. MAMCO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00823-SSS-SHKx (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismissing Class Action Claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdej47ah from Leagle.com. MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Kostov Seeks to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KOSTOV, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT d/b/a VALLEYWISE HEALTH, an Arizona special healthcare district, Case No. 2:23-cv-00613-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional certification of and authorization to send notice to the following class: "All hourly, non-exempt Valleywise Health employees who received an automatic meal period deduction at any time during the past 3 years ("Meal Break Class Members" or "Meal Break Class")." To facilitate notice, Kostov also requests the Court order Valleywise to provide Kostov's counsel with a list of all Class Members including each Class Member's name, job title(s), dates of work, last known address and telephone number, and last known email address within ten days of the Court's order. Kostov further requests the Court approve his proposed notice and consent forms and methods set forth in his proposed order. Kostov seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to him and other employees of Maricopa County Special Health Care District. He says Valleywise violated the FLSA by automatically deducting 30 minutes from their recorded time for meal breaks even if they worked through all or part of their "meal break." Valleywise operates hospitals and other healthcare facilities across Maricopa County, Arizona. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9eq7U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Olivia R. Beale, 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 obeale@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 Facsimile: (602) 926-1479 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Tracy A. Miller, Esq. J. Alexander Dattilo, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Esplanade Center III, Suite 800 2415 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 778-3700 Facsimile: (602) 778-3750 E-mail: tracy.miller@ogletree.com alexander.dattilo@ogletree.com MAURICES INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maurices Incorporated. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maurices Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-07139 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Maurices Inc. -- http://www.maurices.com/-- stylized as maurices, is an American women's clothing retail chain based in Duluth, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Omari Robinson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MCGEE AIR SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23-CIV-00922 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04190. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims arising out of their employment with Defendant for: unpaid overtime; unpaid minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records; wages not timely paid upon termination; failure to timely pay wages during employment; unreimbursed business expenses; unlawful business practices; and unfair business practices all in violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Bivens Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEMBERS Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Allen Bivens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEMBERS Life Insurance Company doing business as: Trustage Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00549-slc (W.D. Wis., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. MEMBERS Life Insurance Company -- https://membersproducts.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers life, accident, and health insurance throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com MEMORIAL HEART: Jackson Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Heart Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Sidney Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Memorial Heart Institute, LLC, d/b/a The Chattanooga Heart Institute, Case No. 1:23-cv-00174 (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Memorial Heart Institute, LLC, doing business as The Chattanooga Heart Institute (CHI Memorial) -- https://www.memorial.org/ -- is a leading provider of compassionate, high-quality health care throughout Tennessee and Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Luke Widener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay St. Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: lwidener@milberg.com META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Swath of Medical Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Gennaro of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge will allow large portions of a class action filed by plaintiffs who claim their medical privacy was violated by Meta's Pixel tracking tool to proceed. In their complaint, the plaintiffs say Meta knew or should have known that its Pixel tracking tool was being used on hospital websites to collect the private medical information of users. The data then went to Meta, which used the data to create personalized ads the plaintiffs say. At least 664 hospital systems or medical provider web properties sent patient data to Meta through the Pixel tool. The collection of this data -- in the absence of a HIPAA authorization -- violates Meta's own privacy promise to its users, the plaintiffs say. Meta had promised users that the Pixel and other tracking tools required partners to have the lawful right to collect and share the data before providing the data to Meta. Meta's lawyers sought to dismiss the case and argued at a hearing on August 16, 2023 that there was nothing inherently unlawful about the use of the Pixel tool to collect data. Web developers, not Meta, are responsible for making sure they have the proper permission and legal right to share any data they collect, Meta argued, and developers are also responsible for what information is shared. "Meta explains to web developers exactly how to meet their obligation to avoid sending sensitive data to Meta," Meta's attorney Lauren Goldman told Senior U.S. District Judge William Orrick III. In a tentative order ahead of the hearing, Orrick denied Meta's motion to dismiss extraterritoriality and Wiretap Act claims, finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the data collection occurred in California and that Meta had not met its burden of proof to show that health care providers were given sufficient consent by the social media giant to collect sensitive medical information. Goldman said the wiretap claims should be dismissed because there was no intent for Meta to receive the health data. She also argued that extraterritoriality claims should be thrown out since they are based on California law and none of the class plaintiffs is a California resident. "There's no statutory or common law doctrine that would allow the plaintiffs to impose liability upon Meta for the decision of third parties to send Meta data that it doesn't want, that it has contractually barred them from sending in," Goldman said. Goldman said that plaintiffs had failed to show that Meta intercepted any communications "consciously and deliberately," and because of that failure, wiretap claims should be dismissed. "Plaintiffs' main argument is that Meta knew it was receiving some sensitive health data and didn't do enough to prevent those transmissions," Goldman said, adding it does not prove intent to deliberately intercept the data. Class attorney Jay Barnes said consent is "never presumed" in wiretap cases and that there was no specific evidence of any health care provider consenting to send Meta the data in question. That is Meta's burden to prove, Barnes said. "One way to prove it would be to show specific warnings to health care providers saying 'we don’t want this data, stop sending it to us,'" Barnes said. Barnes said Meta designed the Pixel and encouraged health care providers to adopt it. He said that he had sent Meta a list of web properties that it was still receiving medical information from, in violation of HIPAA. "They've been on notice for a long time that they're collecting this information without authorization," Barnes said. Orrick also advanced larceny, California Invasion of Privacy Act and unjust enrichment claims. He allowed larceny claims under the precedent Calhoun v. Google LLC, where a federal judge found the collection of user data without consent constitutes theft. The judge advanced the invasion of privacy claims California criminal law prohibits individuals from using electronic tracking devices to determine the location or movement of a person. Unjust enrichment claims can proceed in the alternative, Orrick wrote. Notable dismissed claims include Unfair Competition Law claims, Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims, and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claims. Orrick said the unfair competition claims fail because the plaintiffs did not claim "lost money or property." "Even if the value of health care information qualifies as 'lost property' there are no allegations that plaintiffs actually intended to participate in that market," Orrick wrote. [GN] METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff FRANK SAVEL filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023 and Judgment dated July 17, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANK SAVEL, et al. v. THE METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. On November 30, 2022, Frank Savel and 45 named Co-Plaintiffs sued The MetroHealth System in a putative class action for religious discrimination. The Plaintiffs work or formerly worked as MetroHealth employees. They argue that during Fall 2021 and Spring 2022, MetroHealth adopted mandatory workplace COVID-19 vaccination policies that discriminated against Plaintiffs' religious beliefs and created hostile working environments. After earlier announcing a mandatory vaccination deadline, MetroHealth reevaluated its vaccine policy and granted exemptions to all of the Plaintiffs who were still working at MetroHealth. The rest had resigned before MetroHealth ever took any adverse employment action against them. On July 12, 2023, the Court found that some Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury sufficient to give standing to bring their Title VII and Ohio Revised Code Section 4112 claims. The remainder fail to state claims for religious discrimination under Title VII and R.C. Section 4112 because they do not allege that they have been disciplined, discharged, or subjected to materially adverse employment actions. Separately, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek prospective relief for federal and state constitutional claims, those claims are either moot or not ripe. For this reason, the Court GRANTED Defendant MetroHealth's March 23, 2023 motion to dismiss as to all counts. On July 17, 2023, the Court having entered an Opinion and Order on July 12, dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate case is captioned as Frank Savel v. MetroHealth System, Case No. 23-3672, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant brief is due on September 25, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due on October 25, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK SAVEL, and Named Plaintiffs 2-46, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jon A. Troyer, Esq. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 100 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 563-4949 Defendant-Appellee METROHEALTH SYSTEM is represented by: Ami J. Patel, Esq. ZASHIN & RICH 950 Main Avenue, Fourth Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-4441 MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Appeal on May 25, 2023 Order Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE MCCOLLUM, v. MICHAEL H.W. PRIES, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01710-SHR-SM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Sylvia H. Rambo entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff McCollum's motion to appeal the Court's May 25, 2023, Order denying him class certification is deemed withdrawn; and 2. Plaintiff's motion requesting the Court to issue an Order directing "SCI Pine Grove Admin to Grant Him Indigent Status" is denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OWrZ3i at no extra charge.[CC] MIKU INC: Clardy Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ben Clardy, Stephanie Emberton, Meredith Ridge, Elizabeth Bowen, Shanita Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miku, Inc., Case No. 23STCV15456 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06542-MCS-MAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Miku -- https://mikucare.com/ -- is a pediatric wellness platform, creating products that make it easy to monitor and understand your child's health and wellness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David William Hall, Esq. Hedin Hall LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Fax: (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com The Defendant is represented by: Garrett Scott Llewellyn, Esq. BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Fax: (310) 284-3894 Email: garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com MILLIMAN INC: Soto Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milliman Inc. The case is styled as Jose Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Milliman Inc. doing business as: Milliman Intelliscript Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01236-RAJ (W.D. Wash., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Milliman -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- formerly Milliman & Robertson, is an international actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St., Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com MISSFRESH LIMITED: Faces Chen Securities Suit in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Missfresh Limited 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 in July 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company, certain of its directors and officers, its authorized U.S. representative and IPO underwriters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned "Chen v. Missfresh Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-04065. On November 3, 2022, the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which alleges, in sum and substance, that the company's prospectus and registration statement filed in connection with its June 2021 initial public offering contained false or misleading statements in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws. In January 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in February 2023. The case otherwise remains in its preliminary stage. Missfresh Limited is a Cayman Islands holding company with operations primarily conducted by its subsidiaries based in China. MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Rezendes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jesse Rezendes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10211 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Aug. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00839 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. -- http://www.mitsubishicars.com/-- is the U.S. operation of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, overseeing sales and research and development functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Email: jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (888) 953-6237 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Jason M. Richardson, Esq. Joan R. Camagong, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Fax: (415) 391-0281 Email: anassihi@shb.com jmrichardson@shb.com jcamagong@shb.com - and - Stephen I. Hansen, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 1 Federal Street, Suite 2540 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (860) 559-3007 Email: sihansen@shb.com MULTICOIN CAPITAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Multicoin Capital Management, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00838 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23048 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Multicoin Capital -- https://multicoin.capital/ -- is a thesis-driven investment firm that invests in cryptocurrencies, tokens, and blockchain companies reshaping trillion-dollar markets.[BN] MULTIPLAN CORP: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Multiplan Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 28, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing relating to the Delaware stockholder litigation and approved the settlement, with the court ruling becoming final 30 days thereafter. On March 25, 2021 the company was named as a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits relating to the merger with Churchill Capital Corp III that were then consolidated under the caption "In Re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated C.A. No. 2021-0300-LWW (Del. Ch.). The Delaware Stockholder Litigation asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former directors of the Churchill board, the Churchill Sponsor III LLC, The Klein Group and M. Klein, and the Company. The Delaware Stockholder Litigation complaint alleged that the Transactions were a product of an unfair process by Churchill, which was allegedly impacted by conflicts of interest, resulting in mispricing of the merger. The complaint sought, among other things, damages, certain equitable relief including the reopening of redemptions, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On January 3, 2022, the Chancery Court issued a ruling granting in part the company's motion to dismiss and denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Churchill defendants. While the Company was dismissed from the Delaware Stockholder Litigation, the consolidated lawsuit proceeded against the Churchill Defendants. The company had previously agreed to indemnify certain of the Churchill defendants with respect to the Delaware Stockholder Litigation. On November 17, 2022, the company and the parties to the Delaware Stockholder Litigation entered into a settlement agreement to fully and finally resolve the Delaware stockholder litigation. In connection with the settlement, the company and its insurers paid $33.75 million in exchange for a broad release of all claims related to the business combination and ownership of Churchill stock and warrants from February 19, 2020 through October 8, 2020. The settlement was paid pursuant to the company's indemnification obligations and from available director and officer insurance policies. Multiplan Corporation is a provider of data analytics and technology-enabled solutions for healthcare industry. NABORS COMPLETION: Figueroa Awarded $713K in Damages & Attys.' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDUARDO FIGUEROA, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:23-cv-08163-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants Figueroa's Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against NABORS. On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway, and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action"). On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section 2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Figueroa, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. Figueroa's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Jeffrey King (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award issued April 25, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Richard D. Aldrich, (Ret.) on Oct. 27, 2022, in favor of Figueroa. On Nov. 8, 2022, Figueroa filed the instant Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On July 31, 2023, the Court issued its Order Re: Petitioner's Motion To Confirm Final Arbitration Award And For Further Attorneys' Fees And Costs, granted Figueroa's motion, confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Richard D. Aldrich in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058991, and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. Therefore, Judge Pregerson orders that Figueroa will recover against NABORS in the amount of $409,857.96 in damages and $303,710 in attorneys' fees, as awarded by the Arbitrator. Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,444 and for costs in the amount of $402. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/6xa8puk5 from Leagle.com. Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas -- skokonas@donahoo.co -- DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, in Tustin, CA. NEW YORK TIMES: Class Suit Settlement Over Auto-Renewals Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker of Bloomberg Law reports that a class action settlement to resolve claims over The New York Times' subscription auto-renewal practices has been vacated, after the Second Circuit said the district court applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the deal. The district court also failed to adequately evaluate the substantive fairness of the settlement in light of the attorneys' fee award and incentive award, it said. Although such errors could conceivably be harmless, Judge Gerard E. Lynch said that wasn’t the case here. Before Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was codified, courts applied a presumption of fairness to agreements resulting from arms-length negotiations. But the presumption is no longer appropriate, according to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's on August 17, 2023 decision. Courts must instead look to the four factors laid out in the rule to "holistically" evaluate the substantive and procedural fairness of a proposed settlement or other resolution, Lynch said. Coupon Settlements, Fees Lynch also said the $1.25 million attorneys' fee award—representing about 76% of the $1.65 million settlement fund—violates the Class Action Fairness Act's requirement for coupon settlements. The settlement agreement allowed class members to choose between an access code that would provide one-month NYT subscriptions or pro rata cash payments. Under CAFA, when a settlement involves coupons, courts are supposed to calculate contingent attorneys' fees based on the value of coupons actually redeemed, rather than their total face value. Because the district court incorrectly concluded the case wasn't subject to CAFA's coupon settlement provisions, it judged the propriety of the attorneys' fees award based on the value of the entire settlement, including the access codes, which had a face value of $3.9 million. Although class members don't have to hand over more money before they can take advantage of the access codes, they do require the class members to continue doing business with the defendant. They are also only available for "select products or services," and while good for 50 years, they are still "somewhat inflexible" and can't be used like cash, Lynch said. Lynch rejected the argument that the availability of a cash option should alter the coupon-or-not analysis. CAFA's directive applies to any "proposed settlement under which class members would be awarded coupons," Lynch said. Objector Eric Alan Isaacson also challenged the class representative's incentive award as per se unlawful. But "providing incentive payments to class representatives for their role in advancing litigation is, on its own, insufficient to create conflict of interest," Lynch said. Lynch said the court wasn't suggesting that the district court must "overturn the settlement" but was simply directing it to recalculate attorneys fees and to reevaluate the settlement in compliance with Rule 23. Judges Barrington D. Parker and Raymond J. Lohier joined the decision. Isaacson represented himself. The class is represented by Bursor & Fisher PA. The New York Times is represented by Dentons US LLP. The case is Moses v. N.Y. Times Co., 2d Cir., No. 21-2556, 8/17/23. To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Barker in Washington at hbarker@bloombergindustry.com To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Deadline in Teagle Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 23, 2019), the Court entered an order granting the parties' joint request for a stay of the deadline to engage in dispositive motion practice until the Court renders a decision on the class certification motion. The nature of suit states civil rights -- Employment Discrimination. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson river meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NEWMAN MEMORIAL: Ketner Files Appeal with Kansas Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIORA KETNER has filed an appeal with the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals on August 8, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Eliora Ketner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant vs. Newman Memorial Hospital Foundation, d/b/a Newman Regional Health, Appellee, Case No. 23-126706. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eliora Ketner filed a lawsuit that was removed from the Sedgwick County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The removed case was captioned Eliora Ketner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newman Memorial Hospital Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01136, asserting breach of the Defendant's fiduciary duty. On June 15, 2022, the civil case was terminated following the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.[BN] O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Cull Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gary Cull, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2303008 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01623. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts five class action claims against the Defendant for: failure to provide meal; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; failure to indemnify; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Derek W. Paradis, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-7910 Phone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 Email: peterson@higgslaw.com paradisd@higgslaw.com OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Opendoor Technologies 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 in November 22, 2022, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona captioned "Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al." This was consolidated into a single action, captioned "In re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the company, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH), certain of the company's current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of a securities offering the company made in February 2021. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each case by making materially false or misleading statements related to the effectiveness of the company's pricing algorithm. The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act, respectively, which provide for control person liability. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, company common stock between December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering documents issued in connection with our business combination with SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in February 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which are pending before the court. Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for residential real estate that enables sellers and buyers of residential real estate to experience a simple and certain transactions. OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Suit Over Stock Offer Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Opendoor Technologies 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 a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM). This was consolidated into a single action, captioned "In re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the company, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH), certain of the company's current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of a securities offering the company made in February 2021. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each case by making materially false or misleading statements related to the effectiveness of the company's pricing algorithm. The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act, respectively, which provide for control person liability. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, company common stock between December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering documents issued in connection with our business combination with SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in February 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which are pending before the court. Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for residential real estate that enables sellers and buyers of residential real estate to experience a simple and certain transactions. OSATA ENTERPRISES: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osata Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Osata Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06221-JHR-SDA (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Osata Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Globe, retails apparel and footwear. The Company offers shoes, clothing, skateboards, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com - and - Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: David Stein, Esq. STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP 1441 Broadway, Suite 6090 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 308-3444 Fax: (212) 836-9595 Email: dstein@steinllp.com PARK AVENUE: De La Cruz Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------- Ramon De La Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Park Avenue South Management LLC, and Jorge Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06894 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff De La Cruz as a handyman, porter, and "super," in which position Plaintiff De La Cruz performed manual work including maintenance and repairs, such as throwing out the trash, mapping the building, as well as sweeping or shoveling the snow outside the building. Mr. De La Cruz has been employed in such a position by Defendants from March 20, 2017 until April 30, 2022. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff De La Cruz any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the suit. Park Avenue South Management LLC is a New York limited liability company that offers property management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com PEACHTREE ORTHOPAEDIC: Snider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A. The case is styled as Allyson Snider, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00156-RWS (N.D. Ga., Aug. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic P.A. -- https://peachtreeorthopedics.com/ -- operates as a health care provider. The Company offers orthopaedic services and specializes in sports medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Timothy Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 596-5610 Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.com - and - Nickolas Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Email: nick@attorneyzim.com - and - Paige L. Smith, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP-IL 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pension Benefit Information, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Elisa Feregrino, Melissa Seymour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Progress Software Corporation also known as: Progress, Case No. 0:23-cv-02176-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Pension Benefit Information, LLC (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is the leading provider of Research Services to the Pension, Insurance and Financial industry segments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Fax: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Paulyne Gardner, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: cmccarron@mullen.law pgardner@mullen.law - and - Emily Liebman, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com - and - Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 3300 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 672-8309 Fax: (612) 642-8309 Email: keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com - and - Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S 9th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 373-8394 Email: hhorrell@greeneespel.com PREMIER WASH: Greer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Bryant Greer, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PREMIER WASH, LLC, d/b/a FLEET CLEAN USA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00173-DCLC-SKL (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed similar tasks for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. The Defendant had an ineffective time-keeping system that did not accurately record all of the compensable time of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, including their overtime hours. As a result, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid for all their overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this lawsuit. In addition, Defendant has had a common practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all their earned overtime compensation within weekly pay periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee. The Defendant is a franchisee of Fleet Clean Systems, Inc. and has owned and operated a "fleet" cleaning service in Chattanooga, Tennessee and in Huntsville, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble Company. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Procter & Gamble Company doing business as: sk-ii, Case No. 1:23-cv-07126-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Procter & Gamble Company -- http://www.pginvestor.com/-- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quotewizard.com, LLC. The case is styled as Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quotewizard.com, LLC, Perform[CB], LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01566 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. QuoteWizard.com, LLC -- https://quotewizard.com/ -- provides online insurance services. The Company offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home, life, health, and renters insurances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. WEITZ FIRM LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS: Stout FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Stout, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Residential Elevators, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-00028560-CU-OE-CTL was removed from Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01479-JO-DEB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Residential Elevators -- https://www.residentialelevators.com/ -- has been producing the highest quality home elevators in the USA for over 25 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harmik Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 230-8380 Fax: (818) 230-0308 Email: david@yeremianlaw.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PLC 21900 Burbank Boulevard 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 992-2925 Fax: (818) 975-5525 Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com - and - Roman Shkodnik, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2540 Foothill Blvd., Suite 201 La Crescenta, CA 91214 Phone: (818) 230-8380 Fax: (818) 230-0308 The Defendants are represented by: Gary M McLaughlin, Esq. Kevin Elliot Gaut, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 312-2005 Fax: (310) 231-8311 Email: gmclaughlin@akingump.com keg@msk.com - and - Sandra Hanian, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON 333 S Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 620-1780 Fax: (213) 620-1398 Email: SHanian@sheppardmullin.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, 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 beginning in December 2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Five cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in May 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and various state law causes of action based on claims that the company violated the duty of best execution and misled putative class members by publishing misleading statements and omissions in customer communications relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, and other relief. In February 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, alleging only violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, which Robinhood moved to dismiss. In October 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion in part and denied it in part. In November 2022, Robinhood filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court denied in January 2023. Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save, and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade execution. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Outage Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, 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 a consolidated putative class action lawsuit relating to the service outages on its stock trading platform on March 2 to 3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit generally alleges that putative class members were unable to execute trades during the March 2020 Outages because the platform was inadequately designed to handle customer demand and the company failed to implement appropriate backup. Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save, and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade execution. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court OK's Settlement in Mehta Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, 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 in January 2021, a certain Siddharth Mehta filed a putative class action in California state court against its subsidiaries, purportedly on behalf of approximately 2,000 Robinhood customers whose accounts were allegedly accessed by unauthorized users. The company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff generally alleges that the company breached commitments made and duties owed to customers to safeguard customer data and assets and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In April 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement has been approved by the court. Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save, and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade execution. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Federal Antitrust Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, 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 in May 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the federal antitrust complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A number of individual and putative class actions related to the 2021 Trading Restrictions were filed against the company and its subsidiaries, among others, in various federal and state courts. In April 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order centralizing the federal cases identified in a motion to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the actions filed in connection with the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court subsequently divided plaintiffs' claims against Robinhood into three tranches: federal antitrust claims, federal securities law claims, and state law claims. In July 2021, plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints seeking monetary damages in connection with the federal antitrust and state law tranches. The federal antitrust complaint asserted one violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; the state law complaint asserted negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In August 2021, Robinhood moved to dismiss both of these complaints. In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting state law claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and business relationship, civil conspiracy, and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and implied duty of care. In January 2022, the court dismissed the state law complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In November 2021, the court dismissed the federal antitrust complaint without prejudice. In January 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in connection with the federal antitrust tranche and Robinhood moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save, and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade execution. ROCK-IT CARGO USA: Birdsong Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock-It Cargo USA LLC. The case is styled as Michael Birdsong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rock-It Cargo USA LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03073-JFM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Rock-it Global -- https://rockit.global/ -- is a freight forwarding and logistics company that serves vibrant industries of visionaries and event goers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market St., 52nd FL Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com RUA & SON MECHANICAL: Villacana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rua & Son Mechanical, Incorporated. The case is styled as Ferman Villacana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Daemen University, Case No. S-CV-0051033 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Aug. 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Rua & Son Mechanical -- https://www.ruainc.com/ -- is a full-service commercial roofing and wall panel system company serving all Northern and Central California.[BN] SAFETY SHOE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safety Shoe Distributors of OKI, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Safety Shoe Distributors of OKI, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07074 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Safety Shoe Distributors of O.K.I. -- https://safetyshoedistributors.com/ -- was established in October of 1987. SSD has been in the safety shoe business for over 35 years servicing industrial accounts in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Southern Illinois, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com SAFEWAY INC: Settles Stewart Meat Sale Dispute for $107M -------------------------------------------------------- Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 17, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that in February 17, 2023, plaintiffs and its subsidiary, Safeway Inc., executed an agreement that settled all claims in the lawsuit for $107.0 million. The settlement includes a claim administration process whereby affected customers, who do not elect to opt out of the settlement, file a claim to participate in the settlement. The court granted final approval of the class settlement through an order dated July 20, 2023. Said lawsuit is captioned "Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc." filed in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon. Plaintiffs have alleged that Safeway engaged in unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free" and similar promotions. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a food retailer based in Idaho. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appellate Court Denies DRAM Suit Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nikiforos Iatrou, Casey Halladay and Akiva Stern of Lexology report that the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the Federal Court's dismissal of a certification motion in Jensen v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2021 Federal Court 1185). The appeal stems from the underlying Federal Court decision of Justice Gascon (the 'motion judge') and follows its Quebec counterpart's ruling in Hazan v Micron Technology Inc (2023 QCCA 132), which upheld a lower court’s decision to scrutinise a class action at the authorisation phase where the plaintiff's pleadings were "mere assertions" (2023 QCCA 132 at para 10). Background The plaintiffs in Jensen commenced the proposed class action in May 2018, seeking $1 billion in damages from the defendants: three leading manufacturers of dynamic random-access memory chips (DRAM), a kind of semiconductor memory chip used in most computer products, including mobile phones and laptops. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached Sections 45 and 46 of the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring through direct communications in private meetings and public statements - or signalling - to each other to suppress the global supply of DRAM and increase DRAM prices. In February 2019 the plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding. The lower court's decision At the Federal Court of Canada, the motion judge dismissed the plaintiffs' motion because their claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action for breach of Sections 45 or 46 of the act (2021 Federal Court 1185 at para 69). The motion judge concluded that, at best, the facts pleaded would support an allegation that the defendants had engaged in "conscious parallelism", which is not in and of itself unlawful, nor is it sufficient to establish the defendants entered into an unlawful agreement - an "essential and prominent" component of a Section 45 conspiracy (2021 Federal Court 1185 at para 147; 2023 FCA 89 at para 59, citing 2021 Federal Court 1185 at para 146): [T]he Statement of Claim essentially invents a fictitious scenario of intent, communications and coordination between the Defendants that do not exist in or flow from the documents the Plaintiffs claim to paraphrase. Given the absence of material facts to support the plaintiffs' conspiracy claim, the motion judge held that the plaintiffs were similarly unable to establish the minimum evidentiary basis (ie, "some basis in fact") for their proposed common issues. The appeal The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the motion judge, who they alleged erred in finding that the plaintiffs' claim did not plead a reasonable cause of action and that the plaintiffs failed to provide some basis in fact for the conspiracy-related common issues. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, "wholeheartedly" agreeing with the motion judge's approach to certification: No rubber stamping The court's role and duty must go beyond conducting a symbolic review of a proposed class action at the certification stage. The certification process is a "meaningful screening device" for speculative claims. The analysis at this stage must be more than superficial. Probing the evidence While courts should refrain from conducting a full-blown merits analysis on certification, they should not allow purely speculative pleadings to be certified. Striking this balance requires the courts to engage in some level of evidentiary investigation to ensure that the allegations fairly represent the underlying evidence relied on to support their claim. No change in law The court rejected the plaintiffs' submission that their approach to the evidentiary investigation was a departure from the traditional two-step approach set out in Hollick v Toronto (City) (2001 SCC 68). In fact, it held that the test could not reasonably be applied without first deciding whether there is some basis for the allegations - which requires a review of some minimal evidence. The appeal court stressed that even at the certification stage, the allegations and the material facts and evidence put forward by the plaintiff need to be scrutinised. Such analysis does not uproot the entire class proceedings scheme as a result. Key takeaways The Federal Court of Appeal's decision sets out clearly how courts should strike the proper balance between assessing minimal evidence to support a claim and avoiding a full merits analysis. Both the Court of Appeal and the motion judge rejected the plaintiffs' contention that a requirement to lead some evidence to substantiate the allegations would necessitate a merits analysis at certification. While this evidentiary burden is low, it "cannot be so low as to be devoid of any meaning" (2023 FCA 89 at para 69). The decision also builds on the Federal Court of Appeal's commentary in Mohr v Hockey Canada (2022 FCA 145; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court denied in 2023 CanLII 31588 (SCC)) on the scope of permissible evidence in these types of motions, dismissing the notion that courts are confined solely to the pleadings in determining whether they disclose a reasonable cause of action. [GN] SAN ANGEL 2: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Graciela Fernandez Flores, and the similarly situated employees v. SAN ANGEL 2 OF ARKANSAS, INC. and FRANCISO JAVIER ROMO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00175-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation and under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act ("TVPA"). The Defendants, seizing upon Plaintiff's fears and vulnerability in the context of Mexico's increasing rates of violence against women, with just over 70% of 50.5 million women and girls over the age of 15 experiencing some form of violence, subjected Plaintiff to labor trafficking in the United States by placing her in significant economic debt, withholding her passport and visa, and making subtle threats of possible harm to her family. The Defendants violated Plaintiff's basic rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act to earn a minimum wage and overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a Workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a runner or "chipera" for the Defendants. San Angel 2 of Arkansas, Inc. doing business as Mi Pueblo conducts business as a Mexican restaurant and bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Ryan, Esq. Bryce W. Ashby, Esq. DONATI LAW, PLLC 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Phone: 901-278-1004 Fax: 901-278-3111 Email: bryce@donatilaw.com SARA COMPANION: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful & Unfair Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucia Rivera, on behalf of herself as well as all other similarly situated v. SARA COMPANION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SARA COMPANION HOMECARE SERVICES and Irwin J. White in his professional and individual capacities, Case No. 2:23-cv-06044-AMD-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought as an unlawful wage practices action seeking monetary damages for Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff fairly for the six years she spent providing round-the-clock in-home care to an elderly patient suffering from dementia. From September 2016 through October 2022, Plaintiff Lucia Rivera provided in home care to an elderly patient of Sara Companion Homecare Services ("SARA"), staying in her home from Monday through Friday each week, without receiving regular meal or sleep breaks. During those years, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required minimum wage, failed to pay her for all regular and overtime hours she worked; failed to pay her for the spread of hours, despite the fact her shifts regularly exceeded 10 hours a day; and failed to provide all necessary notices and explanations of pay in Spanish. The Plaintiff brings her wage claims as a collective action pursuant to FLSA on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons who were/are employed by Defendants as home attendants, home health aides, and all similar positions who, like her, were not compensated fully for their work, and were not provided required notices and explanations of pay during their employment with SARA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed as a home health aide (HHA) in New York since 2014. SARA is a New York corporation with a principal place of business located in Rosedale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mara Fleder, Esq. Joel A. Wertheimer, Esq. WERTHEIMER LLC 14 Wall Street, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (646) 720-1098 Email: joel@joelwertheimer.com mara@joelwertheimer.com SEBA ABODE: Court Certifies Classes in Wofford Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KWEILIN WOFFORD, TARA SEARS, and NICKI ODELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and RANJANA ROY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Uday Sankar Roy, Deceased, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order certifying the following classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): -- The PMWA Class (as to Count II) "All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba Abode, Inc. who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of working over 40 hours per workweek at any time from January 17, 2017 through the present;" and -- The Unjust Enrichment Class (as to Count III) "All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba Abode, Inc. who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of working over 40 hours per workweek at any time from January 17, 2016 through the present;" The Plaintiffs Kweilin Wofford and Tara Sears are appointed as class representatives of both classes. Edward J. Feinstein and Ruairi McDonnell of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec LLC and Joseph J. Pass, Joseph S. Pass, and Steven E. Winslow of Jubilerer Pass & Intrieri P.C. are appointed as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47qERpL at no extra charge.[CC] SECURIX LLC: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securix, LLC. The case is styled as Amy Divine, Karl Merchant, Columbus Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Securix, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. SECURIX -- https://www.securixsystems.com/ -- has established and operates Public Safety Companies in most states around the nation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Kelly Herrington, Esq. CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON, PLLC 120 North Congress Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 948-8005 Fax: (601) 948-8010 Email: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com SEVERN PEANUT COMPANY: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Severn Peanut Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Severn Peanut Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00817 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Severn Peanut Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes food products. The Company cleans farmer stock by shelling and roasting peanuts for manufacturing various snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SHAMROCK TOWING: Faces Anderson Suit Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL G. ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK TOWING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02517-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 4, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Wage Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio common law for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Anderson was employed by Defendant as tow-truck driver from November 2021 to July 2023. During his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff at one and one-half times his appropriate regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek regardless of whether an interstate trip actually took place for every four-month period of employment. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from his employment with Defendant because he inquired about how he and Defendant's current and former similarly situated employees were paid, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages penalties, interest, and other damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs that the Defendant owes to him and has failed to pay in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, the OPPA, and the Ohio common law. Shamrock Towing, Inc. is a for profit corporation licensed to do business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com SOTERA HEALTH: Sued Over SEC Misfiling in IPO Issue --------------------------------------------------- Sotera Health Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a putative stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on January 24, 2023, including its directors, certain senior executives, the company's private equity stockholders and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in November 2020 and its secondary public offering (SPO) in March 2021 (Michigan Funds Litigation). On April 17, 2023 the court appointed the Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (Michigan Funds) to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who acquired shares of the company in connection with its IPO or SPO between November 20, 2020 and September 19, 2022. The Michigan Funds allege that statements made regarding the safety of the company's use of ethylene oxide (EO), the litigation and other risks of its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration statements for the IPO and SPO) and violated Sections 10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (when made in subsequent securities filings and other contexts). On June 1, 2023 the Michigan Funds filed an Amended Complaint seeking damages and other relief on behalf of the Proposed Class. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed on August 2, 2023. In addition, on May 15, 2023 and July 25, 2023 the Company received demands pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 for inspection of its books and records from individual shareholders purporting to be investigating the company's internal operations, disclosure practices and other matters alleged and at issue in the Michigan Funds Litigation. Sotera Health Company is a global provider of mission-critical end-to-end sterilization solutions, lab testing and advisory services for the healthcare industry with operations primarily in the Americas, Europe and Asia. STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ELM ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELM One Call Locators, Inc. v Standard Insurance et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01281-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QFaR3f at no extra charge.[CC] STERLING INVESTMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in Coleman Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Neil M. Brozen, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Neil M. Brozen, Robert Peterson, Jr., Vasilia Peterson, Paul Generale, Mike Paxton, Nick Bouras and Sterling Investment Partners III, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-1358, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on May 27, 2020. The Plaintiffs seek to restore their employee benefit plan and recover any profits made by breaching fiduciaries through the use of Plan assets; and to obtain other appropriate equitable and legal remedies in order to redress violations and enforce the provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, including the return of the wrongfully redeemed RVNB stock to the Plan. On June 22, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court denied on July 12, 2023 through a Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge Ada Brown. The Court concluded that the Arbitration Procedure's Class Action Waiver is unenforceable because it prospectively waives Plaintiffs' statutory right to seek Plan-wide relief under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a). Because the Class Action Waiver is not severable from the Arbitration Procedure, the Court must conclude the entire Arbitration Procedure is unenforceable. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as Coleman v. Brozen, Case No. 23-10832, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Appellants Neil M. Brozen, et al., are represented by: Nicole Figueroa, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P. 2501 N. Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 295-8062 - and - Micah Randall Prude, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, L.L.P. 1722 Routh Street 1 Arts Plaza Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1700 Plaintiffs-Appellees Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, are represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P. 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 STREAMLINE PERFORMANCE: Neadle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Streamline Performance, Inc. The case is styled as Iyonna Neadle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Streamline Performance, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07108-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Streamline Performance -- https://www.streamlineperformance.net/ -- is premium auto repair and tire shop located in Honolulu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------- Stronghold Digital Mining, 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 on April 14, 2022, the company, and certain of its current and former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, about the its business, operations and prospects in its registration statement on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results, the company's stock price fell, causing significant losses and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 19, 2022, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On February 17, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. On March 20, 2023, the company filed a reply brief in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2023, the company made oral arguments in support of its motion to dismiss. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. is a computer processing and data preparation service company based in New York, New York. SUNRISE GROWERS: Correa Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fabiola Correa, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Growers, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-06087 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023), is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Frozen Fruit products (hereinafter the "Products") throughout the state of New York and throughout the country. The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption of the Products may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections. The Products contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk of serious infection is particularly concerning for pregnant mothers, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, who are highly susceptible to severe infection and even death from Listeria monocytogenes. The Defendant specifically lists both the active and inactive ingredients of the Products on the labeling; however, Defendant fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is responsible for causing the infection Listeria. Foodborne listeriosis is recognized to be one of the most dangerous and life-threatening foodborne diseases. Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell products that are safe and free from harmful known substances, including Listeria monocytogenes. Plaintiff and those similarly situated (hereinafter "Class Members") certainly expect that the frozen fruit products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe disease and even be life threatening. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the frozen fruit Products they purchased contain Listeria monocytogenes. In fact, Defendant recently carried out a recall of its manufactured frozen fruit products, which revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the Products. This resulted in a recall of the Products ("Recall") on June 21, 2023.7 The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions of the safety of the Products and what is in the Products when they purchased them. Defendant is using a marketing and advertising campaign that omits from the ingredients lists that the Products contain Listeria monocytogenes. This omission leads a reasonable consumer to believe they are not purchasing a product with a known bacterium when in fact they are purchasing a product contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain when what they received was a frozen fruit product contaminated with a known bacterium that is harmful to consumers' health, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased and consumed the Defendant's Products that contained Listeria monocytogenes. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells frozen fruit products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: 313-303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Rd., Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annamarie Renteria Hinojosa, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general v. SUNSWEET GROWERS INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV2023-1351 was removed from the State of California in and for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00778. The Plaintiff asserted nine causes of action against Defendant arising out of her employment with Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff brought claims for: unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to provide required meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, failure to provide required rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay sick wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and retaliation in violation of Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy J. Long, Esq. Michael A. Wertheim, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.442.1111 Facsimile: 916.448.1709 Email: longt@gtlaw.com Michael.Wertheim@gtlaw.com SUNWEST MIILING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Abigail Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNWEST MIILING, INC.; SUNWEST FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 23CV02012 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., July 21, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of California Labor Code due to unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and wages not timely paid upon termination. During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all overtime hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week as required by Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage Orders. Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods and were not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Further Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class members their second meal periods for shifts longer than ten hours. The Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted lawful rest breaks and were not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. As a result, Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff and Class members for all wages owed to them and Plaintiff and Class members' paychecks did not include all wages owed to Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee from June 2022 to July 2022. The Defendants were and are California corporations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sang (James) Park, Esq. PARK APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 627-2964 Email: sang@park-lawyers.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Brittany Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aarica Brittany, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP, LLC; FOLLETT HIGHER ED GROUP, LTD; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13911 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06598. The Complaint asserts causes of action against all Defendants for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to provide 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; and unfair business practices (violation of Business and Professions Code).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. Ashley D. Stein, Esq. Lauren E. Wertheimer, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 424 204 7700 Fax: +1 424 204 7702 Email: sskibbe@vedderprice.com astein@vedderprice.com lwertheimer@vedderprice.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Carlson, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23-2-06326-6 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Peirce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05722. The Plaintiffs' putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendant "failed to fully compensate its employee truck drivers according to Washington Law," specifically Defendant "failed to compensate them for overtime." The Complaint seeks relief in the form of unpaid overtime wages, exemplary double damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys fee's pursuant to Revised Washington Code of Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com - and - Anthony Todaro, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, Washington 98104-7029 Phone: (206) 839-4800 Facsimile: (206) 839-4801 Email: anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com THOMSON REUTERS: Appeals Certification Ruling in Brooks Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomson Reuters Corporation filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated July 31, 2023 granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this case on February 26, 2021 to stop Thomson Reuters from violating the rights of Californians to control the use of their own personal information. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a hybrid (b)(2) and (b)(3) class or, in the alternative, certify both claims for class treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons who, during the limitations period, both resided in the state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR without their consent;" Excluded from the class are officers and directors of Thomson Reuters, class counsel, the judicial officers presiding over this action, and the members of their immediate family and judicial staff; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz as class representatives; and 3. appointing Gibbs Law Group and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll as class counsel. On July 31, 2023, Judge Edward M. Chen signed an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Cat Brooks, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 23-80070, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION is represented by: Erin Earl, Esq. Susan D. Fahringer, Esq. Nicola Menaldo, Esq. Tyler Roberts, Esq. Anna Mouw Thompson, Esq. Eric B. Wolff, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-8510 Plaintiffs-Respondents CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ, individually, and on behalf of all others simularly situated, are represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Grace Puttieva, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9717 - and - Neil Sawhney, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 573-0336 TIGER GLOBAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tiger Global Management, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23047 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Tiger Global ¬¬-- https://www.tigerglobal.com/ -- is an investment firm focused on public and private companies in the global Internet, software, consumer, and financial technology industries.[BN] TODD ROKITA: Simpson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TODD ROKITA. The case is styled as Jennifer Sue Simpson, individually and as Next Friend of her minor child P.C.S and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. TODD ROKITA Indiana Attorney General, KATIE JENNER Secretary of the Indiana Department of Education, PARK D. GRINDER Superintendent, M.S.D. Southwest Allen County Schools, JEANINE KLEBER District Liasion for Homeless Children, M.S.D. Southwest Allen County Schools, JERILYNNE BONEFF, Registar, M.S.D. Southwest Allen County Schools, KNOWLIN Ms., Fort Wayne Community Schools, Family Engagement Center District Liaison for Homeless Children, POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01406-JRS-MKK (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights for Denial of Due Process. Theodore Edward Rokita -- http://www.toddrokita.com/-- is an American lawyer and politician serving as the 44th and current Attorney General of Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TORONTO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Carding Practice by Police ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Griffin of CBC reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been launched over Toronto police's historic use of "carding," alleging the practice of randomly stopping people and collecting their information continues to harm marginalized communities. The statement of claim filed on August 14, 2023 is on behalf of all Black and Indigenous people who have been stopped by Toronto police or had their information collected without reason since 2011. It names the Toronto Police Services Board, current police chief Myron Demkiw and former chiefs James Ramer, Mark Saunders and Bill Blair as defendants. "Carding has caused widespread harm, including damage to the plaintiff's and class members' mental and physical integrity, their privacy and their livelihoods," it reads. "While the police have a statutory and common law duty to investigate crime, they are not empowered to undertake any and all action in the exercise of that duty." The lawsuit alleges that the carding practice, officially abandoned years ago, continues to take place and disproportionately impacts Black and Indigenous people despite public opposition, academic research on its harmful effects and public reports that have found it to be discriminatory and ineffective. The allegations in the statement of claim have not been proven in court. Toronto police and the Toronto Police Services Board said they are reviewing the statement of claim, but will not be commenting on the case as the matter is before the courts. "Any material filed, in due course and in response to this litigation before the court, will be a matter of public record," the board noted. Plaintiff says police punished her for being in public The lawsuit is led by plaintiff Ayaan Farah, a 38-year-old Somali-Canadian with no criminal record. It says Farah was "sitting in public" in 2011 when she was detained by Toronto police officers who allegedly recorded her personal information without providing a reason. The statement of claim alleges that interaction led Farah to lose her security clearance in 2014 at Toronto Pearson Airport, where she had worked since 2006. The RCMP had told Transport Canada that when Farah was stopped by Toronto police officers, she had been seen with an unidentified member of the Somali-Canadian community with alleged gang ties and a criminal history. At the time, Farah told Transport Canada that she did not know who the unnamed individual was and that she was falsely accused of having ties to gangsters. Due to her security clearance being revoked and accusations made against her, Farah's employer suspended her without pay or benefits. "I became very worried about going out in public. I feared that the police would watch me and accuse me of something. I stopped volunteering in my community, because I was so worried that the police might report me again," Farah said in a statement through her lawyer, Solomon McKenzie. "I felt targeted. The police punished me for being in public, and I missed promotions, raises, and was suspended for my job for no reason." After seeking a review of Transport Canada's decision to revoke her security clearance, a federal court found the process was unfair and set the decision aside, leading to her reinstatement 21 months later, according to materials contained in the statement of claim. However, the lawsuit alleges the incident and its consequences led her to become isolated and develop depression, paranoia and hyper-vigilance in public. It notes she ultimately emigrated to the U.S. to avoid further contact with Toronto police officers. Lawsuit aims to end police use of carding tactics Farah said she wants to push the case forward to end police use of carding tactics and seek justice for members of her community affected by it. "I never received an apology for the police behaviour, even though they had a significant impact on my life and career. I want to make sure that nobody ever has to suffer this experience again," she said. The lawsuit seeks to find that the carding practice violates Charter rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention as well as discrimination and rights of liberty and security. Judge slams government for nixing woman's airport security clearance It also seeks a number of reforms around carding, including wiping collected data from police databases, enhanced training resources on why the practice is unlawful and a public apology to victims of carding. In a 2019 review of carding practices, Ontario Justice Michael Tulloch, now the province's chief justice, found that random street checks were not effective as a method of crime prevention or reduction, and should be abolished given their detrimental impacts on racialized communities. The lawsuit is calling for all 129 recommendations in Tulloch's report to be put into effect, alleging only some have been implemented to date. [GN] TRACTOR SUPPLY: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Case No. 612833/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees on behalf of themselves and a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the last six years, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at a Tractor Supply Company store located in Alden, New York. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of Tractor Supply Company stores and employs hundreds, if not thousands of manual workers in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com TRES COLORI: Fields Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHEA FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRES COLORI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07245 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023) seeks to secure redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff jewelry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Tres Colori, Inc. is an online jewelry retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TRUPHAE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truphae, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Truphae, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07054 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Truphae -- https://www.truphaeinc.com/ -- offers specialty fountain pens, inks, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com TSG INTERACTIVE: Alcantar Files Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Interactive US Services Limited. The case is styled as Jose Alcantar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TSG Interactive US Services Limited doing business as: PokerStars, Case No. 1:23-cv-00890-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. TSG Interactive Services Ltd is a company that operates in the Internet industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 274-2180 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Court Certifies Anti-Trust Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Marrocco and Jed Meshew of MMA Fighting report that it finally happened. More than eight years - 3,158 days to be exact - after a handful of former UFC fighters filed a class-action lawsuit against the UFC in California, a federal judge in Nevada has formally certified them as a class, clearing the way for a trial to decide whether the UFC conceived and carried out an illegal scheme to create a monopsony among fight promoters and lower the pay of its athletes. This past August 12, 2023, Judge Richard Boulware filed an 80-page ruling explaining his decision to certify the "bout" class of the lawsuit, which potentially includes over 1,200 fighters who fought in the UFC between December 16, 2010 and June 30, 2017. What did the judge have to say about the UFC's business practices? What does the decision tell the MMA world about the fighter's chances in court? What happens next from here? MMA Fighting's Steven Marrocco and Jed Meshew weigh in. What did this past August 16, 2023's ruling mean? Meshew: Given that once upon a time I was a lawyer, I suppose I'll kick things off, Steven. This is big. Like, really big. Arguably the biggest thing to happen in the sport since Royce Gracie invented grappling. This has a very real chance to change everything about the business. For those who aren't sadists and don't want to read through the 80 pages of dense legal jargon, here's the gist: the anti-trust lawsuit just cleared its biggest hurdle by certifying bout class, essentially green-lighting a lawsuit that would single-handedly ruin all of my WME-IMG stock if it goes to trial and the UFC loses. And Judge Boulware's scathing condemnation of the UFC's business practices (and at times its legal defenses to those practices) strongly suggests the UFC deserves to lose! What does that mean exactly? For the moment, nothing. But soon, it means everything. We'll get into some of the particulars in a moment, but big picture, we're talking a billion dollars from the UFC to fighters, and the end of the UFC's current contract model. So like I said, this is big. Marrocco: Eighty pages of legal jargon is nothing, Jed - try pulling up the case filings on the federal court docket. We're talking about dozens upon dozens of filings over the course of nine years. Zuffa's defense attorneys fought tooth and nail to get this thrown out of court, spending millions upon millions in legal fees, before it even sniffed class certification, so the fact that (finally) it has been certified should give you a sense of how strong the plaintiff's arguments are, and how momentous this is for this business. Truth is, this is an old issue applied to a new industry (or sub-industry). Multi-fight options, otherwise known as multi-fight deals that tie a fighter to a promotion for a certain period, were ruled anti-competitive by a federal judge in the 1950s, when the International Boxing Club wrapped up a bunch of champions and locked down Madison Square Garden to impede rivals (Boulware even tips his hat to the scandal in a footnote). Don King was a king of multi-fight options, wrapping up such a large number of champions that anti-trust concerns were the talk of boxing in the 80s and 90s. The argument was the same: is that fair to the fighters, and is that fair to other promoters? Is it ultimately fair to the fans? For a long time, the UFC made it to where a fighter could, in effect, be kept under contract in perpetuity if certain conditions were in place. If they turned down fights, if they were injured, if they balked on a new contract, a four-fight deal could turn into a lifetime contract. That's terrible for anyone in the work place, but it's absolutely devastating to fighters with a limited window to maximize their value. It's devastating for rival fight promoters who want to compete with Zuffa. This was bound to go to court eventually. So yes, there's no other way to look at this other than it is very big. A lot of people doubted the strength of the fighters' case. That's no surprise given the UFC's 10,000-pound gorilla status. There should be no further doubt, however, after this written ruling. The lawsuit already has changed the industry (see: Francis Ngannou and free agency). The question is how much more change is in store. What did Judge Boulware's opinion say about the UFC's business practices? Meshew: Slightly dated reference at this point, but do you remember all the interactions between King Joffrey and Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones? That's basically what happened here, only with Judge Boulware being substantially more direct about things than Tywin was. He doesn't come out and tell the UFC directly that it's stupid and cruel and screwed, but boy does he heavily imply it. I don't know how deep we want to dive here, given that the bulk of the decision is Boulware dissecting the UFC's business practices and the arguments for and against their legality, but there are two lines that stuck out to me as the most salient. 1. "Defendants fail to establish that there is in fact a separate credible factor of 'promoter acumen.'’" There's more to this part of it, but in essence, Judge Boulware says that from all the evidence presented, the UFC's considerable market dominance isn't due to superior promotional skills, but that due to its use of anti-competitive tactics to consolidate and maintain power. In short, Boulware is calling the UFC a monopsony outright, which is the core point of the lawsuit. 2. "Indeed, Zuffa matchmakers admitted that they used such brutal coercive tactics." There's a scene in the Big Short where Steve Carrell's character is moralizing about fraud, and he says that we shouldn't do fraud, not because it's bad or mean, but simply because it doesn't work. Eventually, the chickens come home to roost. And while Dana White and Joe Silva and the rest have all had a great big laugh about the way they ran (and still run) the UFC, things like Joe Silva explicitly stating in emails how he's going to screw over fighters who don't play ball, or Dana White making a tombstone with the various MMA promotions that the UFC has killed? Those things ultimately come back to haunt you. There's a reason adults in business don't behave the way Dana White and company do, and it’s not because they're all wonderful people. It's because at some point, the bill comes due, and right now, it is damn near impossible for the UFC to get out of this particular framing. I don’t care if you got John Keker and the spirit of Johnnie Cochrane running the show, you're not going to convince any rational human being that the UFC wasn't directly using their market dominance in a way to adversely effect rival promotions and its own fighters when the President and the head matchmaker freely admitted it! Marrocco: While we're on the topic of free admission and problematic optics, Jed, I thought it was particularly interesting that Boulware pointed out Zuffa's contradiction in what they argued in court versus what they told potential investors prior to selling to WME/Endeavor in 2016. After a long-ass fight over discovery (the evidence to be used in the case), a lot of the fighting was about how the experts hired by the plaintiffs (fighters) and defendants (Zuffa) quantified, or measured, the promotion's effects on fighter pay. Zuffa tried awfully hard to sell the idea that pay hadn't been suppressed because wage levels had gone up. And it's true, pay for first-time fighters has increased over the years. But that obscures a larger fact: that the share of revenue to the fighters went down. In other words, the more money Zuffa made, the smaller the piece of the pie fighters got. How do we know this? Because Zuffa helpfully pointed it out in an investor presentation to potential buyers! The corporate parent put it in writing that it planned to keep the fighters' share of its revenue at 20 percent moving forward. If you're a media giant looking to acquire a money-making sports property, isn't that an awfully attractive pitch? Stable margins are the backbone of profit, and Zuffa pointed to wage share as the key metric -- not wage levels. Thus, an easy layup for the judge to say the defendants can't have it both ways. Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in multivariate regression -- I prefer my variable equations simple, like Y = mX + b. But I do know that, despite an awful lot of argument over the meaning and significance of particular fighter traits that impact their value in the marketplace, Judge Boulware gave his stamp of approval to the plaintiff's experts methodology. That means that at the very least, it's good enough to be seen by a jury, and Zuffa's attempt to discredit it failed. It also appears that the anti-trust cases that held up this past week's certification helped the fighters rather than hurt them. What does that all mean? Well, promoters -- and in general, business owners -- will always argue that they are the dominant player in a market because they are simply better than their rivals and are thus reaping the rewards. They have the "special sauce" that turns fighters into stars. What's being tested here for the first time is whether that's actually true. Is Zuffa just really good at what they do, or is their position the result of restrictive contracts that shut out competitors and ultimately depress fighter pay? Meshew: Well, based on the defenses they brought to this case thus far, and the almost transparent contempt Judge Boulware had for some of the UFC's more obviously ridiculous stances, I'm leaning toward the latter. Boulware certainly seems to be, at least. What comes next in the case? Marrocco: Of course, an appeal. If Zuffa has expended this much effort just to get to this point, you can bet they will seek to invalidate Boulware's ruling in a higher court. Of course, they'll need to convince the higher court -- in this case, the 9th circuit -- to take the appeal, and then they'll need to get a judge to say there was an error -- or errors -- in the way the ruling was decided so that the fighters should not be certified. Also, there's the question of injunctive relief, or what the plaintiffs want the defendants to stop doing to remedy the issue. That wasn't decided in this ruling, and the parties are going to get back in court to haggle over that -- if they don’t settle first. So far, the fighters' attorneys have proven they should band together in court. As for how they want Zuffa/Endeavor to change their business practices so they prevent this from happening again, they've left that somewhat of an open question -- perhaps by design. Meshew: An appeal is definitely coming, if for no other reason than kicking the can down the road. Heck, half of the UFC's defenses proffered here felt perfunctory: unlikely to succeed, but good enough to keep dragging things out. Time is always on the side of multi-billion dollar corporations in situations like this. That's what a war chest is for, after all. Injunctive relief is where things get really spicy, though. The decision specifically notes the possible damages that the UFC may pay from that, between $811 million and $1.4 billion depending on one of two methodologies presented, so that alone is a kick in the teeth. I tend to think that's less likely to happen, though, as injunctive relief requires there to be an irreparable injury that can only be prevented by doing so. Cash payouts don't generally fit that bill. The contract, though? Those are totally fair game. One of the key concerns from the plaintiffs in this case are the restrictive contracts the UFC employs. The court could, and based on this decision probably would, rule that the UFC's contracts merit an injunction, meaning no more long term deals and no more restrictive champion's clauses, essentially overnight. It's kind of hard to overstate how much that would change the UFC, basically overnight. How does this all end? Marrocco: For the longest time, I thought the biggest hurdle to overcome was certification. That is, once the fighters got the judge to put them all together, thus increasing the money Zuffa could lose if they lost in court, Zuffa would settle. The $5 billion in damages that's been bandied about as a potential cost since certification is on the extreme end of things, and it seems like a pretty good incentive to negotiate with the winners. But then again, from the reporting I've seen from the chronically under-appreciated John Nash, it appears some of the contractual change that allowed for more free movement of talent in the marketplace -- i.e. the clauses that keep fighters from leaving UFC, and their ability to take them to court -- has already gone away. If that's the case, maybe there’s a longer fight ahead over changes to the UFC's business practices. There's a long history of big companies settling lawsuits and then moving on as though nothing had happened. Are the defendants brazen and deep-pocketed enough to do that? Will the fighters' attorneys push for substantive change to the way business is done, or will they take the first reasonable settlement offer? That’s where I'm a little skeptical. It's definitely a huge thing to take on and beat the 10,000-pound gorilla in court. But to change wholesale the way it does business, that's another. Meshew: I think the most logical answer here is a settlement, but I'm not so sure that's in the cards, Steven. Don't get me wrong, the UFC is going to try and settle, probably several times. $5 billion in damages is a pretty severe guillotine to have hanging over your head, particularly when you are in the process of merging with the WWE in a deal that is going to drag in a whole lot of other debt. But I'm not sure how much the plaintiffs are going to be willing to back down, particularly not after this decision. I mean, why would they? Boulware all but agreed with all of their arguments. And while a $5 billion guillotine is a pretty big stick for the UFC, it's one heck of a carrot for the plaintiffs. If I'm one of the plaintiffs at this moment, I'm not sure exactly what offer the UFC could come back with that I would accept. There is a number, but the conversation starts at $2.4 billion (the low end of damages, if this things goes all the way and the UFC loses). More than just the money, though, is the human element of everything. The plaintiffs in this case were wronged by the UFC and are seeking redress, not just for themselves, but for all parties similarly wronged. When this whole thing started, Jon Fitch and company knew that it was a long road with absolutely no guarantee of any payout at the end, and yet they went on ahead, because at a very basic level, they're in this for justice. Justice isn't taking a chunk of the money and running. It's seeing things through to the end of the line. Is there a world where the UFC continues to drag this out for years more on end, and they ultimately lose and get nothing? Sure. But that world was much more likely a month ago. Now, the plaintiffs can see the finish line. It may be a ways off, but it’s there, and waiting for them is everything they ever wanted. I think it would need to be a pretty big concession from the UFC for them to turn their backs on that. Plus, we're talking about Jon Fitch here, Steven. If there's one thing that man loves to do, it's go to a decision. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Mansor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYEZ MANSOR, et al., v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00347-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss: -- The court grants the Defendants' motion with respect to their argument that the Plaintiff Eclesiaste Coissy lacks standing, -- Dismisses Mr. Coissy's claims and denies their motion in all other respects. The court concludes that Plaintiffs' DJA claim is not duplicative of their APA claims, because a judgment in their favor could, for example, set aside Defendants' "policy and practice" as ultra vires without necessarily clarifying Plaintiffs' affirmative rights under the statute, if any. Before the court is Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and USCIS Director Ur Jaddou's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs Fayez Mansor, Eclesiaste Coissy, Cabdi Ibrahim Xareed, and Shukria Zafari oppose the motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ODyCpZ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Glusky Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Allison Glusky, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDLEX CORPORATION, Case No. CACE23015796 was removed from the Circuit Court of Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61542-XXXX. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action purports to assert claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Plaintiff and all putative Class members, whom Plaintiff defines as "all persons whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRADLO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, Florida 33180 Email: rachel@dapeer.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason A. Pill, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602-5311 Phone: 813-472-7550 Facsimile: 813-472-7570 Email: jason.pill@phelps.com VITALITY GROUP: Elias Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vitality Group, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Elias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Vitality Group doing business as: Vitality Group International, Inc., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04656 (N.D. Ill., July 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Vitality -- https://www.vitalitygroup.com/ -- wellness solutions engage members at the intersection of wellbeing and care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Salena Jasmin Chowdhury, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com schowdhury@masonllp.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP (DC) 641 S. St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@wbmllp.com - and - Theodore Beloyeannis Bell, Esq. MASON LLP 8045 Kenneth Ave. Skokie, IL 60076-3215 Phone: (202) 640-1169 Email: tbell@masonllp.com VO HOLDINGS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vo Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vo Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07077 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. VO HOLDINGS, L.L.C. is a Louisiana Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over False and Misleading Representation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnesia Thomas, Pascha Perkins, and Vernita Faison, individually and as a representative of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05315 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's false and misleading representation regarding their bed sheets under its exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style." Walmart manufactures, labels, distributes, advertises, and sells bed sheet sets under its exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style" at Walmart locations throughout the country and for which Walmart represents directly on their packaging and/or labeling that their thread count is 800 (hereinafter, "Hotel Style Sheets" or "Products"). Consumers regularly and commonly rely on the representations made on a product's labeling and packaging when determining whether or not to purchase that product. When purchasing sheet sets, consumers use the product's thread count as a primary indicator of their quality, durability, and softness and pay higher prices for those with higher thread counts. In an effort to make the Hotel Style Sheets more attractive in the marketplace, to boost its sales, and to increase its profits, Walmart represented, and continues to represent, an inflated thread count of 800 directly on its Hotel Style Sheets' label and packaging. In doing so, Walmart departed from longstanding and well-established industry standards that govern the method for counting threads in a fabric. In reality, the thread count of Walmart's Hotel Style Sheets is far less than 800. This false and misleading representation deceives consumers into believing they are purchasing a product of a higher quality, durability, and softness than products of the same or substantially similar blends with lower thread counts. Because of the improperly inflated thread counts that Walmart represented on the packaging and labeling of the Hotel Style Sheets, in purchasing these sheets, Plaintiffs and the putative classes received far less than what Walmart promised them. Moreover, as a direct result of Walmart's deceptive and unconscionable misrepresentation of its Hotel Style Sheets' thread count, Plaintiffs and putative class members were induced to purchase the Hotel Style Sheets and would not have purchased them, or would have paid a lower price for them, had they known the actual thread count at the time of purchase, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Hotel Style Sheets from a local Walmart. Walmart is the world's largest retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Leora N. Friedman, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com lfriedman@tzlegal.com - and - Frank Bartela, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Email: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com WALMART INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Oettle --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTA OETTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order: -- Granting Walmart's motion for summary judgment; -- Dismissing with prejudice Oettle's Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability claim (Count I) and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim (Count II); and -- Denying as moot Oettle's Motion for Class Certification. In the instant case, Walmart was denied the opportunity to examine and/or test the products in issue -- Oettle disposed of the allegedly defective balloons and two of the four tanks; the remaining tanks have been stored on her porch. Walmart was also deprived of the opportunity to timely interview witnesses who attended the birthday parties where the products allegedly underperformed, and the opportunity to minimize damages or correct the alleged defect prior to litigation. In 2018, Plaintiff Oettle purchased a total of four Balloon Time helium tank kits from Walmart on three separate occasions (March 31, 2018, May 26, 2018, and July 24, 2018). She purchased the kits to inflate balloons for her children's birthday parties and claims they failed to keep balloons afloat for a "sufficiently long period of time." The Court granted in part and denied in part Walmart's motion to dismiss. Specifically, this Court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss Counts I and II because a factual issue existed regarding the reasonableness of any delay in giving pre-suit notice. On March 31, 2018, the first time Oettle purchased a Kit, she inflated about half of the thirty included balloons at her daughter's outdoor birthday party. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47uyd1E at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Aiona Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB AIONA, JOSHUA SHANE BARTLETT, WALTER BETSCHART, TYRIK DAWKINS, JOSHUA JAMES-RICHARDS, TANIELA KINI KIN LATU, RICHARD OWENS, LEON MICHAEL POLASKI, ALEX SARAT XOTOY, AND TIMOTHY WILSON, on their behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PATRICK GARRETT, WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL (D. Or.), the petitioners request that the Court: 1. Order the clerk's office serve to the instant motion on the respondent, along with the habeas petition and the motion for order to show cause; 2. Enter an order provisionally certifying the proposed class; 3. Appoint Alex Sarat Xotoy, Richard Owens, Jr., and Leon Michael Polaski as Rule 23 class representatives, and 4. Appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel. The petitioners request that this proceeding be provisionally certified a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following class: "All indigent persons facing criminal charges in Washington County, Oregon, who are housed in the Washington County Detention Center or are otherwise in custody because they have restrictions on their liberty in the community, and who have not had an attorney appointed to their case or have had an attorney appointed to their case who subsequently withdrew from the case and no substitute counsel has been appointed." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sgUVtS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs 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. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 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_Synder@fd.org Robert_Hamilton@fd.org Peyton_Lee@fd.org Megha_Desai@fd.org Michael_Benson@fd.org - and - David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia Dahab, Esq. SUGERMAN DAHAB 707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 228-6474 Facsimile: (503) 228-2556 E-mail: David@sugermandahab.com nadia@sugermandahab.com WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE PILEGGI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00345-BAH (D.D.C.), Plaintiff Nicole files an unopposed, second motion to extend the deadline for Motion for Class Certification from September 5, 2023, to January 19, 2024, or alternatively, 120 days after the Court holds a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. The first extension was from May 8, 2023 (which would have been 90 days after the filing of the Complaint) to September 5, 2023. Washington Newspaper was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business includes publishing newspapers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QMdznA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com - and - Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott H. Angstreich, Esq. Mark C. Hansen, Esq. Grace W. Knofczynski, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7959 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Storage Devices' Failures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tyson of Tom's Hardware reports that Western Digital is facing a class action lawsuit regarding SanDisk Extreme Pro SSD failures and subsequent losses of user data. The class action group is looking for in excess of $5,000,000 plus interest, fees, and costs, the Register reports. California resident Nathan Krum, is named as the plaintiff. In May stories popped up about SanDisk Extreme Portable SSDs suffering from sudden failures. A multitude of customers were highlighting data loss problems stemming from their use of this particular family of external SSDs on social media and SanDisk forums. The most common sign that something had gone wrong, and that your SSD had been affected by the data loss issue, was when plugging in you received a message stating "The disk you attached was not readable by this computer." By May, WD / SanDisk admitted it was aware of issues with its external SSDs and promised a firmware update was on the way "soon." WD seemed to limit its scope of admission regarding the failed drives. In previous reports, we noted that the storage giant intended to provide firmware updates for the 4TB SanDisk Extreme and / or Extreme Pro portable SSDs (SDSSDE61-4T00 and SDSSDE81-4T00 respectively). However, we saw plenty of comments from people with one of these drives in another capacity (they are available in 500GB, 1TB and 2TB, too), struggling with the same sudden data loss issues. There was no mention of refunds being made available. The lack of refunds, or mention of fixes other capacity drives, might be what pushed the plaintiff to instigate legal action. Krum says he bought a SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB model for $179.99 on or about May 19, 2023 from Amazon.com. After the drive failed and the lost data Krum had saved upon it, he says he spent money on data recovery services, and to purchase a replacement external hard drive. Of course, dealing with such issues also requires a substantial amount of personal time and energy. Making matters worse, Krum says he "cannot return it [the SSD] for a full refund," and he "can no longer trust using the drive and thus it is worthless to him." It's not a good look, as the SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB is advertised as being "reliable enough to take on any adventure," and "a rugged, dependable storage solution," targeting photographers, videographers, and other creative professionals and hobbyists. Moreover, despite WD's statements about data safety, the plaintiff asserts that there was a known "latent defect in manufacturing and/or design." As well as the misleading advertising complaint, the plaintiff is alleging breach of contract and violation of consumer protection law. The class action document published by the United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, San Jose Division, also contains some information about the experiences of SanDisk Extreme (Pro) customers since our May report. It states that the firmware updates designed to fix / prevent data loss issues were "unreliable," and that replacement drives sent to customers were "reported to suffer from the same defect." According to the filing, class members are "All persons in the United States who purchased a SanDisk Extreme Pro SSD portable solid-state hard drive, including the SanDisk Extreme Pro, Extreme Portable, Extreme Pro Portable, and WD MyPassport SSD models, at retail since at least January 2023." There are a few exclusions, such as WD / SanDisk employees and resellers. It is estimated that there will be "tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals," included. WD's help pages continue to maintain that the firmware updates released fix a problem where drives "unexpectedly disconnect from a computer." It states that the firmware issue has now been addressed by manufacturing and currently shipping products aren't affected (see FAQ section of linked page). [GN] WESTSIDE VETERINARY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westside Veterinary Center, P.C. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Westside Veterinary Center, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-06055 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Westside Veterinary Center -- https://westsidevetcenter.com/ -- is a skilled Veterinarian in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com WHITMAN COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Nov. 3 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HYUN-SU KIM, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WHITMAN COLLEGE DBA WHITMAN COLLEGE, Case No. 4:22-cv-05033-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Mary K. Dimke entered an order granting the Defendant's stipulated motion for continuance of trial date and related deadlines: Summary Judgment Hearing Nov. 3, 2023 Witness and exhibit lists: Lists filed and served: Feb. 29, 2024 Objections filed and served: March 11, 2024 Deposition designations: Designated transcripts served: Feb. 26, 2024 Cross-designations served: March 11, 2024 Objections filed and served: March 25, 2024 All motions in limine filed March 4, 2024 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order filed and March 25, 2024 emailed to the Court Trial briefs, jury instructions, verdict March 25, 2024 forms, requested voir dire Pretrial Conference April 4, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference April 29, 2024 Jury Trial April 29, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KDPThm at no extra charge.[CC] WOODMAN'S FOOD: Final Collective Certification Bid Due Sept. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wyngaard v. Woodman's Food Market Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order that the time for the consolidated Plaintiffs to file their motions for final collective certification, for class certification, and for summary judgment and for the defendant to file its motion for decertification is extended until Sept. 19, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Woodman's owns and operates supermarkets. The Company offers liquors, clothing, automotive, housewares, and food products.[CC] WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Cantarero Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raimundo Mendoza Cantarero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15967 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06604. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: "Violation of Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance;" "Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;" and "Violation of California's Unlawful Competition Law."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com - and - Melissa A. Huether, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: mhuether@fisherphillips.com YAMAHA CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yamaha Corporation of America. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Yamaha Corporation of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-06231-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yamaha Corporation -- https://usa.yamaha.com/index.html -- is a Japanese musical instrument and audio equipment manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com - and - Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.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 ***