/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230904.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 177 Headlines 5.11 INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ADVANCE AMERICA: Burns Files Suit in D. South Carolina ADVANCE AMERICA: Gibson Files Suit in D. South Carolina ADVANCE AMERICA: Gibson Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Data ADVANCE AMERICA: Hernandez Files Suit in D. South Carolina AETNA INC: Bid for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order Denied ALERE NORTH: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Castillo Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Netzel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. AMMANII LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANALOG DEVICES: Continues to Defend Ryan Class Suit APOLLO ASSET: Securities Suit Over Liquidation Dismissed AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Suit Over Libervant Terminated AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Niewenhuis Suit Over Libervant Terminated AUTO SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 22, 2024 AVEN FINANCIAL: Faces Lasky Suit Over Alleged Data Breach BARRETT BUSINESS: Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment BATTLE-ABC LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York BLACK & VEATCH: Haralambidis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BLUE LINE: Chastain Files Suit Over Excessive Fees BLUE MAX: Lavigne-Soucie Alleges Mass Layoffs Without Prior Notice BOURKE STREET BAKERY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BROSNAN RISK: Cuylear Seeks Field Security Supervisors' Unpaid OT CANADIAN PACIFIC: Court Denies Motion to Certify Wildfire Suit CANADIAN PACIFIC: Plaintiff to Amend Pleadings in Wildfire Suit CASEY'S GENERAL: Loses Bid to Partly Dismiss Kessler Class Suit CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16 CHASE DENNIS: Samora's Class Counsel Awarded $810K in Attys.' Fees CHEGG INC: Arbitration of Moyer Action OK'd, Case Stayed CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Action CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Shareholder Suit in California CHEGG INC: Stansell Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty in DE Court CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Luna Suit Removed to C.D. California CLEAN BEAUTY FOR ALL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONSELMAN RETAIL: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CRAWFORD KNITTING: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York CREATIVE VENTURES: OKs Settlement Over 2021 Data Breach Class Suit CUP O' CO LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVITA INC: Consolidated Employee Antitrust Suit Ongoing in IL DEALERS' CHOICE: Court OKs Stipulation to Vacate Deadlines in Morin DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Bid to Dismiss IBEW Class Action Tossed DETROIT, MI: Court Grants in Part Versen's Class Cert Bid DZS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 9 EBIX INC: Saraf Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ELECTROMED INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ELITE OUTDOORS: Santana Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELZETTA DESIGN: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Staniewicz Sues Over Unprotected Info EXPERT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Chapman Securities Suit Dismissed FIRST-LIGHT USA: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Faces Nishon Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices FORD MOTOR: Vangel Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts FORLOH INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York FRONTLINE ASSET: Devoe FDCPA Removed to D. New Jersey FRONTLINE ASSET: Grinblat's FDCPA Claims Dismissed W/o Prejudice FSSOLUTIONS: Junk Fax Class Action Revived on Appeal G5 OUTDOORS: Santana Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GATE PETROLEUM: Beutelschiess Suit Removed to M.D. Florida GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Maintain Redactions in Plaintiffs' Reply GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025 GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Faces Securities Suit Over DiDi Global GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): iQIYI ADS Securities Suit Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Sea Limited ADS Securities Suit on Appeal GOLDMAN SACHS: Centessa IPO Securities Suit Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Unfair Business Practices Can't Proceed GOMEZ WESTERN WEAR: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GREAT LAKES WINE: Conerly Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime HARD ROCK: Bid to Seal Several Docs in White Class Action OK'd HCA HEALTHCARE: Martin Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee HCA HEALTHCARE: Sperling Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee HEALTHY FEET: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HF MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Foust Says HOMAGE LLC: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California HOMEAGLOW INC: Can Compel Arbitration; Hovis' Class Claims Tossed HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Equal Employment Sues Over Race Discrimination I.K.M.J. JOINT: Bid to Remand Strauss Suit to State Court Denied IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Dula Suit Removed to E.D. California IRON WILL OUTFITTERS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VA: Fuschetti Sues Over Damaged Property ISM VUZEM: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Proposed Class Notice Plan JACK IN THE BOX: Court Enters Judgment on Meal Break Claims JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Addendum JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Nov. 20 JZ PRODUCE: Driotis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KEL-LAC UNIFORMS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Class of Employees Certified in Gamboa Suit KNIFE AID INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York KNIGHT HAWK: Dye Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective KRAFT HEINZ: Class Action Over Merger Heading to $450M Settlement LEEDING BUILDERS: Underpays Construction Workers, Crawford Claims LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Loses Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal LHC GROUP: Kovach Suit Transferred to Western District of Louisiana LIBERTY WORKS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York LIDL US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 LIFE STORAGE: Faces Frechmann Suit Over Store Managers' Unpaid OT LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Settles Shareholders' Class Suit for $3.5-M LONG BEACH: Appeal From Final Approval of Castillo Class Deal Nixed LONGWORTH INDUSTRIES: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York LOUISIANA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Access OJJ Client Records Nixed LOUISVILLE METRO: Settlement in Lott Wins Final Nod LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Karri Class Suit LYFT INC: Court Awards $6.25M Atty's Fees in Securities Class Suit M&T BANK CORPORATION: Twoguns Files Suit in W.D. New York MAJOR SURPLUS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARTIAN SALES: Court OKs Joint Bid to Modify Scheduling Order MARYLAND: Opposes Class Certification in T.G. Class Suit MASTER FLEET: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought MCMENAMINS INC: Kirby Suit Seeks to Certify Class of FOH Employees MDL 2977: Colvin Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Class Memo MDL 2977: Haff Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Class Memo MDL 2977: Sanderson Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Memo MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Leet Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin MERCURY AIR CARGO: Moch Suit Removed to C.D. California MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Hale Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info MODEFA USA LLC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid for Class Cert. Modified to March 29, 2024 MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Quay Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement in Principle Reached n IPERS Suit MOSAIC HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Doe Suit to 8th Cir. MOTION PICTURE: Klawonn Seeks to Certify Account Plan Member Class MYRIAD GENETICS: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NATIONAL GENERAL: Class Cert Hearing in King Extended to Dec. 14 NEW YORK: Bentkowski Appeals Permanent Injunction Ruling NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Jeon Suit NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Sidoli Suit NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Tan Suit NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ambridge Area Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania NVIDIA CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Securities Suit OES GLOBAL INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York OHIO DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OLYMPUSAT HOLDINGS: Standing Order Entered in Worldwide Class Suit OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Filing ONE GROUP: Dolce Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages OTONOMO INC: Mollaei Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. PACIFICORP: Consolidated Dietrich Suit Over Wildfires Stayed PACIFICORP: Liable to Oregon Wildfire Victims, Jury Says PAPA JOHN'S: To Settle Anti-Poaching Consolidated Suit PIER HOUSE: Farrow Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Allowed to File Bid to Strike Berlanga's Reply POLK COUNTY, FL: Faces Suit Over Schools' Air Conditioning Issues POLY PAK: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Lucky Transfer POWER DESIGN: Padilla Suit Removed to C.D. California PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Awards $6.85M in Attorney's Fees PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Okonski Suit Over Data Breach Incident PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Court OK's Class Certification in Brown Suit PROGRESSIVE SOFTWARE: Harris Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info PROTECTIVE PET: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: PLEE Class Suit Submitted for Mediation QUALVOICE LLC: Class Action Settlement in Frederick Gets Final Nod QUEENLY INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAINBOW USA: Faces Keitt Suit for Underpayment of Wages RED FLOWER INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REPUBLIC REIGN: Convertino Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages RIDGWAY LLC: Ruid Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Shareholder Suit Ongoing RXO LAST MILE: Court Grants Bid to Compel Class List in Green Suit RXO LAST: Directed to Provide Class List in Green Suit SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to Sept. 15 SECRETS OF TEA CAFE: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York SHOES WEST INC: Remus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SIMMONS BANK: Wilkins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. ST. PETERS FLY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STACKSOCIAL INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York STATE FARM: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois STATE FARM: Yancey Class Action Transferred to N.D. Illinois SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach TACTILE SYSTEMS: To Settle Mart Shareholder Suit TAXACT INC: Kirkham Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania TAYYAB FOOD: Asghar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TESLA INC: Cohen Suit Removed to C.D. California TETHER HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Anderson's Class Complaint THERAPYMATCH INC: M.G. Suit Removed to N.D. California TINDER INC: Consumer Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Ninth Circuit TINDER INC: Kim Consumer Suit on Appeal in Ninth Circuit Court TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to May 6, 2024 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: All Expert Discovery in Rand Due July 1, 2024 TURK INDUSTRIES: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York UMR INC: Fails to Cover Preventive Care, Troxel Suit Contends UNITED PARCEL: Cotton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 21 UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Claims in Class Suit Narrowed US CONVEYOR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Trinity VINTAGE STOCK: Faces Stapleton Class Suit Over Telephonic Calls VISTAMAR RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought WALMART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks to Temporarily Stop Proceedings WALMART INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 28 WHALECO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 1, 2024 WILHELM LLC: Lainez Suit Removed to N.D. California WIPRO LIMITED: Jiron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WORLEYPARSONS GROUP: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages YELP INC: Prelim Agreement Reached Invasion of Privacy Suit YELP INC: Settles Securities Suit in California Court ZOOM VIDEO: US Privacy Class Suits Settlement Finalized ********* 5.11 INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5.11, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 5.11, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01045-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5.11 Tactical -- http://www.511tactical.com/-- is an American apparel brand of outdoor clothing, footwear, uniforms and tactical equipment, primarily targeting the market of military, law enforcement and public safety personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Burns Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Burns, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc. doing business as: Advance America, Case No. 7:23-cv-04286-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. America Cash Advance Centers -- https://www.advanceamerica.net/ -- provides cash advances online and through centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 217 Lucas Street, Suite G Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: hsegui@milberg.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Gibson Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Gibson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-04283-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. America Cash Advance Centers -- https://www.advanceamerica.net/ -- provides cash advances online and through centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN AND OHANESIAN PO Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: (843) 626-7193 Email: ohanesianlawfirm@cs.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Gibson Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-04257-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to Plaintiff's full name and full Social Security number (collectively, "Private Information" or Personal Identifiable Information). On August 15, 2023, Defendant notified state Attorneys General and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach (the "Notice Letter"). The Notice Letter informs Plaintiff and Class Members that Defendant's network was accessed by an unauthorized third party who accessed Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). It is believed the Data Breach was caused by a cybercriminal ransomware group named BlackBasta has claimed that it successfully infiltrated Defendant's systems around the time of the Data Breach. It is also believe that BlackBasta released a sample of the documents and Personal Identifiable Information (PII) exfiltrated from Advance America's systems. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in value, of their personal information. In addition, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive confidential information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. This information, while compromised and taken by unauthorized third parties, remains also in the possession of Defendant, and without additional safeguards and independent review and oversight, remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of Ohio who relied on the Defendant to keep their PII confidential. The Defendant's services include providing payday loans, flex loans, installment loans, title loans, check cashing, cash advances, lines of credit, personal loans, and emergency loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN & OHANESIAN 504 North Kings Highway, P.O. Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: (843) 626-7193 Email: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Hernandez Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., et al. The case is styled as Crystal Hernandez, Salvador Flores Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., Advance America Cash Advance Centers of California LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-04256-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. America Cash Advance Centers -- https://www.advanceamerica.net/ -- provides cash advances online and through centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dylan Artell Bess, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN (ATL GA) PO Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Phone: (404) 965-1886 Email: dbess@forthepeople.com AETNA INC: Bid for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin Reidinger entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to reconsider order granting class certification. The Defendants do not contend that any new evidence or change in the law supports their motion. Rather, they reassert the same arguments that they previously raised, both before this Court and the Court of Appeals. Having reviewed the Defendants' motion, the Court finds no basis in fact or law to reconsider its prior Order. Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QQbRSq at no extra charge.[CC] ALERE NORTH: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Castillo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ ALERE NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled George Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alere North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01519-RBM-SBC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages owed, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and unfair competition. On Oct. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Oct. 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on July 19, 2023. The Court declined to equitably estop the Plaintiff from refusing to arbitrate his claims against the Defendants for the period of his full-time, permanent employment with Defendants. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are not subject to the Arbitration Agreement. The appellate case is captioned George Castillo v. Alere North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55712, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 14, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Rapid Dx North America, LLC, Alere North America, Inc. and Alere, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 21, 2023; -- Appellants Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Rapid Dx North America, LLC, Alere North America, Inc. and Alere, Inc. opening brief is due on October 10, 2023; -- Appellee George Castillo answering brief is due on November 9, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GEORGE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 - and - Christina Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (909) 908-3059 Defendants-Appellants ALERE NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. are represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2175 (213) 532-2000 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Netzel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN NETZEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Brian Netzel, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Express Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01423-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit alleging multiple claims on their own behalf, and on behalf of a similarly situated class of American Express Company's employees for unlawful race discrimination, unlawful racial harassment/hostile environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiffs also bring a claim for unfair competition under California's Business and Professional Code and seek declaratory relief. On Nov. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On Dec. 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the second amended complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Susan M. Brnovich on August 3, 2023. The Court ordered to terminate this case. Judge Brnovich held that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration under the plain language of their agreements because they have not established that the arbitration agreements are unenforceable. The appellate case is captioned Brian Netzel, et al. v. American Express Company, Case No. 23-16083, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 11, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Eric Langkamp, Nancy Larson, Brian Netzel, and Travis Smith Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 18, 2023; -- Appellants Eric Langkamp, Nancy Larson, Brian Netzel, and Travis Smith opening brief is due on October 10, 2023; -- Appellee American Express Company answering brief is due on November 9, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN NETZEL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron T. Martin, Esq. MARTIN LAW & MEDIATION, PLLC 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 816-2680 - and - David Pivtorak, Esq. PIVTORAK LAW FIRM 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 911 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 291-9130 Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY is represented by: James Gary Linder, Esq. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 235-7106 AMMANII LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ammanii, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ammanii, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07540 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AMMANII -- https://ammanii.com/ -- offers jewelry born from the desire to tell stories and untie women while transcending cultural barriers.[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 ANALOG DEVICES: Continues to Defend Ryan Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Analog Devices Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for July 29, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ryan class suit. On March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC, purported stockholders of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Maxim), filed a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2022—0255) against the Company and the former directors of Maxim. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part of the merger negotiations with the Company, to suspend Maxim dividends for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the Company's acquisition of Maxim. The complaint further alleges that the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs' costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, costs and other expenses. On May 2, 2023, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety and with prejudice. On May 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument, which the Court denied on May 30, 2023. On June 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and on August 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief in support of their appeal. The appeal remains pending. The Company believes that it and the other defendants have meritorious arguments in response to the appeal and defenses to the underlying allegations; however, the Company is currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses, if any. Analog Devices, Inc. is into semiconductors and other related devices based in Massachusetts. APOLLO ASSET: Securities Suit Over Liquidation Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Asset Management, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on December 2, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed all claims against the underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against gaming supplier PlayAGS, Inc. and two of its executives to proceed. Apollo has liquidated its 22 percent stake in PlayAGS and is now the public supplier, commonly referred to as AGS. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in against PlayAGS Inc., all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII LP, Apollo Gaming Holdings LP and Apollo Gaming Voteco. The complaint asserted claims against all defendants arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. The complaint further asserted a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business. Apollo Asset Management, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global alternative asset manager whose primary business is to raise, invest and manage funds, accounts and other vehicles, on behalf of some of the world's most prominent pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds and insurance companies, as well as other institutional and individual investors. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Suit Over Libervant Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on April 10, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey so-ordered the stipulation and terminated the lawsuit captioned "Deanna Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., et al." On March 1, 2021, said securities class action lawsuit alleged that the company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the federal securities laws relating to public statements regarding the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) approval of seizure drug "Libervant." Following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 25, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2021, which became fully briefed as of November 1, 2021. On March 14, 2023, the court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and permitting plaintiffs leave to file a final, Second Amended Complaint by April 14, 2023. On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal stating that plaintiffs determined not to file an amended complaint and agreed to dismiss the action as to them with prejudice. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company developing pharmaceutical products that deliver complex molecules through alternative administrations to invasive and inconvenient standard of care therapies. Its production facilities are located in Portage, Indiana, and its corporate headquarters and primary research laboratory facilities are based in Warren, New Jersey. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Niewenhuis Suit Over Libervant Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on April 20, 2023, the parties in "Loreen Niewenhuis v. Keith Kendall, et al." filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal stating that plaintiff agreed to dismiss the action as to her with prejudice and the next day the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey so-ordered the stipulation and terminated the lawsuit. On December 15, 2021, Niewenhuis instituted said derivative action purportedly on behalf of the company, against certain current and former officers and directors of the company alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution; that the company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the federal securities laws relating to public statements regarding the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) approval of seizure drug "Libervant." On April 4, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 25, 2022, which became fully briefed as of June 27, 2022. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company developing pharmaceutical products that deliver complex molecules through alternative administrations to invasive and inconvenient standard of care therapies. Its production facilities are located in Portage, Indiana, and its corporate headquarters and primary research laboratory facilities are based in Warren, New Jersey. AUTO SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 22, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephens v. Auto Systems Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05131 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Oct. 27, 2021), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting motion for extension of time: -- Class Certification Motion due by: Feb. 22, 2024 -- Discovery due by: Jan. 23, 2024 -- Dispositive motions due by: Feb. 22, 2024 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Auto Systems operates 114 Midas shops in 6 states throughout the country that offer a full complement of automotive services.[CC] AVEN FINANCIAL: Faces Lasky Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Ian Lasky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aven Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03982-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2023) accuses the Defendant of negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment arising from a data security incident during which Plaintiff's personal identifiable information was compromised. On or about July 17, 2023, a cyberattack and data breach occurred on Aven's network, affecting Plaintiff and Class Members' PII, including their name, date of birth, driver's license number, social security number, and financial account info. The data breach has exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Aven's failure to adequately protect its members' PII is a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, says the suit. Aven provides financial products and services to individuals and organizations in California and beyond. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and – Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BARRETT BUSINESS: Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------- Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI) 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 June 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to the company with regards to the plaintiffs' appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of Fresno, naming as defendants their employer, a "Merry Maids" franchisee; BBSI, which was providing Professional Employer (PEO) services to the franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the franchisor were their joint employer with franchisee and therefore jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and on January 18, 2019, the District Court certified a class of former non-exempt employees who resided in California and worked for the franchisee in certain positions during the period from April 6, 2007 through January 19, 2019. On November 30, 2020, the District Court granted BBSI's motion for summary judgment to be removed from the case. Thereafter the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on June 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to BBSI. The court held that there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether or not BBSI was a joint-employer under applicable California law. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business management solutions for small and mid-sized companies with a management platform that integrates a knowledge-based approach from the management consulting industry with tools from the human resource outsourcing industry. BATTLE-ABC LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Battle-ABC, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Battle-ABC, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01047-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Battle-ABC, LLC d/b/a Battle Sports -- https://battlesports.com/ -- is the leading provider of adult and youth performance football gear and apparel; we provide ultimate sports support for the ultimate player.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com BLACK & VEATCH: Haralambidis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Kostandinos Haralambidis, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. and Rooney Line Construction, Inc., Case No. 230800786 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 8, 2023) seeks all relief available under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the common law. The Plaintiff has been directly employed by Rooney from around April 7, 2023 through the present and has been jointly employed by Black & Veatch Construction from approximately May 2023 through the present. The Plaintiff brings this class action for unpaid prevailing wages and overtime compensation due under the WPCL, PPWA, PMWA, and common law. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. is a Missouri corporation with a registered office in Philadelphia, and operating in Pennsylvania and across the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com BLUE LINE: Chastain Files Suit Over Excessive Fees -------------------------------------------------- THOMAS CHASTAIN and EMMA CHASTAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE LINE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00160-RWS (N.D. Ga., Aug. 17, 2023) is a class action for refund of excessive fees levied and collected by Defendant Blue Line Solutions, not authorized by Official Code of Georgia Annotated or the "School Zone Electronic Enforcement Statute" or otherwise wrongfully collected. According to the complaint, the School Zone Electronic Enforcement Statute provides for specific fines and maximum electronic processing fees that may be collected as civil monetary penalties for excessive speed in an authorized school zone by governing bodies. Blue Line is a private, for-profit, out-of-state corporation. It is not a governing body, nor is it an agent of a governing body nor an agent of a law enforcement agency. Blue Line has disregarded the statute, and is collecting unauthorized revenue, wrongfully retaining revenue, imposing excessive electronic processing fees and credit card usage fees against the prospective Class Members in violation of Georgia law, says the suit. Plaintiffs Thomas Chastain and Emma Chastain are married and are residents and citizens of Rabun County, Georgia. Plaintiff Thomas Chastain was issued a "Notice of Citation" under the "School Zone Electronic Enforcement Statute" purportedly by the Tallulah Falls Police Department on March 7, 2023. Plaintiff Emma Chastain was driving the 2021 Jeep that is the subject of the citation. Blue Line Solutions is a Tennessee limited liability corporation that operates the automated speed enforcement systems that are in place within school zones in Habersham County and throughout Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. Pamela S. James, Esq. THE BELL FIRM PO Box 1547 Augusta, GA 30903-1547 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 E-mail: john@bellfirm.net pam@bellfirm.net - and - John B. Manly, Esq. James E. Shipley, Jr., Esq. MANLY SHIPLEY LLP PO Box 10840 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 495-5360 E-mail: john@manlyshipley.com jim@manlyshipley.com BLUE MAX: Lavigne-Soucie Alleges Mass Layoffs Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Lavigne-Soucie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Max Transport, Inc. and Blue Max Trucking, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-498 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 8, 2023) seeks damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff and Class Members are former employees of the Defendants who were terminated as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendants on December 30, 2022. The Plaintiff brings this class action over the Defendants' failure to give Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination. Under the WARN Act, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover from the Defendants their wages and their benefits under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for 60 days. Blue Max Transport is a North Carolina corporation with a facility located at 1015 East Westinghouse Blvd. Charlotte, NC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Bloss, Esq. Jonathan Wall, Esq. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC 301 N. Elm Street, Suite 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 273-1600 Facsimile: (336) 274-4650 E-mail: bandia@greensborolaw.com - and – Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Johnathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and – Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 BOURKE STREET BAKERY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bourke Street Bakery LLC. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Bourke Street Bakery LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07510 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bourke Street Bakery -- https://www.bourkestreetbakery.com/ -- is an Aussie-born NYC-based organic sourdough bakery serving up classic meat pies, sausage rolls, artisan breads, cookies, cakes, fresh sandwiches, and more.[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 BROSNAN RISK: Cuylear Seeks Field Security Supervisors' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- OTTO CUYLEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00304 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cuylear was employed by Defendant as an hourly field security supervisor from approximately February of 2020 to February of 2022. He asserts that he did not receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Brosnan Risk Consultants, Ltd. is a full-service protective, investigative and intelligence firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com CANADIAN PACIFIC: Court Denies Motion to Certify Wildfire Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Dacre at squamishchief.com reports that a BC Supreme Court justice has declined to certify a class action lawsuit for Lytton residents impacted by 2021's devastating wildfire, but has left the door open for lawyers to try again. Lawyers representing lead plaintiff Jordan Spinks argued in court filings that the 2021 blaze that destroyed much of the Village of Lytton and the Lytton First Nation reserve was sparked by trains passing through the village. Both Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railway were named defendants, alongside a railway compliance company, the federal government, five unnamed corporations, one John Doe and one Jane Doe. Chief Justice Christopher E. Hinkson rejected the class-action certification on several grounds, but focused closely on the lack of hard evidence linking the wildfire to the rail lines. "Beyond the assertion that several trains passed through Lytton on the day the wildfire started, and that there was some vegetation adjacent to the tracks, there are no facts alleged as to how any of CPR's or CNR's trains, railways, or employees caused the wildfire," Hinkson ruled. The ruling went on to call the lawsuit's claims "bound to fail…overbroad and vague." The justice also found issues with the proposed class that would be included in the lawsuit, which proposed to lump groups of people that suffered different types of losses into one "single colossus." The many subclasses and different groups of people proposed to be included in the lawsuit would create a "monster of complexity," Hinkson ruled. The justice did, however, determine that a class action could ultimately be the best way to advance the claims put forward in the lawsuit. While the current lawsuit has "fatal" flaws, Hinkson said "it may be possible to certify a class action if the plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in his pleadings." Slater Vecchio LLP, the law firm behind the proposed class action, issued a statement expressing optimism. "We respect the court's ruling and appreciate the opportunity to amend our pleadings. We remain confident that a class action is still the best avenue to represent the interests of the affected individuals," said Anthony Vecchio, K.C. The law firm encouraged anyone impacted by the fire to retain documentation like expense receipts. [GN] CANADIAN PACIFIC: Plaintiff to Amend Pleadings in Wildfire Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- finance.yahoo.com reports that in reasons released on August 9, 2023, the Honourable Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson invited the plaintiff to amend his pleadings to meet the criteria to certify the claim as a class action. By allowing the plaintiff to amend their pleadings, the Court recognizes the benefit of their claim proceeding as a class action and provides an opportunity for further development of the certification of a class action. Anthony Vecchio, K.C. of Slater Vecchio expressed optimism about the Court's decision, stating: "We respect the Court's ruling and appreciate the opportunity to amend our pleadings. We remain confident that a class action is still the best avenue to represent the interests of the affected individuals." The class-action lawsuit represents a diverse group of individuals and entities adversely affected by the Lytton Creek Wildfire, which was sparked on June 30, 2021. This includes those who suffered personal injuries, incurred property losses, were forcibly displaced, and whose businesses were disrupted. Any individual or business that suffered one or more of these losses is automatically a class member in the action, if certified, unless they choose to opt out. Class members are advised to retain any relevant documentation relating to their losses caused by the Lytton Creek Wildfire such as expense receipts, property inventories, and any other pertinent information. [GN] CASEY'S GENERAL: Loses Bid to Partly Dismiss Kessler Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUMMER KESSLER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., CASEY'S MARKETING COMPANY, and CASEY'S RETAIL COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-02971-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies Casey's' Motion to Dismiss In Part. Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss In Part filed by Defendants Casey's General Stores, Inc., Casey's Marketing Co., and Casey's Retail Co., (collectively, the "Casey's"). On Dec. 19, 2022, Kessler filed a two-count "Collective and Class Action Complaint" against the Defendants wherein she seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for herself and similarly situated workers. The first cause of action, Count I, seeks to remedy violations under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., while the second cause of action, Count II, seeks to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. Count I is brought on Kessler's behalf and as a putative class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Count I, Kessler seeks certification of the following class, which is collectively referred to as the "Illinois Class" and/or "Class Members": All Store Managers who are currently or have been employed by Defendants in Illinois at any time between the time period of three years prior to the filing of this Collective and Class Action Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter and excluding individuals who joined the McColley v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., et al, No. 2:2018-cv-00072 (N.D. Ind.) lawsuit (the IMWL Class). Count II is brought by Kessler and on behalf of Collective Members. In Count II, Kessler brings FLSA overtime claims on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for the Defendants as exempt-classified Store Managers from Dec. 15, 2019, to the date of judgment in this Action who elect to opt in to this action. On Feb. 21, 2023, Casey's filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On that same date, they also filed their Motion to Dismiss In Part pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), along with Supporting Memorandum of Law. Within the motion, Casey's argues that the Court lacks grounds to assert personal jurisdiction over the putative "opt in" collective members that did not work in Illinois. On April 14, 2023, Kessler responded to the pending motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2023, Casey's filed their reply. While two types of personal jurisdiction exist (general and specific), the parties focus on specific personal jurisdiction as Casey's in neither incorporated in Illinois nor does it maintain its principal place of business in Illinois. Specific jurisdiction is appropriate where (1) the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the forum state or purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in that state, and (2) the alleged injury arises out of the defendant's forum-related activities. Casey's concedes that there is specific personal jurisdiction as to Kessler's claims and those of Illinois class members. However, it argues that there is no specific jurisdiction over potential claims brought by employees who neither resided nor worked in Illinois for it, i.e. the out-of-state opt-ins. In support of their position, Casey's argues for application of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), which involved an aggregate mass tort action that arose under California law. In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked specific jurisdiction where there was no connection between the forum state (California) and the specific claims asserted by non-resident plaintiffs. Casey's position is not that simple though. Casey's argues that Bristol-Myers requires each potential opt-in plaintiff to show minimum contacts between Casey's and the forum state, Illinois, before even being a party to the suit, and asserts that a motion to dismiss is the proper stage at which to raise this argument. Judge McGlynn says does not agree with that blanket application as Kessler is the only named Plaintiff at this stage. He says the very representative nature of the FLSA and collective actions limits duplicative lawsuits where numerous persons may have been harmed while requiring Court to establish jurisdiction of each putative collective member before they have even opted-in thwarts that purpose and only leads to congestion within the courts. Other courts in this circuit and even district have declined to consider this issue prior to conditional certification. At this juncture, Judge McGlynn is persuaded that it is premature to reach the question of personal jurisdiction before individuals have even been given notice of the collective action and an opportunity to opt-in. However, this issue can be raised at a later date, after a ruling on the motion for conditional certification. As such, Casey's Motion to Dismiss In Part is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr67ejfw from Leagle.com. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAJUAH MUDAHY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; HEALTH NET, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00055-GW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order that the certification discovery and briefing deadlines and the hearing on the motion for class certification are continued to the following dates: Class Certification Discovery Cut-off Oct. 6, 2023 File Motion for Class Certification Oct. 16, 2023 Defendant's Opposition Nov. 13, 2023 Plaintiff's Reply Dec. 4, 2023 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Dec. 21, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KZrcw3 at no extra charge.[CC] CHASE DENNIS: Samora's Class Counsel Awarded $810K in Attys.' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JULIE SAMORA, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHASE DENNIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02027-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees. Judge Freeman addresses the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees in connection with the final approval of a supplemental class action settlement. A separate order addresses final approval of the supplemental class action settlement. The Court previously granted $1,372,000 in attorneys' fees on the initial settlement, which represented 28% of the initial common fund of $4.9 million and a 2.64 multiplier of the initial lodestar. The Class Counsel now requests an additional $1,072,161.75 in fees. The Class Counsel states that this constitutes 28% of the Supplemental Gross Settlement Amount of $3,902,926.97, but it actually constitutes 28% of the $3,829,149.10 Supplemental Gross Settlement Amount that the Court preliminarily approved. Judge Freeman uses the $3,829,149.10 amount, which the Class Counsel uses in its Reply brief. The Class Counsel provides that the fee award would result in a 3.98 multiplier on the total lodestar. The Defendants oppose the motion. Under the lodestar method, attorneys' fees are calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer. This amount may be increased or decreased by a multiplier that reflects factors such as the quality of representation, the benefit obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of nonpayment. In common fund cases, a lodestar calculation may provide a cross-check on the reasonableness of a percentage award. Where the attorneys' investment in the case is minimal, as in the case of an early settlement, the lodestar calculation may convince a court that a lower percentage is reasonable. Similarly, the lodestar calculation can be helpful in suggesting a higher percentage when litigation has been protracted. Thus, even when the primary basis of the fee award is the percentage method, the lodestar may provide a useful perspective on the reasonableness of a given percentage award. he lodestar cross-check calculation need entail neither mathematical precision nor bean counting courts may rely on summaries submitted by the attorneys and need not review actual billing records. Because there is a common fund, Judge Freeman applies the percentage-of-recovery method. She finds it is proper to consider the entire common fund, including both the initial and supplemental settlements. The Ninth Circuit benchmark for fees is 25%. Although the class members clearly benefit from significant payments, Judge Freeman finds that no more than the benchmark fee is warranted. The initial common fund was $4.9 million, and the supplemental settlement amount is $3,829,149.10, for a total of $8,729,149.10. The Class Counsel is entitled to 25% of this amount in fees, which comes to $2,182,287.28. The lodestar cross check shows fees for 900.4 hours of attorney and paralegal time equaling $614,761 in fees. Judge Freeman is satisfied that the number of hours expended on the case was reasonable and the Class Counsel's hourly rates are in line with fee awards in this District for attorneys of equal experience and quality. The $2,182,287.28 total fee award with a total lodestar of $614,761 would result in a multiplier of 3.55, which is appropriate. Judge Freeman finds it proper to grant a total of $2,182,287.28 in fees for the case. The Class Counsel has already received $1,372,000 in fees. The Class Counsel is, therefore, entitled to an additional $810,287.28 in fees. Accordingly, the request for attorneys' fees is grants in part and denied in part. The Class Counsel is awarded $810,287.28 in attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xycwujh from Leagle.com. CHEGG INC: Arbitration of Moyer Action OK'd, Case Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Chegg, Inc. 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 on July 25, 2023, the company received an order by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting its motion to compel arbitration with regards to putative consumer class action Case No. 22-cv-09123 filed by a Sheri Moyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the case will be stayed pending arbitration. On December 27, 2022, Moyer filed said case on behalf of all purchasers of a Chegg product or service as part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer within the past four years. Chegg's platform provides products and services to support learners to help them better understand their academic course materials, and also provides personal and professional development skills training, to help them achieve their learning goals. CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Chegg, Inc. 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 on November 9, 2022, a Joshua Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 22-cv-06986) on behalf of individuals whose data was allegedly impacted by past data breaches. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Chegg's platform provides products and services to support learners to help them better understand their academic course materials, and also provides personal and professional development skills training, to help them achieve their learning goals. CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Shareholder Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- Chegg, Inc. 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 on December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against Chegg and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 7, 2022, KBC Asset Management and The Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiff in the case. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, including counsel and expert fees. Chegg's platform provides products and services to support learners to help them better understand their academic course materials, and also provides personal and professional development skills training, to help them achieve their learning goals. CHEGG INC: Stansell Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty in DE Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chegg, Inc. 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 on February 14, 2023, a Brian Stansell, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated stockholders of Chegg, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0180) on behalf of all Chegg stockholders who were eligible to vote at Chegg's 2022 Annual Stockholders' Meeting, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members of Chegg's Board. Chegg's platform provides products and services to support learners to help them better understand their academic course materials, and also provides personal and professional development skills training, to help them achieve their learning goals. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES: Luna Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Luna, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC., a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2307429 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01740. On March 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant which sets forth the following nine causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages; failure to indemnify; failure to provide accurate written wage statements; failure to timey pay all final wages; failure to timely furnish personnel records; failure to timely produce payroll records; and unlawful competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com - and - Abbey M. Jahnke, Esq. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-5027 Phone: (619) 881-4479 Email: abbey.Jahnke@jacksonlewis.com - and - Mossamat N. Karim, Esq. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 796-5421 Facsimile: (4.15) 394-9401 Email: mossamat.Karim@jacksonlewis.com CLEAN BEAUTY FOR ALL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Beauty for All, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Clean Beauty for All, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07516 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clean Beauty for All, Inc. -- https://www.cleanbeauty.com/ -- offers beautiful clean beauty products & fragrances crafted with safe ingredients y.[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 CONSELMAN RETAIL: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conselman Retail Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Conselman Retail Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07577 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conselman Retail Enterprises, LLC is a Texas Domestic Limited-Liability Company.[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 CRAWFORD KNITTING: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crawford Knitting Company, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crawford Knitting Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01050-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Crawford Knitting Company -- http://www.crawfordknitting.com/-- is an apparel and shoes manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com CREATIVE VENTURES: OKs Settlement Over 2021 Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ topclassactions.com reports that Pro Wrestling Tees, operated by Creative Ventures Inc., agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2021 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals who were notified by Creative Ventures Inc., doing business as Pro Wrestling Tees, that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach that was discovered Nov. 1, 2021. The settlement also benefits a subclass of individuals who resided in California at the time of the data breach. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Pro Wrestling Tees failed to protect their personal information from a data breach discovered in November 2021. According to Wrestling Inc., the data breach compromised personal information and payment card data. Pro Wrestling Tees is a wrestling apparel retailer operated by Creative Ventures Inc. Creative Ventures hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $3,500 for unreimbursed data breach losses. This includes bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses, credit costs, monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft and up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $15 per hour. Losses will only be reimbursed if they have not already been reimbursed through credit monitoring insurance or identity theft insurance and occurred between Nov. 1, 2021, and Aug. 17, 2023. Members of the California subclass are eligible for an additional $100 cash benefit. All class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring services under the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection was July 18, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 17, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who were notified by Creative Ventures Inc. d/b/a Pro Wrestling Tees that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach that was discovered on Nov. 1, 2021 California subclass: individuals who resided in California at the time of the data breach Potential Award $3,500 Proof of Purchase Documentation of data breach-related expenses Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/17/2023 Case Name Colon v. Creative Ventures Inc. d/b/a Pro Wrestling Tees, Case No. 2023LA000177, in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit State of Illinois for Dupage County Final Hearing 08/24/2023 Settlement Website CVDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator Creative Ventures Claims Administrator PO Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@CVDataBreachSettlement.com 833-215-5175 Class Counsel Gary M Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Christopher G Dean MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC [GN] CUP O' CO LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cup O' Co LLC. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cup O' Co LLC doing business as: Kif Kefir, Case No. 1:23-cv-07563 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cup-O Beverages LLC -- https://cupofcoa.com/ -- is a Food and Beverage Services company located in Scottsdale, Arizona.[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 DAVITA INC: Consolidated Employee Antitrust Suit Ongoing in IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Davita 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 is it facing a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. On August 9, 2021, DaVita Inc. and its former chief executive officer were named as defendants in a consolidated putative class action complaint in the matter of "In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation." This class action complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeks to bring an action on behalf of certain groups of individuals employed by the company between February 1, 2012 and January 5, 2021. On September 26, 2022, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss. Davita Inc. provides dialysis and related lab services to patients in the United States for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end stage renal disease or end stage kidney disease. DEALERS' CHOICE: Court OKs Stipulation to Vacate Deadlines in Morin ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. MORIN, RENE LONGORIA, NICOLAS MEREZKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DEALERS' CHOICE TRUCKAWAY SYSTEM, INC. dba TRUCKMOVERS, a Kansas corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00216-WLH-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered an order granting stipulation to vacate deadlines in light of Settlement and set deadline to file motion for preliminary approval. -- All deadlines and dates currently on-calendar, including Rule 26(a)(1) and motion for class certification related dates, are vacated. -- The Plaintiffs are ordered to file their motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement by October 13, 2023. Dealer's Choice provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44rhFFc at no extra charge.[CC] DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Bid to Dismiss IBEW Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP and Deloitte LLP, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304-DCC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. entered an order denying Deloitte's motion to dismiss. -- The court reaffirms its finding IBEW Local 98 satisfies the requirements for lead plaintiff appointment pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the PSLRA. -- All provisions of the court's July 14, 2021, order remain in full force and effect. The court shall set a hearing forthwith on IBEW Local 98's motion to compel and for sanctions, and Deloitte's motion for protective order. IBEW Local 98 is a sophisticated investor with experience acting as Lead Plaintiff in other securities class actions complaints. There is no evidence that IBEW Local 98 will not act in the best interests of the class, that IBEW Local 98's interests are antagonistic to those of the putative class, or that the Board of Trustees would not have endorsed IBEW Local 98's motion to act as class representative. In 2007, SCANA Corporation received legislative approval to construct two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear GeneratingStation in Fairfield County, South Carolina. SCANA and its partner, South Carolina Public Service Authority, spent approximately $9 billion on the Project, which ultimately was abandoned. SCANA was exposed to civil and criminal liabilities, as were its officers and directors. On November 22, 2019, Samuel R. Floyd, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought this class action securities complaint against Defendants Deloitte & Touche, LLP and Deloitte LLP, which have served as SCANA’s auditors since 1945. The complaint alleged Deloitte was aware the Project was failing but continued to issue unqualified "clean" audit reports on SCANA's financial statements, to the detriment of SCANA investors. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund filed a motion pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, for an order appointing IBEW Local 98 as Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others situated, on the grounds it was the investor with the largest financial interest in the case. Deloitte & Touche provides audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45sxHjc at no extra charge.[CC] DETROIT, MI: Court Grants in Part Versen's Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC VERSEN, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Case No. 2:21-cv-11545-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order granting in part Versen's motion for class certification. -- The Court appoints Kevin S. Ernst and Hannah R. Fielstra as class counsel. -- Within 10 days, the parties must file a joint statement setting forth their agreement or disagreement on the form and manner of class notice. The Court concludes that the class is readily ascertainable for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance, superiority, and implied ascertainability requirements under Rule 23(b). Having determined that Plaintiffs also meet the requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court concludes that certification of the putative class as to liability is appropriate. Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric Versen's motion to certify a class of at least 56 individuals whose vehicles were allegedly unconstitutionally impounded under Defendant the City of Detroit's blight ordinance. On May 21, 2021, Versen used his work vehicle to place a couch in an empty lot. According to the City, Versen's vehicle was towed and impounded after Detroit police officer Jeremy Woods reviewed surveillance footage of an alleged illegal dumping and identified Versen's vehicle as the vehicle involved. Versen filed this lawsuit as a class action, alleging among other claims that: (i) the impoundment of his and putative class members' vehicles without a warrant violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, (ii) Versen and the putative class members' rights to due process were violated by the failure to provide a prompt hearing to recover his vehicle, and (iii) the City's impoundment ordinance was facially unconstitutional. Versen moves for certification of two classes comprising: (1) All persons who were subjected to a warrantless seizure of their legally parked vehicles pursuant to Detroit's blight ordinance, after the alleged blight violation, where their vehicles were detained pending payment of the blight ordinance fines, beginning July 1, 2018 until present. (2) All persons whose vehicle were seized pursuant to Detroit's blight ordinance without a prior hearing who were not given an opportunity to contest the seizure in an administrative or judicial hearing until 14 or more days elapsed from the date their vehicles were seized. Detroit is the largest city in the midwestern state of Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pebekp at no extra charge.[CC] DZS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of DZS Inc.. ("DZS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DZSI) between August 2, 2022 through June 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Class Period begins on August 2, 2022, when the Company filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2022 (the "2Q22 10-Q"), claiming that "there were no changes in [DZS's] internal control over financial reporting that occurred during [the Company's] last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, [DZS's] internal control over financial reporting." On November 1, 2022, the Company filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2022 (the "3Q22 10-Q"). The Complaint alleges the Company once again led the market to believe that DZS's internal control over financial reporting was effective, claiming for example, that there "were no changes in [DZS's] internal control over financial reporting…that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, [DZS's] internal control over financial reporting." The Complaint alleges that these statements falsely assured the market that DZS maintained adequate and effective internal controls, when, in fact, DZS had ongoing undisclosed issues with its internal controls over financial reporting. The Complaint alleges that on June 1, 2023, before the market opened, DZS filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, revealing the discovery of an accounting error relating to the timing of revenue recognition with respect to certain customer projects. On this news, the Company's stock declined $2.17 per share, or 36%, to close at $3.82 per share on June 1, 2023. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DZS should contact the Firm prior to the October 9, 2023 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] EBIX INC: Saraf Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rahul Saraf filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order and Judgment dated July 17, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled RAHUL SARAF, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EBIX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1589, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Saraf brings securities fraud claims against Ebix and two Ebix executives, Robin Raina and Steven Hamil (the "Individual Defendants"). The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that, between Nov. 9, 2020, and Feb. 19, 2021, the Defendants made material misstatements regarding Ebix's internal control over its financial reporting, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a); and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5"), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 18, 2022, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Judge Furman dismissed Saraf's claims under the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. That leaves only the question of whether Saraf should be granted leave to amend his complaint, which he has requested. Notably, Saraf already had two opportunities to amend, and he does not identify facts in his possession that would cure the defects discussed above. That said, mindful that leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," and that "complaints dismissed under Rule 9(b)" or the PSLRA "are almost always dismissed with leave to amend," Judge Furman granted Saraf one final chance to amend. Saraf was directed file any Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of the Opinion and Order. On October 31, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. On November 22, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint which the Court granted through an Opinion and Order signed by Judge Furman on July 17, 2023. The Clerk of Court entered judgment consistent with the Opinion and Order, and closed the case. The appellate case is captioned as Saraf v. Ebix, Inc., Case No. 23-1182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Aug. 17, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3080 Defendants-Appellees Ebix, Inc., et al., are represented by: Julie Elizabeth Cohen, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-2431 ELECTROMED INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- Electromed Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2023, that the state court granted final settlement approval motion for the data breach-related state court class suit. On September 8, 2021, a state court putative class action lawsuit was filed in Minnesota against the Company asserting injury resulting from the previously announced data breach that impacted the Company's customer protected health information and employee personal information and seeking compensatory damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the proceeding was removed to the District of Minnesota. The Company believes the plaintiff was not injured as a result of the data privacy incident and, as a result, the claims are without merit. Accordingly, on November 11, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the parties agreed in principle to settle the case. The parties have executed a settlement agreement and submitted a motion to settle the class action. During January 2023, the settlement was preliminarily approved. The hearing for final approval took place on June 5, 2023. Following the final approval hearing, the court issued a judgment on July 10, 2023 granting a motion for final approval of the settlement. As a result of the judgement, there was no additional impact on the financial statements as of or for the year ended June 30, 2023. Electromed Inc. is based in Minnesota, and develops, manufactures and markets innovative airway clearance products. ELITE OUTDOORS: Santana Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELITE OUTDOORS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01046-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought challenging the discriminatory actions of businesses that prevent those who are visually impaired or legally blind from equal enjoyment and access to websites, and the Internet generally. The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates Elitearchery.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). The Defendant and its Website violate the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and New York State Civil Rights Law, ("NYSCRL"), as the Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of him and other similarly situated people who are blind and/or visually impaired, who wish to access the website in order to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells there during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff and the proposed classes seek, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person. The Defendant sells products, such as archery products and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212/595-6200 Fax: 212/595-9700 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ELZETTA DESIGN: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elzetta Design, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elzetta Design, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01074-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Elzetta Design -- https://elzetta.com/ -- is a seller of flashlight mounts, shield lights, parts, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Staniewicz Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTIONETTE STANIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-06731 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information, resulting in the theft and dissemination of their PII on the dark web. The PII that was stolen in the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and Class members' names, mailing addresses, Social Security numbers, and tax identification numbers. As a regular and necessary part of its business, the Defendant collects, maintains, and stores sensitive and non-public data pertaining to the personnel working on the productions it services, says the suit. On June 30, 2023, the Defendant detected suspicious activity within its computer network. A month after, on July 31, 2023, the Defendant finally sent out a letter to the Plaintiff and Class members informing them that their PII had been stolen by criminals. As a result of this delayed notification, the Plaintiff and Class members had no idea that their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. Because of the sensitive and immutable nature of the PII stolen, this risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: lost or diminished value of PII; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the consequences of the Data Breach, including lost time; the disclosure of their PII; and the present, continued, and certainly increased risk to their PII, the Plaintiff asserts. Ms. Staniewicz provided her PII to her employers over the years who used the Defendant as their payment vendor. The Defendant offers production companies cloud-based digital solutions related to production finance and production management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Alex J. Tramontano, Esq. Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com tramontano@whafh.com zekiri@whafh.com EXPERT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Expert Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Expert Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07564 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Expert -- https://www.theexpert.com/ -- is a platform that connects customers with designers for an hour-long one-on-one Zoom consultation.[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 FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Chapman Securities Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on March 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the motion for post judgment relief, and entering judgment for defendants. This is with regards to an October 12, 2022 memorandum opinion and order issued by the U.S. District Court Judge issued a dismissing the amended complaint "Chapman v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al." in its entirety and with prejudice, and on October 14, 2022, entered judgment. On September 3, 2020, plaintiff Jim Chapman filed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, Rostislav Raykov, and Chief Financial Officer, Robert Andrade, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned "Chapman v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-00812. The complaint alleged that prior to the company's August 10, 2020 receipt of a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA concerning the company's new drug application (NDA) for PEDMARK(R), defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the company's third-party PEDMARK(R) product manufacturing facility and the impact the facility would have on regulatory approval for PEDMARK(R). On December 3, 2020, the company appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative class. On February 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint added members of the company's Board of Directors as defendants, asserted a putative class period from December 20, 2018 through August 10, 2020, made allegations similar to those in the original complaint, claimed that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 3, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 2, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2021, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss, and on December 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered an order recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety. On January 24, 2022, lead plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and defendants filed their response on February 3, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's order and recommendation and entered an order and judgment dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On March 30, 2022, lead plaintiff filed a motion for post judgment relief, seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In his proposed second amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to add allegations stemming from the receipt of a second CRL following the company's resubmission of the company's NDA for PEDMARK(R), which the company received on November 29, 2021, among other things. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for post judgment relief on April 20, 2022. On May 4, 2022, lead plaintiff submitted a reply in support of his motion. On September 27, 2022, defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding the FDA's press release announcing that it has approved PEDMARK (R). On October 18, 2022, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to request for judicial notice. On October 21, 2022, defendants filed a reply in support of the request for judicial notice. On February 15, 2023, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion for post judgment relief be denied. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a commercial stage specialty pharmaceutical company with one U.S. FDA-approved and European Commission approved product, PEDMARK(R), developed to reduce the risk of ototoxicity associated with cisplatin in pediatric patients one month of age and older with localized, non-metastatic solid tumors. FIRST-LIGHT USA: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First-Light USA, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First-Light USA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01071-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First-Light USA -- https://firstlight-usa.com/ -- provides design and develops advanced form-factors and wearables for warfighters in both training and austere battlefield environments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Nishon Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- The case Todd Nishon, James Capps, Joseph Vaillancourt, Harry Hilburg, Raymond Dynne III, and William Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-11972-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 8, 2023) accuses the Defendant of unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California False Advertising Law, Consumer Fraud Act, Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among others. The Plaintiffs bring this class action over Ford's failure to disclose to consumers the spontaneous stall/fire risk associated with some of its vehicles before and after their purchases. In doing so, Ford misrepresented the safety, reliability, and functionality of the vehicles in question, leaving consumers in the dark about the serious safety hazards and monetary harm arising from the spontaneous stall/fire risk. The Plaintiffs demand restitution, including recovery of the purchase price of their stall/fire risk vehicles or the overpayment for their vehicles, as well as damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and all other relief as may be appropriate. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer based in Dearborn, MI. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and – Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Denis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com FORD MOTOR: Vangel Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph Vangel, Bryan Klontz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-22572 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11964-FDS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Rico, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 2701 S LeJeune Rd., 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33314 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: nrico@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Maria Helena Ruiz, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 587-1044 Fax: (305) 675-2601 Email: MRuiz@kasowitz.com FORLOH INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forloh, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forloh, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01086-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FORLOH -- https://forloh.com/ -- is a technical hunting and outdoor brand, founded in 2020, with gear and clothing that is 100% made in the USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Devoe FDCPA Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Devoe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Case No. PAS L 000290 23 was removed from the Superior Court Of New Jersey, Passaic County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10069 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a consumer-focused, performance-driven organization that delivers compliant solutions through positive experiences and latest technologies.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Morgan Virginia Manley, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas, 21st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 907-9729 Fax: (212) 907-9829 Email: mmanley@sgrlaw.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Grinblat's FDCPA Claims Dismissed W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SIMCHA GRINBLAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-CV-4467 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, and dismisses the Plaintiff's claims for violation of 15 Sections U.S.C. Section 1692d.1692e, 1692f, and 1692g without prejudice. Plaintiff Grinblat initiates the class action lawsuit against Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC, and Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA") by sending an undated collection letter and misleading him regarding the specifics of his debt and his rights under the FDCPA. Currently under the Court's consideration is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. Prior to March 20, 2021, the Plaintiff incurred debt from Capital One Bank, a "creditor," which subsequently went into default due to missed payments. The debt was then acquired by LVNV, a "debt collector," and placed with FAS, another "debt collector" for collections. Sometime thereafter, FAS sent an undated letter to the Plaintiff, attempting to collect the outstanding balance of the debt, which was specified on the Letter as $16,294.72 as of March 20, 2021. The Letter mentioned no new charges or payments since March 20, 2021, and provided a specific date, May 23, 2022, for the Plaintiff to dispute all or part of the debt, noting that FAS must stop collection on any amount Plaintiff disputed until FAS sent Plaintiff information showing that Plaintiff owed the debt. However, the Letter did not specify how this March 23, 2022 date was determined, nor did it specify that Plaintiff had 30 days from the date of receiving the letter to exercise his rights, as the Plaintiff alleges is required under the FDCAPA. The Plaintiff alleges that these omissions caused him to expend time to ascertain what his options and possible responses could or should be. On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this class-action lawsuit alleging that FAS and LVNV violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d, Section 1692e, Section 1692f, and Section 1692g. He seeks damages and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and a class of consumers. On Jan. 5, 2023, and with the consent of the Court, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and a brief in support of their motion. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendant's Motion and the Defendants filed their reply. To have standing, the Plaintiff must allege that he suffered a concrete, particularized injury when claiming that the Defendants violated the FDCPA. Judge Roman finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged standing under Article III, as he has failed to establish that he suffered a "concrete, particularized harm." The Plaintiff's Complaint is composed of allegations of harm allegedly incurred due to the Defendants' failure to date the collection letter. A careful examination of these allegations reveals that they fail to assert a concrete, particularized harm. The Plaintiff's narrative, though rife with references to "concrete and particularized harm," offers only conclusory allegations of harm. Given the absence of a concrete injury, such as a claim of reputational or monetary harm, the Plaintiff's assertions fail to meet the threshold required to establish standing under Article III. Thus, Judge Roman must dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA without prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for alleged violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g is granted without prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint on Sept. 5, 2023, consistent with the Order. He is advised that the Amended Complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. Thus, any claims they wish to pursue must be included in the Amended Complaint. If the Plaintiff fails to timely file an Amended Complaint, those claims dismissed without prejudice by this order will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond by Oct. 2, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8uc429 from Leagle.com. FSSOLUTIONS: Junk Fax Class Action Revived on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a proposed class action alleging that FSSolutions sent faxes requesting participation in its drug- and alcohol-testing network in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was improperly dismissed, a federal appeals court said. Chiropractor Richard Thalman plausibly alleged that the faxes indirectly advertised the company's services as a lead generator for him to purchase at the cost of a reduced fee for drug-testing, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said.[GN] G5 OUTDOORS: Santana Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G5 OUTDOORS, L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-01042-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought challenging the discriminatory actions of businesses that prevent those who are visually impaired or legally blind from equal enjoyment and access to websites, and the Internet generally. The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates G5outdoors.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). The Defendant and its Website violate the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and New York State Civil Rights Law, ("NYSCRL"), as the Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of him and other similarly situated people who are blind and/or visually impaired, who wish to access the website in order to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells there during the past three years from the date of the filing of the complaint (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff and the proposed classes seek, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person. The Defendant sells products, such as outdoor products and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212/595-6200 Fax: 212/595-9700 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GATE PETROLEUM: Beutelschiess Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vivienne Beutelschiess, Ronda Degroft, and Brittney Respess, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATE PETROLEUM COMPANY, Case No. 16-2023-CA-009283-XXXX-MA was removed from the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01010-MMH-JBT. The Plaintiffs allege that they bring "this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ('PII') of more than 12,000 individuals, including Defendant's current and former employees, including, but not limited to, name and Social Security number." The Plaintiffs purport to bring this suit because Defendant "intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failed to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members was safeguarded, and failed to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com Secondary email: mrios@bakerlaw.com - and - Christopher A. Wiech, Esq. Georgia L. Bennett, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309-7676 Phone: 404.946.9814 Email: cwiech@bakerlaw.com gbennett@bakerlaw.com GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Maintain Redactions in Plaintiffs' Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), GateHouse Ohio moves to permanently extend the temporary seal as to certain redactions in two exhibits to Plaintiffs' Reply. The material that GateHouse Ohio seeks to maintain under seal is the same type of information that the Court has recently held in this case is appropriate for sealing: (1) the private personal information of third parties (Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Jeffrey R. Corcoran); and (2) a confidential customer service script (Deposition Exhibit 160). The redactions in Exhibit B to the Corcoran Affidavit (ECF 244-1) are narrowly tailored to protect the private personal information of a third party and are limited to the name, email address, and phone number of that third party. The Court has already held that this type of personal information could remain sealed. GateHouse Ohio also moves to seal its confidential customer service script, which is Deposition Exhibit 160 to Plaintiffs' Reply. The Court has held that GateHouse Ohio's customer service scripts may remain sealed, as well as excerpts of deposition testimony in which such a script is discussed. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PbENTF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq. Daniel H. Bryan, Esq. James D. Abrams, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com llarsen@taftlaw.com dbryan@taftlaw.com jabrams@taftlaw.com GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC MCELROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-09159-DMG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order to continue case management schedule: Early Mediation Deadline Dec. 18, 2023 Joint Report re Results of Jan. 8, 2024 Amended Pleadings and Addition May 6, 2024 of Parties Cut-Off (by stip or motion, and includes hearing of motions to amend) Class Certification Motion March 21, 2025 Filing Deadline Opposition to Class April 14, 2025 Certification Motion Reply in Support of Class April 28, 2025 Certification Motion Hearing on Class May 9, 2025 Certification Motion Georgia Pacific manufactures corrugated packaging. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45HDEso at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Faces Securities Suit Over DiDi Global ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on July 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California and New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to DiDi Global Inc.'s (DiDi) $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADS). In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On September 22, 2021, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On May 5, 2022, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which includes allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the underwriter defendants. On June 3, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): iQIYI ADS Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on June 1, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to iQIYI's approximately $2.4 billion March 2018 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include iQIYI, certain of its officers and directors and its controlling shareholder. GS Asia underwrote 69,751,212 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.3 billion. On November 30, 2022, the defendants served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Sea Limited ADS Securities Suit on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed on February 11, 2022 and June 17, 2022, respectively, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's approximately $4.0 billion September 2021 public offering of ADS and approximately $2.9 billion September 2021 public offering of convertible senior notes, respectively. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 8,222,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.6 billion and convertible senior notes representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.9 billion. On August 3, 2022, the actions were consolidated, and on August 9, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The defendants had previously moved to dismiss the action on July 15, 2022, with the parties stipulating that the motion would apply to the consolidated amended complaint. On May 15, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice, and on June 15, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for a rehearing or for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint and also appealed. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Centessa IPO Securities Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on February 10, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc's (Centessa) approximately $380 million May 2021 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Centessa and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 6,072,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $121 million. On June 7, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiaries Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs International (GSI) were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On June 5, 2023, the court dismissed the claims against certain foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to GS&Co., GSI and the remaining defendants. The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price used to value credit default swaps for settlement. The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On November 15, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed Group Inc. from the action. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. In May 2023, certain parties, including the firm, reached a settlement in principle, subject to final documentation and court approval, to resolve this action. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. On September 30, 2021, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second and third individual actions, which were consolidated in June 2019, was granted, and on March 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. On June 30, 2022, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the putative class action be granted in part and denied in part. On August 15, 2022, the plaintiffs and defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation with the district court. In May 2023, certain parties, including the firm, reached a settlement in principle, subject to final documentation and court approval, to resolve this action. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Unfair Business Practices Can't Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Godoy at Reuters reports that Goldman Sachs (GS.N) shareholders cannot go forward with a class action alleging the bank misled investors about its business practices ahead of the subprime mortgage crisis, a U.S. appeals court ruled. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in three pension funds' long-running case accusing the bank of unlawfully hiding conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities, costing investors more than $13 billion. The court said that the bank's statements about its ability to prevent conflicts of interest were not closely linked to Goldman being fined by U.S. authorities in 2010 over marketing materials for a subprime investment product, and therefore did not affect the stock price. A Goldman Sachs spokesperson said the bank is "gratified by the Second Circuit's decision in this case." A spokesperson for the law firm representing the investors declined to comment. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and others that purchased Goldman shares between February 2007 and June 2010 accused the company and three former executives of securities fraud. The investors said the bank's fraudulent statements kept its stock price artificially high. The plaintiffs said that when they bought Goldman shares they relied upon the bank's statements about its ethical principles and internal controls against conflicts of interest, and its pledge that its "clients' interests always come first." Goldman argued that these "aspirational" statements were too vague and general to have had any impact on the stock price. The case stemmed from Goldman's sale of collateralized debt obligations including Abacus 2007 AC-1, which it assembled with help from hedge fund manager John Paulson. In 2010, Goldman reached a $550 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve charges that it cheated Abacus investors by concealing Paulson's role, including how he made a $1 billion profit by betting that the sale of collateralized debt obligations would fail. The plaintiffs said the share price would have been lower if the truth had been known about the company's conflicts of interest. Applying a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case, the 2nd Circuit found that Goldman successfully showed the statements did not artificially inflate its share price because they were not sufficiently linked to the later disclosures. Statements such as "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business" are too generic to have affected the price, the court wrote. The case is Arkansas Teacher Retirement System et al. v. Goldman Sachs, No. 22-484, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. [GN] GOMEZ WESTERN WEAR: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gomez Western Wear, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gomez Western Wear, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07581 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gomez Western Wear -- https://gomezwesternwear.com/ -- has all western wear needs - Texas Country boots, work boots, felt hats, shirts, jeans, belts for men, women, children.[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 GREAT LAKES WINE: Conerly Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Conerly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT LAKES WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-12168-FKB-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay the Plaintiff and all putative Collective members the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from November 2021 through July 20, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Great Lakes Wine & Spirits, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com HARD ROCK: Bid to Seal Several Docs in White Class Action OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY WHITE, et al., v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC. (HRCI), et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-04224-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Defendant's motion to seal, redact portions of Doc. 55-19, and redact the Personal Identifiers in Docs. 55-17, 55-19, 55-24, and 55-25. Finally, Doc. 55-19 is a quality control survey prepared by a secret shopper, as described above. Disclosure would harm the legitimate business interests of HRCI in addition to (a) embarrassing one of the purported opt-in plaintiffs, and (b) likely annoying the secret shopper whose home and email addresses are disclosed in violation of FRCP 52(a). Similar documents have been deemed confidential, the lawsuit says. HRCI's requests to redact and/or seal documents are narrowly tailored to protect the legitimate privacy interests of its business, its current and former employees, and its customers. The requested redactions can be made without harming Plaintiff’s ability to present his case, and they would not impede public access to any material information upon which the Court is likely to base its decision to grant or deny conditional certification. The Plaintiff's counsel has confirmed he has obtained consent from his clients to publish this private compensation information. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiff White filed the Stipulated Protective Order (PO) as a "stipulation" in the docket of this case. This PO had been negotiated and agreed upon by counsel prior to that date. After the PO was filed, HRCI produced to Plaintiff several categories of documents containing confidential business information, each designated "CONFIDENTIAL” per the PO. Although the Court had yet to enter the PO, HRCI produced the confidential documents in good faith and with the reasonable expectation that Plaintiff would abide by his stipulated agreement to treat them as confidential. Plaintiff did not do this, the lawsuit adds. Hard Rock is a chain of theme bar-restaurants, memorabilia shops, casinos and museums. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ouujw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: F. Beau Howard, Esq. Eileen Oakes Muskett, Esq. Lauren A. Wright, Esq. Colin D. Dougherty, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 870-3763 E-mail: fbhoward@foxrothschild.com emuskett@foxrothschild.com laurenwright@foxrothschild.com cdougherty@foxrothschild.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Martin Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 23-C-1744 was removed from the Circuit Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, at Nashville, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00909. The Plaintiff's claims are tethered to Defendant's alleged violations of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA") regarding the protection of her Protected Health Information ("PHI"), which was allegedly stolen by hackers who intentionally compromised Defendant's systems. Based on alleged violations of HIPAA and the FTCA, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable to members of the Proposed Class for negligence; negligence per se; breach of confidence; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq. Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq. Taylor M. Sample, Esq. Peter C. Rathmell, Esq. BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 742-6200 Email: bphillips@bassberry.com kwalker@bassberry.com taylor.sample@bassberry.com peter.rathmell@bassberry.com - and - Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Email: andrew.clubok@law.com susan.engel@lw.com - and - Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Email: marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Sperling Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Sperling, Leslie Sperling, Rasheed Abdul-Latif, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00902 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sidney W. Gilreath, Esq. GILREATH & ASSOCIATES 550 Main Street, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37902-1270 Phone: (865) 637-2442 Email: gilknox@sidgilreath.com HEALTHY FEET: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Feet Store LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Healthy Feet Store LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07470 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Healthy Feet Store -- https://www.healthyfeetstore.com/ -- offers a huge selection of orthopedic shoes based on specific foot conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Piasecki, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com HF MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Foust Says -------------------------------------------------------- LATOYA FOUST, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07314 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and common law. Plaintiff Foust is a resident of Fayetteville, North Carolina and worked remotely for Defendant as a non-exempt customer service representative from July 11, 2022 to March 7, 2023. He seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding her unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make her and the putative Collective and Class whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled, and to help ensure Defendant will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future. HF Management Services, LLC operates as an investment management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com HOMAGE LLC: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Homage, LLC, an Ohio entity d/b/a HOMAGE.COM, Case No. 30-02023-01336826-CU- was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01601 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Homage -- https://www.homage.com/ -- specializes in ultra-comfy, high quality looks repping sports, pop culture and more legendary moments.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 Email: rstraus@shb.com HOMEAGLOW INC: Can Compel Arbitration; Hovis' Class Claims Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARIE HOVIS, an individual; GENARO MENDOZA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. HOMEAGLOW, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00045-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, stay court proceedings pending arbitration, and dismiss class claims. Plaintiffs Hovis and Mendoza have filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant Homeaglow, a cleaning service application. They were required to register and create a profile on the Defendant's application, which involved completing nine steps. To finalize their account, the Plaintiffs had to sign a "take-it-or-leave-it Contractor Agreement," that included a "Binding Arbitration Provision" ("BAP"). The BAP in the Contractor Agreement provided by the Defendant sets forth the circumstances under which parties must arbitrate as a single claimant in case of a dispute. In November 2020, Hovis created an account with Homeaglow and accepted the Contractor Agreement one minute after finalizing her account. Furthermore, she accepted amended versions of the Contractor Agreements in April 2022 and August 2022. In August 2021, Mendoza created an account with the Defendant and also accepted the Contractor Agreement in April 2022 one minute after finalizing his account. Additionally, he accepted the updated version of the Contractor Agreement in August 2022. The Defendant seeks to enforce the updated Contractor Agreement from August 2022 as it is the most recent version, and both Plaintiffs have accepted it. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the following causes of action against the Defendant: (1) Failure to Reimburse Expenses [Lab. Code, Section 2802]; (2) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements [Lab. Code, Section 226]; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime [Lab. Code, Section 510]; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Lab. Code, Section 226.7]; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks [Lab. Code, Section 226.7]; (6) Failure to Pay Contractual Wages [Lab. Code, Section 223]; (7) Coerced Patronage [Lab. Code, Section 450]; (8) Unlawful Deduction from Wages, in the Alternative [Lab. Code, Section 221]; (9) Breach of Contract, in the Alternative; and (10) Unfair Business Practices [Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.]. On March 10, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss class claims. It argues that the issue of the validity and enforceability of the BAP has been delegated to the arbitrator as agreed to by the parties, and therefore, the Court should not decide whether the BAP is binding on the Plaintiffs and enforceable. The delegation is binding and effective only if the Plaintiffs are bound to it and it is legally effective. The Plaintiffs contend that the delegation provision is part of an unconscionable BAP. While the Court must focus on the validity of the delegation provision, the Plaintiffs can rely on the other provisions to argue that the delegation is unconscionable. The Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the contractual BAP. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing (a) that no agreement was made to bind Plaintiffs to the BAP, and (b) that the BAP is unconscionable, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable. First, Judge Moskowitz finds that an agreement to delegate the issue of arbitration to the arbitrator existed between the parties. There is a sufficient delegation in the BAP as it is clear and unmistakable. Additionally, the Plaintiffs remain bound by the arbitration delegation clause because a mere misunderstanding or a failure to read the contract does not excuse a party from its terms. The arbitration delegation clause is therefore enforceable unless it is unconscionable. Next, based on the record and relevant precedents, Judge Moskowitz determines that the BAP's delegation to the arbitrator to decide whether the BAP was binding and enforceable was procedurally unconscionable given the circumstances. And, upon examination of the BAP's delegation provision, he agrees with the Defendant that it is not substantively unconscionable because there are not 'conscience shocking one-sided' and or harsh or oppressive terms. He finds that the Plaintiffs have established procedural unconscionability but have failed to prove substantive unconscionability. To contest the validity of the delegation, they are required to establish both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Thus, Judge Moskowitz holds that the BAP's delegation to the arbitrator of all issues relating to the enforceability of the BAP is valid and enforceable. Finally, based on the language of the BAP, each claimant must bring their dispute individually against the Defendant. By accepting this agreement, the Plaintiffs consented to independently arbitrate their causes of action and thus cannot be class members. Accordingly, Jude Moskowitz agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs cannot be class members. Therefore, he dismisses the class action claims. For the reasons he discussed, Judge Moskowitz grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, stay proceedings, and dismiss class claims, The arbitration agreement's delegation to the arbitrator is valid. The arbitrator will decide all matters delegated to them. Judge Moskowitz stays the case until further notice. The parties will forthwith initiate further proceedings under the arbitration clause. Delays without good cause by the Plaintiffs will result in dismissal of the case. Delays without good cause by the Defendant will be deemed a waiver of arbitration proceedings under the contract. The Court will hold a status conference on Jan. 4, 2024, at 2 P.M. in Courtroom 15B. Either party may seek sanctions at any time prior to the status conference based on delay without good cause. The Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice (ECF No. 17, at 4) is denied. The class action claims are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/583p5z38 from Leagle.com. HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Equal Employment Sues Over Race Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC Case No. 1:23-cv-00722 (M.D.N.C., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1992 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race (Black) and color (dark skin tone/pigmentation), and to provide appropriate relief to Taria Daughtridge and a class of similarly situated former employees of Defendant who were adversely affected by Defendant's unlawful employment practices. The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission"), alleges that Defendant, Hooters of America, LLC, unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Daughtridge and the class of similarly situated former employees by failing to recall and/or rehire them after a layoff because of their race (Black) and/or color (dark skin tone), says the complaint. The Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII. The Defendant, a Georgia corporation, was franchisor and operator of a national chain of restaurants, commonly known as "Hooters," with locations in 42 states and 27 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Williams, Esq. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Raleigh Area Office 434 Fayetteville St., Suite 700 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Phone: (984) 275-4820 Facsimile: (704) 954-6412 Email: Samuel.Williams@eeoc.gov - and - Mary Katherine Littlejohn, Esq. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Greenville Local Office 301 N. Main Street, Suite 1402 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 565-0353 Facsimile: (704) 954-6412 Email: mary.littlejohn@eeoc.gov I.K.M.J. JOINT: Bid to Remand Strauss Suit to State Court Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRITTANY STRAUSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. I.K.M.J. JOINT LLC d/b/a GIRL COLLECTION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00439-MMD-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denies Girl Collection's motion to remand. Plaintiffs Brittany Strauss and Jasmine Woodward sues Defendants I.K.M.J. Joint LLC d/b/a Girl Collection ("Girl Collection") and Floyd Mayweather to recover unpaid wages for their previous work as exotic dancers. Before the Court is Girl Collection's motion to remand. The Plaintiffs worked for several years as exotic dancers at Girl Collection, an adult dance entertainment venue, in Las Vegas, Nevada. While working for Girl Collection, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs or other dancers the minimum wages required under federal and state laws. Because the Defendants classify their dancers as independent contractors rather than employees, the Plaintiffs instead received compensation only in the form of gratuities from patrons and only in the amounts that the Defendants unilaterally determined. The Plaintiffs and other dancers have been required to share a portion of all of their tips with the club as well as managers and other employees, such as "house moms" and disc jockeys. Additionally, they must pay the Defendants "house fees," which total between $100 and $200 for every shift, depending on what time they arrive. In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege in pertinent part that Defendants have misclassified exotic dancers as independent contractors and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada law by failing to pay them minimum wage and by retaining portions of their tips. The Plaintiffs bring these claims individually, as a putative collective action under the FLSA, and as a putative class action under Nevada law. In their individual capacities, they also allege that the Defendants retaliated against them for their participation in this lawsuit, in violation of both the FLSA and Nevada law. Girl Collection titles its Motion as a "motion to remand to state court" and "requests that this matter be remanded to the Nevada State Court" as contractually required. However, as the Plaintiffs point out, it is unclear whether Girl Collection seeks a remedy of remand or transfer through its Motion. Girl Collection in gist wants to litigate the action in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark ("State Court"), citing a forum-selection clause within the independent contractor agreements ("ICA") signed by the Plaintiffs. In any event, Judge Du denies the Motion to the extent Girl Collection seeks remand to state court. The case did not originate in State Court and was never removed to this Court. Remand is not an available remedy here because there is nowhere to "send back" the case. Girl Collection also appears to seek transfer of the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) -- a remedy that, they argue, the ICA forum-selection clause requires. The Plaintiffs argue that transfer is not appropriate because Section 1404(a) applies only to a transfer between two federal courts, not from federal court to state court. Judge Du agrees with the Plaintiffs. Section 1404(a) provides a mechanism for enforcement of forum-selection clauses that point to a particular federal district. On the other hand, the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, Judge Du denies the Motion to the extent Girl Collection seeks transfer of the action to State Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). After the Plaintiffs note Girl Collection's procedural errors, Girl Collection replies by arguing that instead of remand or transfer, it seeks dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds. Judge Du, however, disregards Girl Collection's reply brief arguments to the extent it urges dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds - in line with the Ninth Circuit's "general rule" that parties cannot raise a new issue for the first time in their reply briefs. In sum, Judge Du denies Girl Collection's Motion to the extent that it (1) seeks to remand the case to State Court and (2) seeks to transfer the case to State Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Additionally, she disregards Girl Collection's forum non conveniens dismissal arguments -- a wholly new issue raised in its reply brief. Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited several cases not discussed. She has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motion before the Court. It is therefore ordered that Defendant Floyd Mayweather's motion to join in Girl Collection's motion to remand is granted. Girl Collection's motion to remand is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckyut45 from Leagle.com. IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Dula Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marnelle Mac Dula, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV005044 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01819-CKD. The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. Kyle A. Wende, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3151 Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com kyle.wende@ogletree.com IRON WILL OUTFITTERS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iron Will Outfitters Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Iron Will Outfitters Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01048-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Iron Will -- https://ironwilloutfitters.com/ -- engineer high quality broadheads, knives, and archery components for bow hunters that love the pursuit; for hunters like us.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VA: Fuschetti Sues Over Damaged Property -------------------------------------------------------------- The case IN RE: 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN SUBDIVISION OF BREWER'S CREEK, Case No. 2:23-cv-00409-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va., Aug. 17, 2023) was brought by Plaintiffs Vincent and Andrea Fuschetti, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated private property owners, alleging that they suffer property avulsion, erosion, and damage due to Isle of Wight County policy disproportionate to greater common public good by failing to replenish rip rap and maintain drainage infrastructure. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all owners of real property in the Brewers Creek subdivision asserting the taking and damaging of valuable property interests from an elected decision to abandon ownership and maintenance of the underground drainage easements in the Brewer's Creek Subdivision to avoid Clean Water Act. Corporate acts averting compliance with the Clean Water Act causes avulsion, erosion, and unstable soils on private property, and the Plaintiffs lose investments in land, says the suit. Plaintiffs Vincent and Andrea Fuschetti are citizens and residents of Isle of Wight County, Virginia and own property identified by the county. Isle of Wight County is a Virginia state agency authorized to operate stormwater retention and drainage infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph V. Sherman, Esq. JOSEPH V. SHERMAN, P.C. 324 West Freemason Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 350-8308 Facsimile: (757) 351-4663 E-mail: joe@lawfirmJVS.com ISM VUZEM: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Proposed Class Notice Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sasa Maslic, individually and on behalf of putative class, Ivan Drzaic, Robert Hernaus, Leopold Hubek, Leon Hudoldetnjak, Elvis Koscak, Tomica Panic, Stjepan Papes, Zeljko Puljko, Darko Sincek, David Štante, Nedeljko Zivanic, Gogo Rebic, and Mitje Pogorevc, v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc., Vuzem USA, Inc., and HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem, Eisenmann Corporation, Tesla, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and Class Representative Maslic will move the Court for approval of proposed notice Plan for the Class of: "All non-exempt individuals employed by ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., who worked at the Tesla facility located in Fremont, California, at any time from July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016." The October 29, 2020 filed First Amended Complaint asserts two individual FLSA wages claims, five individual claims under the California Labor Code, and an eighth cause of action of a Class action based on wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code. The Eighth Cause of Action is brought against Defendant ISM Vuzem, d.o.o. and related persons Defendants HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, and Robert Vuzem. On June 26, 2023, the Court granted class certification in this case, certified the following Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff Sasa Maslic as Class Representative moves this Court to approve a Class Notice Plan of formal long form notice sent by via International Priority Airmail by the United States Postal Service and via e-mail to all known Class members for whom names and address or e-mail or both can be compiled. Class members are individuals who were transported to the United States from their home countries of Bosnia and Herzegovenia, the Republic of Slovenia, Croatia, and Hungary to provide cheap labor for American companies. ISM Vuzem is a company that operates in the Environmental Services industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P0e3V0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William C. Dresser, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM C. DRESSER 14125 Capri Drive, Suite 4 Los Gatos, CA 95032-1541 Telephone: (408) 279-7529 Facsimile: (408) 668-2990 JACK IN THE BOX: Court Enters Judgment on Meal Break Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a corporation of Delaware, Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-HZ (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered an order granting the Defendant's Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Plaintiffs' Unpaid Break Claims, and strikes lost meal break wages and meal break penalty wages awarded to Plaintiffs. The Court concludes that before June 1, 2010, Oregon law did not require employers to pay employees for a 30-minute meal period when employees were called back to work before 30 minutes. Oregon law required that, at most, employers pay employees for any time they worked during a shortened meal period. As noted, Plaintiffs stipulated that Defendant paid them for all of the time they worked when they were called back early from their meal periods. Accordingly, the Court concludes "the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict." Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this fourteen-year litigation, the Court sets out only the facts that are relevant to the pending Motion. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Jack in the Box in its Oregon restaurants at various times. On August 13, 2010, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Gessele, Nicole Gessele, and Tricia Tetrault filed a putative class-action Complaint in this Court against Jack in the Box for violations of the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and various Oregon wage-and-hour laws. Jack in the Box is an American fast-food restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45JlwOW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. 240 6th Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2931 - and - Jim W. Vogele, Esq. 812 N.W. 17th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 The Defendant is represented by: Douglas S. Parker, Esq. Heather St. Clair, Esq. Ian Maher, Esq. LANE POWELL PC 601 S.W. Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204 - and - David Symes, Esq. SYMES LAW OFFICE LLC 39085 Pioneer Boulevard, Suite 1003 Sandy, OR 97055 JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Addendum ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered an order preliminarily approving settlement addendum and directing notice to additional class members: 1. The terms of the Court's December 20, 2022, Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Directing Notice to Settlement Class. 2. The terms of the Court's April 20, 2023, Order finally approving the settlement and granting Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award remain in effect and are fully incorporated by reference. 3. The Settlement Class, defined as "all people who paid Defendant Johns Hopkins University tuition and/or fees for the Spring Semester 2020, which tuition and fees have not been refunded," appropriately encompasses the Additional Students who may assert the claims alleged in Counts I and II of Named Plaintiff Elena Botts's Amended Complaint against Defendant Johns Hopkins University. 4. The Addendum to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release entered into between the parties as of July 31, 2023, appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Additional Students, i.e., those members of the Settlement Class not previously provided notice. 5. Accordingly, for settlement purposes only, the proposed Addendum is preliminarily approved, pending a Final Approval Hearing. 6. The Court finds that the Addendum concerns 1,915 members of the Settlement Class, the Additional Students. 7. The Court affirms (1) its earlier findings that Named Plaintiff Elena Botts has and will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class and (2) her appointment as class representative. 8. The Court affirms its earlier findings that (1) the attorneys for Named Plaintiff, James A. Francis, John Soumilas, Kevin C. Mallon, and Jordan M. Sartell of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. and Courtney Weiner of the Law Office of Courtney Weiner PLLC, have and will continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class and (2) their appointment as Class Counsel. 9. The Court affirms its earlier appointment of JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator. Johns Hopkins University is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KUm5gP at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Nov. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEMICAL TOXIN WORKING GROUP INC.DBA HEALTHYLIVING FOUNDATION INC., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Previous New Deadline Deadline Deadline for the parties to Sept. 1, 2023 Oct. 31, 2023 complete fact discovery on issues relating to class certification: Deadline for plaintiff to file Sept. 21, 2023 Nov. 20, 2023 motion for class certification and serve class certification- related expert reports: Deadline for defendants to serve Nov. 20, 2023 Jan. 19, 2024 class certification-related expert reports and opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for plaintiff to file Jan. 19, 2023 Mar. 19, 2024 reply in support of class certification: Alternative Dispute Resolution 30 days following a ruling deadline: on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0fYaF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq. OLIVER-ZHANG LAW, PLLC 810 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 2003 7 Telephone: (202) 643-1110 Facsimile: (202) 643-1596 E-mail: julie@oliverzhanelaw.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com kberkenh ff@.kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com brccd@ka n Ian fox. com - and - Aida Poulsen, Esq. POULSEN LAW P.C. 282 11th Avenue, Suite 2612 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (650) 296-1014 E-mail: ap@poulsenlaw.org The Defendants are represented by: Anthony T. Pierce, Esq. Miranda A. Dore, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 E-mail: apierce@akingump.com mdore@akingump.com - and - Steven A. Zalesin, Esq. Joshua Kipnees, Esq. George Soussou, Esq. Gautam Rao, Esq. Jonah Knobler, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2110 E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com jknobler@pbwt.com jkipnees@pbwt.com gsoussou@pbwt.com grao@pbwt.com JZ PRODUCE: Driotis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS DRIOTIS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JZ PRODUCE INC and OSCAR RIVERA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06200 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Plaintiff Driotis was employed by the Defendant from an approximate point in time in January 2018 and continuing until October 15, 2020. During this temporal span, the Plaintiff fulfilled the role of a helper, engaging in labor for a total of 70 hours per workweek. JZ Produce Inc. is a corporate entity principally engaged in Valley Stream, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12 Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 KEL-LAC UNIFORMS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kel-Lac Uniforms, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kel-Lac Uniforms, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07585 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kel-Lac Uniforms -- https://kellac.com/ -- is one of the leading military uniform stores.[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 KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Class of Employees Certified in Gamboa Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELISSA GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS, and GRANT DEAN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-cv-1141-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. The Court draws the following summary from the Plaintiff's First Class Action and Collective Action Complaint for Unpaid Wages. The putative class and collective members are all individuals employed in Defendants' CBD product manufacturing business on or after May 9, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to pay their employees overtime premiums for overtime hours worked. On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, C.R.S. Section 8-6-101 et seq., as implemented by the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS"), 7 C.C.R. 1103-1, the Denver Minimum Wage Ordinance ("DMWO"), D.R.M.C. Ch. 58, Section 58-16, et seq., and the Colorado Wage Claim Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 8-4-101, et seq. ("CWCA"). The lawsuit is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition under the FLSA ("FLSA Collective"): All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked. She proposes the following class definition under the COMPS, as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action ("COMPS Class"): All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2016 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition under the DMWO, as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action ("DMWO Class"): All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked. She proposes the following class definition under the CWCA, as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action ("CWCA Class"): All separated employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid all earned, vested and determinable wages upon separation. The Plaintiff requests that the Court conditionally certifies the collective action, approves their proposed form of notice, and approves their proposed notice plan. The Defendants object to conditional certification on substantive grounds, but they do not object to the proposed notice and notice plan. Judge Martinez finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that all employees were subject to the same policy, namely, a "policy of avoidance of overtime wage payments that applied to all their hourly employees." Thus, conditional certification appears appropriate. Next, while the Plaintiff does not currently appear to be a model class representative, Judge Martinez holds that that is not what the law requires. Therefore, at this early stage of the litigation, he finds that based on the pleadings, the Plaintiff is an appropriate class representative. Judge Martinez then finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged in her Complaint that the Defendants subjected all their hourly employees to the same policy and practice of failing to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked. He says her allegations, together with her co-workers' declarations asserting that the Defendants had a policy of avoidance of overtime wage payments applied to all their hourly employees, are sufficient at the notice stage. Finally, while he acknowledges that the class definition is bare-bones, Judge Martinez concludes that it passes statutory muster -- but just barely. The class is broadly defined and includes any hourly employee employed by the Defendants. It will be the Plaintiff's burden to sufficiently address what will surely be a vigorous attack by the Defendants at the motion to decertify stage. For these reasons, Judge Martinez grants the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. He conditionally certifies the case to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and defines the class as "All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019 who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked." He approves the Notice and Consent to Join form. The Plaintiff is directed to deliver the Notice and Consent to Join form to all potential collective action members via first-class U.S. Mail. The Defendants are likewise directed to post the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous places in their place of business for a period of 60 days. They must include a copy of the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective action members they currently employed. The Defendants will produce the names, addresses and dates of employment of all potential class members so that the Plaintiff may disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion. The putative class members will have 60 days from the date the Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which to opt-in to the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvxtcd4h from Leagle.com. KNIFE AID INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knife Aid, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Knife Aid, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01076-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Knife Aid -- https://knifeaid.com/ -- is engaged in offering a knife sharpening service by mail that provides customers with a way to sharpen and restore their knives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com KNIGHT HAWK: Dye Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY DYE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT HAWK HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): (a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated; (b) Directing that notice (attached as Exhibit B) be sent by United States mail, email, and text message to the following: "All current and former hourly employees of Defendants engaged in underground mining in Illinois at any time from April 24, 2020, to the present, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek;" (c) Directing Defendants to provide within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above that includes their full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, personal email addresses, and phone numbers; (d) Directing Defendants to provide a declaration that the produced roster fully complies with the Court’s Order; and, (e) Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any potential opt-in plaintiff. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly underground coal mining employees perform compensable pre- and post-shift work before and after their shifts that is not counted toward their weekly hours and not paid. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QSwYUd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com KRAFT HEINZ: Class Action Over Merger Heading to $450M Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com reports that attorneys who led a four-year-long class action on behalf of investors claiming financial losses from a 2015 merger that created Kraft Heinz are seeking $90 million of a $450 million settlement pool. The underlying litigation dates to February 2019, when lawyers from Mololamken, of Chicago, and Rosen Law Firm, of New York, brought a putative class action on behalf of named plaintiff George Hedick Jr., seeking to represent anyone who bought Kraft stock from May 14, 2017, through Feb. 21, 2019. Named defendants included Kraft Heinz and three officers: CEO Bernando Hees and Paulo Basilio, who served as chief financial officer and executive vice president from June 2015 until Oct. 1, 2017, and his successor, David Knopf. The complaint, filed in federal court in Chicago, accused the company and executives of violating U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules via more than 100 "materially false and misleading statements" through several filings attesting to disclosure controls and procedures as well as internal financial reporting processes. "The truth" emerged, according to the complaint, in a Feb. 21, 2019, earnings announcement when Kraft detailed a $15.4 billion "impairment charge" and disclosed the SEC had subpoenaed the company in October 2018. Specifically, the complaint alleged the company slashed costs across a sprawling product line to temporarily boost earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Plaintiffs alleged the long-term result was permanent damage to the value of many individual brands under the giant corporate umbrella. The complaint said the Feb. 21 disclosures caused Kraft shares to fall more than 27% the next day, closing at $34.95. By Aug. 8, 2023, according to motions for settlement and attorney compensation, different law firms and lead plaintiffs headed the docket. Lawyers from Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, of Radnor, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, represent named plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and Booker Enterprises. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, of New York, represent Union Asset Management Holding. The settlement motion said discovery involved production of more than 15 million pages of documents. Attorneys said they believed in their allegations but acknowledged the potential challenges of proceeding to trial, noting questions about "whether the alleged misstatements caused consistent inflation in Kraft Heinz's stock price, the extent to which the company's business lines were impacted by defendants' alleged fraud, and whether plaintiffs' theory of loss causation that would rely on expert testimony could withstand" procedural motions and other challenges. U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso granted preliminary approval to the settlement in May, after which the attorneys said there have been no objections from settlement class members. Although a steep drop from the maximum potential damages of $4.3 billion, the $450 million cash payout "will be the largest pretrial securities class action settlement ever in the Seventh Circuit," according to the motion for legal fees. The U.S. Seventh Circuit covers federal courts in the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Individual investors will have to show they obtained stock or options during the class period and still had them during one of three different "alleged corrective disclosures." Loss calculations include securities purchase and sale prices to establish prorated settlement payouts. The attorneys said their request for 20% of the full fund, or 20.2% net of expenses, "is well within the range of fee awards" Seventh Circuit courts have approved and also is "within the range of fees typically awarded in settlements of comparable size in securities class actions" elsewhere. The firms cited 112,835 hours of professional time spent thus far, "including interviews with hundreds of former Kraft Heinz employees" and also requested up to $3.2 million in litigation expenses. The named plaintiffs would be in line for $114,340 for costs related to representation of the class. Only one person has objected to the fee request, though the deadline to do so extends to Aug. 22. The law firms asserted the objector's complaint "is virtually identical to series of other objections that he has submitted in unrelated, factually distinct cases." [GN] LEEDING BUILDERS: Underpays Construction Workers, Crawford Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALGI CRAWFORD, XAVIER HARRISON, and KEVEEN GORIS on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEEDING BUILDERS GROUP, LLC, and AECOM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07290 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the New York State Labor Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendant: (1) liquidated damages for untimely wage payments; (2) liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the NYLL and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act; and (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; (4) attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) unpaid overtime compensation for weeks when he was unable to take meal breaks and wherein he worked over 40 hours. Plaintiffs Crawford, Harrison, and Goris began working for Defendants as construction workers from March 2020 until March 2022, from September or October 2021 until June 30, 2022, and from December 2021 until August 2022, respectively. Leeding Builders Group, LLC operates a building construction contracting business, providing labor and constructing hotels, condominiums, and other residential and commercial buildings in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Loses Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PEDRO BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-5777 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion and Order granting LG Electronics USA, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit on Sept. 29, 2022. On Nov. 14, 2022, LG moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff then filed its First Amended Complaint ("FAC") which asserts violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action ("NJCFA") and Magnum-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") on behalf of the nationwide class (Counts I and II, respectively), and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act ("FDUTPA") on behalf of the Florida subclass (Count VI). The FAC also asserts claims of fraud by omission (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count VII), and breach of express and implied warranty of merchantability (Counts IV and V, respectively) on behalf of the nationwide class, or in the alternate, the Florida subclass. Id. LG moved to dismiss the FAC on Jan. 20, 2023. On March 29, 2023, the Court granted LG's motion to compel arbitration and denied LG's motion to dismiss as moot. The Plaintiff now moves to certify an interlocutory appeal of the March 2023 Opinion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). A district court may certify a non-final order for interlocutory appeal where the order (1) involves a controlling question of law, (2) offer[s] substantial ground for difference of opinion as to its correctness, and (3) if appealed immediately would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that the Court improperly applied the Third Circuit's decision in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) by finding that the motion to dismiss standard applied even though it considered significant evidence from outside the pleading. According to him, because the Court relied in part on the "on-the-box and in-the-box" notices in finding that he had "reasonable notice" of the arbitration agreement -- notices that the Defendants mentioned in a declaration submitted in support of their motion to compel arbitration -- the affirmative defense of arbitrability was not apparent from the face of the complaint or documents relied on in the complaint, and application of the summary judgment standard was warranted. Judge Vazquez disagrees. He says the Plaintiff's argument conflates the two grounds set forth in Guidotti that warrant replacing the motion to dismiss standard with the motion for summary judgment standard. Likewise, it mischaracterizes the Court's application of Guidotti. As the noted in the March Opinion, "where the affirmative defense of arbitrability of claims is apparent on the face of a complaint (or documents relied upon in the complaint), the FAA favors resolving a motion to compel arbitration under a motion to dismiss standard." The summary judgment standard, by comparison, is used only if "(1) the complaint -- and documents relied on in the complaint—are unclear regarding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; or (2) the nonmoving party has responded with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue." Thus, Judge Vazquez first considered whether the affirmative defense of arbitrability was apparent from the FAC and the documents relied on in the FAC. He found arbitrability to be apparent. His determination was based on the FAC and the Warranty -- not the Arbitration Notice. The burden then shifted to the Plaintiff, the non-moving party, to "respond with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue," since arbitrability was apparent from the Complaint and the document on which it relied. Judge Vazquez says the Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first factor. Whether the Plaintiff "saw" the notices is not the relevant inquiry, and a motion for certification should not be granted merely because a party disagrees with the ruling of the district judge. Moreover, his determination as to whether the Plaintiff responded with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue such that the Rule 56 standard should apply is not a "controlling question of law." As to the second factor, the Plaintiff argues that the Court's interpretation of Guidotti conflicts with those of other courts in this District. Judge Vazquez holds that the arbitrability of the claims was apparent from the FAC and the Limited Warranty. And because the allegations in the FAC were grounded in the Plaintiff's rights under the Limited Warranty, and the Limited Warranty contained the governing arbitration provision, the Court could consider these documents without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Had the Plaintiff responded with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue, the Court would have applied the Rule 56 standard. But contending that the Plaintiff did not see the Arbitration Notice did not trigger the application of Rule 56. Lastly, the moving party bears the burden of showing that certification would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The Plaintiff argues that granting the petition would expedite the resolution of this matter by potentially preventing an arbitration that could be later rendered futile by the Third Circuit. But the mere possibility that the court's interlocutory decision compelling arbitration could later be found incorrect is not sufficient to satisfy Section 1292(b). Whereas, in the present case, reversal would not eliminate the need for trial, simplify the case, or reduce the cost of discovery, and would instead result in beginning the putative class action case anew at the class certification stage, thereby becoming exponentially more complex, expensive, and time consuming. Hence, the third factor is not satisfied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vazquez denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion and Order for interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 8, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4akun4dw from Leagle.com. LHC GROUP: Kovach Suit Transferred to Western District of Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GLENDA KOVACH and AMY ADKINS, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the LHC GROUP 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiffs v. LHC GROUP, INC., LHC GROUP 401(K) COMMITTEE, MARCUS MACIP, JOSH PROFFITT, CHRIS GILL, KIMBERLY SEYMOUR, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:23-0051 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division: a. grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue; and b. denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending a Ruling on Motion to Transfer Venue. Pending before the Court is a Motion to Transfer Venue and a Motion to Stay Pending a Ruling on Motion to Transfer Venue by Defendants LHC Group, Inc., LHC Group 401(k) Committee, and the individually named LHC Group 401(k) Committee members/fiduciaries Marcus Macip, Josh Proffitt, Chris Gill, and Kimberly Seymour. Plaintiffs Kovach and Adkins oppose both motions. LHC is a national in-home healthcare services provider that operates in 38 states and the District of Columbia. The company is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in Louisiana, and employs 29,000 employees. Pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), LHC established a 401(k) retirement Plan that enables eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. Plaintiffs Kovach and Adkins allege they are former employees of LHC who participated in the LHC Group 401(k) Plan. They claim that they were injured because the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to monitor certain fees and investments associated with the Plan. Therefore, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action individually and as representatives of other current and former employees, participants, and beneficiaries of the "Plan to recover losses due to mismanagement." At this point, the Defendants have not challenged the merits of the Plaintiffs' argument but, instead, argue the Court should transfer venue to the Western District of Louisiana. Judge Chambers states that in deciding whether to transfer venue, a district court initially must ask whether the action could have been brought in the transferee forum. If so, the Court has broad discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to transfer any civil action to any other district for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. When exercising such discretion, the Fourth Circuit directs courts to consider: (1) the weight accorded to plaintiff's choice of venue; (2) witness convenience and access; (3) convenience of the parties; and (4) the interest of justice. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit recognized that Congress intended in ERISA cases to give a plaintiff's choice of forum somewhat greater weight than would typically be the case, as evidenced by ERISA's 'liberal venue provision. Nevertheless, despite the fact there is ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum, this principle is not conclusive and the plaintiff's choice is not afforded substantial weight if the cause of action bears little or no relation that forum. Ultimately, the party seeking the transfer has the burden to prove the action could have been filed in the transferee forum and the balance of factors strongly favors transfer. In applying this criteria to the present case, Judge Chambers finds the Defendants have met their burden. First, Judge Chambers finds that the Defendants easily establish that venue exists in the Western District of Louisiana and that the action could have been properly filed there. Second, he also finds the causes of action brought by the Plaintiffs -- that is, breach of fiduciary duties -- bear, at most, a marginal relationship to the Southern District of West Virginia. For purposes of the Defendants' motion, Judge Chambers accepts these assertions by the Plaintiffs as true and does not deny there is some connection to this district. However, he finds the balance of factors strongly favors transfer to Louisiana. First, although the Plaintiffs previously worked for LHC within the district, neither of the named Plaintiffs currently live here. Thus, the only connection to this District with the named Plaintiffs is that, once upon a time, they worked here and participated in the Plan they allege was mismanaged. On the other hand, it is obvious that nearly all the discovery related to the Committee members' decisions and actions regarding the alleged mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duties occurred within the Western District of Louisiana. Under these circumstances, Judge Chambers has no difficulty finding the inefficiencies of litigating the matter in the Southern District of West Virginia are overwhelmingly evident and the considerations of convenience, fairness, and the interest of justice strongly favors transferring this action to the Western District of Louisiana. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants have met their heavy burden to overcome the Plaintiff's choice of forum by demonstrating that this action should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana for further proceedings. Therefore, Judge Chambers grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) is granted and denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Stay. He further directs the Clerk of the Court to transfer the action to the Western District of Louisiana. Judge Chambers directs the Clerk to send a copy of his Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rrevsh7x from Leagle.com. LIBERTY WORKS: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Works, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Works, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01072-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Liberty Works -- https://libertybottles.com/ -- offers Liberty Bottles which are line single wall aluminum bottles made 100% start-to-finish in the United States Of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com LIDL US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as August v. Lidl US, LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05180 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge Arlene R. Lindsay entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery related to the propriety March 1, 2024 of class certification to be completed by: -- The deadline to take the first step to May 1, 2024 move for class certification is: -- All discovery, inclusive of expert December 31, 2024 discovery, to be concluded by: -- Any party planning on making a January 31, 2025 dispositive motion must take the first step in the motion process by: -- The parties are to electronically file February 18, 2025 a joint proposed pretrial order in compliance with the district judge's individual rules, signed by counsel for each party, on or before: -- The September 12, 2024, final conference February 20, 2025 is adjourned to: The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Lidl US, LLC operates as a supermarket.[CC] LIFE STORAGE: Faces Frechmann Suit Over Store Managers' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANICE FRECHMANN, DAVID MEISTER, ED NOLE, KARLA PIRILLO, AND CHRIS SENGELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFE STORAGE LP, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-017141 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers who have worked as store managers for Life Storage LP and its subsidiaries in the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Life Storage expects its store managers to perform work off the clock, before and after the scheduled shifts and during unpaid meal breaks, and does not compensate them for all hours worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. This practice results in store managers not being paid all overtime due for all hours worked in excess of40 hours in any workweek, assert the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Frechmann was employed by the Defendant from approximately August 2020 to August 2021 as a store manager at a Life Storage facility located in Addison, Illinois. Life Storage operates storage facilities throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Settles Shareholders' Class Suit for $3.5-M -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart at nationalmortgageprofessional.com reports that loanDepot, has reached a $3.5 million settlement over a class action lawsuit filed by shareholders. The suit accused the company, its founder Anthony Hsieh, other top executives, and bank underwriters including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, of making misleading disclosures around the time of its 2021 initial public offering (IPO). According to court documents, all claims against the defendants will be released in exchange for the cash payment. However, loanDepot and other defendants deny any wrongdoing, fault, or liability in the matter. The preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on July 26, according to the 10-Q, and is pending approval. The class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased loanDepot's class A common stock during the IPO and between March 16 and Sept. 22, 2021. Shareholders alleged that the company improperly collected double daily interest from refinance borrowers, misrepresented compliance practices, and misleadingly omitted information about projects known as "Project Alpha" and "Project Beta." These projects were claimed to have violated loan origination and underwriting requirements to boost performance; an allegation loanDepot has not admitted to. But there are other lawsuits the company faces. Another suit, filed by the company's former chief operations officer Tammy Richards, alleges interest overcharging and improper documentation of loans at Hsieh's command. Richards is seeking over $75 million in damages. The recent loanDepot 10-Q filing indicates that the company plans to file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication against Richards by Nov. 15, 2023. During an earnings call, the company acknowledged $8 million in costs related to the "settlement of legacy litigation." Despite this, the lender managed to narrow its net losses from the previous quarter. Earlier, it reported a net loss of $49.8 million in the second quarter. Year over year, it's a significant improvement. For the second quarter of 2022, loanDepot posted a net loss of $223.8 million. The nation's third-largest mortgage lender by funded loan volume said the decrease in the loss quarter over quarter is primarily due to an increase in revenues and operating efficiency benefits. In the first quarter, its loss was $91.7 million. loanDepot still faces two separate shareholder lawsuits in California and Delaware and three similar shareholder derivative complaints filed in Delaware in July. These actions are in their preliminary stages, signaling that legal challenges for the company may continue to unfold. A spokesperson for loanDepot declined to comment on the settlement. [GN] LONG BEACH: Appeal From Final Approval of Castillo Class Deal Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH CASTILLO, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent, TAMI KIM ALAN, Objector and Appellant, Case No. B310857 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Four, dismisses Tami Kim Alan's appeal from a final order: (i) approving class settlement between the named class Plaintiffs Elizabeth Castillo, Chris Marker, Regina Buccella, and Kham Chang , and Defendant Long Beach Memorial Medical Center; and (ii) overruling Alan's ex parte objection to class settlement. Alan, an unnamed class member in the class action lawsuit, purports to appeal from a final order approving class settlement between the class Plaintiffs and defendant Long Beach Memorial), and overruling Alan's ex parte objection to class settlement. The class Plaintiffs move to dismiss Alan's appeal. Alan filed a lawsuit, classified as a "Workplace Harassment" matter in the Los Angeles Superior Court, against Long Beach Memorial on Jan. 28, 2011. Following settlement discussions, Alan's lawsuit was dismissed on Sept. 24, 2014. The class Plaintiffs filed the original class action complaint in this lawsuit on March 26, 2015, asserting various wage and hour causes of action against Long Beach Memorial. Years later, on Aug. 13, 2019, Alan filed a new lawsuit against Long Beach Memorial, which was classified as a "Civil Rights/Discrimination" case. As of the date Alan designated the appellate record in this matter, her second lawsuit remained pending. Following conditional certification and preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement agreement in this matter, on June 25, 2020, a third-party administrator mailed class settlement notices to Alan and other known class members. Alan's notice, which was mailed to the address provided by Long Beach Memorial and cross-verified through the National Change of Address Database, informed her that she could request an exclusion or object to class settlement no later than August 10, 2020. The notice mailed to Alan was not returned as undeliverable. Alan did not object by Aug. 10, 2020, and instead, she mailed an opt-out letter with a signing date of Sept. 20, 2020, and postmarked date of Sept. 28, 2020. On Oct. 7, 2020, Alan was notified that her opt-out letter was invalidated as untimely. On Dec. 14, 2020, Alan filed an ex parte application for an order giving effect to her opt-out letter "and/or to object to the settlement" as to her personally. In its written opposition, Long Beach Memorial confirmed Alan's mailing address and proof of mailing the opt-out notice. On Dec. 15, 2020, the trial court held a joint hearing on final approval of settlement and Alan's ex parte objection to class settlement. The court denied Alan's ex parte, finding in relevant part that "there's no doubt that there was an address on file for Alan and that's where the documentation regarding this settlement was sent. So it was reasonable for defendant to send to that address. Following the joint hearing the same day, the court signed and filed an order granting final approval of settlement and overruling Alan's ex parte objection to class settlement. The final order repeated the court's rulings on both issues, approved the settlement, and released all claims alleged in the operative complaint. The final order also provided: "The Court hereby enters the concurrently filed Judgment in the Action as of the filing date of this Final Order, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement," retaining jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement (Code Civ. Proc., Section 664.6). It also provided: "The Settlement becomes effective under the terms of the Settlement Agreement with the signing of this order." On Dec. 18, 2020, the class Plaintiffs served Alan a notice of entry of the final order approving the class settlement and overruling her ex parte objection to class settlement. On Jan. 13, 2021, the court signed and filed a judgment in conformity with the final order approving class settlement. Alan's notice of appeal, filed Feb. 22, 2021, provides that she appeals "from the judgment(s) and/or order(s) of dismissal in this matter, including without limitation those dated or entered on or about Dec. 30, 2020, Jan. 12, 2021 and/or Jan. 13, 2021." The notice also states that Alan challenges "the ruling(s) and/or order(s) on or about Dec. 15 and/or 18, 2020 denying Alan's application for relief, and approving one or more settlements in these matters." Attached to Alan's civil case information are (1) a notice of entry of the Jan. 13, 2021, judgment; and (2) the Dec. 15, 2020, final order approving class settlement and overruling her ex parte objection. The Court of Appeals opines that it is undisputed that Alan, an unnamed class member, did not seek to intervene prior to filing her notice of appeal. As such, she lacks standing to appeal the judgment or underlying orders in this matter. Even if Alan has filed a motion seeking to intervene or vacate the judgment after filing of her notice of appeal, she has provided no authority that would permit the filing of a post-appeal trial court motion to confer standing to appeal, and no authority permitting appellate review of such a post-appeal trial court motion. Assuming without deciding the appealability of the order denying her ex parte objection to class settlement, the Court of Appeals also concludes that Alan's appeal is untimely. Subject to exceptions not applicable in the case, Alan was required to file her notice of appeal on or before the earliest of 180 days after entry of judgment or appealable order, or 60 days after the superior court clerk or party served on her a notice of entry of judgment or appealable order. As her appellate briefs make clear, the operative order from which Alan took this appeal was the final order approving class settlement and denying Alan's ex parte objection to class settlement. That order, which left no issue remaining to be determined as to Alan, was final for purposes of her appeal. Alan was served with notice of entry of that order on Dec. 18, 2020. The deadline for her to file a notice of appeal was Feb. 16, 2022; she did not file her notice until Feb. 22, 2021. Thus, Alan's appeal is untimely and must be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the Respondents. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mhzr9p4 from Leagle.com. Law Offices of John A. Schlaff and John A. Schlaff -- john.schlaff@gmail.com -- for the Objector and Appellant. Janelle Carney -- janelle@janellecarneylaw.com -- Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and Joseph Antonelli -- jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- for the Plaintiffs and Respondents. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, Travis M. Gemoets -- TGemoets@jmbm.com -- Marta M. Fernandez -- MFernandez@jmbm.com -- Raef Cogan -- RCogan@jmbm.com; Buchalter and Robert M. Dato -- rdato@buchalter.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent. LONGWORTH INDUSTRIES: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Longworth Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Longworth Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01084-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Longworth Industries manufactures and markets Polarmax and XGO technical base-layer apparel cased in West End, North Carolina,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com LOUISIANA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Access OJJ Client Records Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX A., by and through his guardian, CIVIL ACTION Molly Smith; BRIAN B.; and CHARLES C., by and through his guardian, Kenione Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for Access to OJJ Client Records. The operative pleading in this action is the First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Alex A., by and through his guardian Molly Smith, Brian B., and Charles C., by and through his guardian Kenione Rogers, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Government John Bel Edwards, Deputy Secretary of the OJJ Williams Sommers, and the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections James M. LeBlanc. In this Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I), declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. section 794 (Count II), and declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On October 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. The Motion for Class Certification remains pending before the district judge. On November 21, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Motion to Dismiss). On July 5, 2023, the instant Motion for Access was referred to the undersigned for resolution. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The district judge subsequently held a status conference, set a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on August 15, 2023, and required the parties to meet and confer for the purposes of submitting a joint proposed discovery scheduling order. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44wUvNw at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISVILLE METRO: Settlement in Lott Wins Final Nod --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYROME LOTT, v. LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00271-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order granting the Parties' motion for final settlement approval and attorney fees, and to supplement briefing. -- The Class is certified for settlement purposes the Court finding that the Class satisfies the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process. a. The "Class includes all persons with vehicles registered to them whose vehicles were assessed a storage fee in excess of $10 for each of the first seven days a vehicle was in storage, plus a $5.00 fee per day for each additional day thereafter that a vehicle remained in storage since on or about February 2, 2008, and who did not file a valid Opt-Out Request. The total number of class members is in excess of 39,303 persons. -- Claims Administrator Payment The Defendant shall pay the reasonable and necessary Settlement Administration Costs of the Claim Administrator in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. This includes the following: a. Payment from the Defendants to Kroll Settlement Administration for their resolution of the claimant payments, tax requirements and on-going expenses associated with the payments to claimants is in the best interest of the Class and the Defendants shall provide payment to Kroll consistent with Kroll’s total proposed cost estimate; b. Any payments made by the Defendants, including the previous $61,000, shall be treated as a reduction of their $1,500,000 total settlement amount; c. The Defendants shall reimburse Class Counsel in the amount of $26,272.82 for their previous payment(s) to Kroll. -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses The Court makes the following findings with respect to Attorneys' fees: a. The requested attorneys' fees of $450,000 or 30% of the $1.5 million common fund created as a result of Class Counsel’s efforts is reasonable. The Defendant shall also reimburse Class Counsel $2,436.67 for litigation expenses which shall also be treated as reduction of the total settlement amount. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45KHQaV at no extra charge.[CC] LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Karri Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Lumentum Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Karri class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the "Karri Lawsuit"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is styled as a class action. The Karri Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus. The Karri Lawsuit further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff in the Karri Lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs, including attorneys' fees. After the plaintiff in the Karri Lawsuit was appointed as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The first amended complaint, also named Lumentum as a defendant but Lumentum has since been dismissed from the action. On October 8, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 1, 2020, defendants answered the first amended complaint. On September 17, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to stay discovery in light of the second amended complaint. On January 11, 2022, the Court struck the second amended complaint as untimely, terminated defendants' motions to dismiss as moot, and lifted the stay. The case proceeded through fact and expert discovery. On August 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification and to be appointed class representative. Defendants opposed the motion. The action subsequently was stayed while the parties participated in a mediation. On January 18, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement informing the court of an agreement in principle between the parties for a class-wide settlement of the Karri Lawsuit. On January 24, 2023, in light of the potential settlement, the court vacated all pretrial and trial dates and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 17, 2023. The lead plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 16, 2023, and defendants filed a statement of non-opposition on March 30, 2023. On April 20, 2023, the court held a hearing on lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court declined to grant lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval and ordered lead plaintiff to file a revised motion by May 22, 2023. Lead plaintiff filed his Revised Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (the "Amended Motion") on May 22, 2023, defendants filed a response in support of the Amended Motion on June 5, 2023, and the lead plaintiff submitted his reply on June 12, 2023. The hearing on the Amended Motion took place on August 17, 2023 and the court preliminarily approved the settlement. In the event that the settlement does not go forward for any reason, the defendants intend to continue to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously. Lumentum Holdings Inc. is a provider of optical and photonic products based in California. LYFT INC: Court Awards $6.25M Atty's Fees in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motions for final approval and Attorneys' fees and expenses and denying motion for costs for lead Plaintiff. -- The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,250,000 and litigation expenses in the amount of $498,683.75. -- The Court denies the motion for costs for Lead Plaintiff. -- The administrative motion to seal is denied. State Plaintiffs are directed to file public versions of all documents or portions of documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied within seven days from the date of this order. The Plaintiffs purchased shares of Defendant Lyft Inc.'s common stock when Lyft went public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on March 28, 2019. The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action against Lyft and certain of its officers and directors regarding representations in Lyft's IPO Registration Statement. The Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement misrepresented and failed to disclose (1) the potential for reputational damage and legal liability due to sexual assault allegations against drivers; (2) that Lyft's market share was shrinking because of a price war with Uber; and (3) safety issues with Lyft's bike sharing program. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47HuJJc at no extra charge.[CC] M&T BANK CORPORATION: Twoguns Files Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&T Bank Corporation. The case is styled as Monica Twoguns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00892 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. M&T Bank Corporation -- http://www3.mtb.com/-- is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: ebrehm@sirillp.com MAJOR SURPLUS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Major Surplus and Survival, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Major Surplus and Survival, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07573 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Major Surplus & Survival -- https://majorsurplus.com/ -- is a major supplier of Disaster and Survival Supplies to Government and Relief Agencies around the world.[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 MARTIAN SALES: Court OKs Joint Bid to Modify Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.B., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARTIAN SALES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00645-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order: (1) granting joint motion to Modify scheduling order, and (2) issuing first amended Scheduling order. A Status Conference is SET for October 19, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. via videoconference before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. During the conference, the parties will be expected to update the Court on the status of settlement and, if no settlement has been reached, ensure that discovery is progressing. No later than October 16, 2023, each party must submit to the Court via email (not filed) (at the names, titles, and email addresses of all attendees. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by January 8, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E3Fgkz at no extra charge.[CC] MARYLAND: Opposes Class Certification in T.G. Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, ET. AL., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ET. AL., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-PJM (D. Md.), the Defendants files motion to stay consideration of the motion for class certification of the plaintiffs' proposed class, or in the alternative, oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel. Maryland Department of Human Services is the state's primary social service provider with 24 local departments of social services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QNuK8z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leslie Seid Margolis, Esq. Luciene M. Parsley, Esq. Megan R. Berger, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND 1500 Union Avenue, Ste. 2000 Baltimore, MD 21211 - and - Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street, 9th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen A. Ellis, Esq. Elise Song Kurlander, Esq. Barry Dalin, Esq. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 300 W. Preston Street Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-1867 Facsimile: (410) 333-7894 E-mail: Kathleen.Ellis@maryland.gov Elise.song@maryland.gov Barry.dalin@maryland.gov MASTER FLEET: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER DANIELS, v. MASTER FLEET LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01395-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Parties move the court for the entry of an order to extend the time for the filing of final class certification and decertification motions and to provide for supplemental notice to potential putative collective members: 1. The Defendant, Master Fleet LLC, has discovered that the list of potential collective members that it provided to plaintiff inadvertently did not include all possible collective members. 2. The parties require time for notice to be issued to these additional individuals that may be members of the collective and to complete class discovery. The parties are also in settlement discussions and will be able to use this time to continue settlement negotiations. 3. The parties request an additional ninety days to file final class certification and decertification motions, extending that deadline to November 13, 2023. 4. The Parties jointly request that the Court enter an Order to the effect of this joint motion. Master Fleet is a full-service maintenance provider for semi tractors, trailers and straight trucks. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QYxOik at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Potteiger, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1963 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com The Defendant is represented by: Lynne M. Mueller, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 250 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414)488-1837 Facsimile: (414) 875-3331 E-mail: mueller@litchfieldcavo.com MCMENAMINS INC: Kirby Suit Seeks to Certify Class of FOH Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANE KIRBY, OWEN TERHORST, ERIN JARMON, REBECCA BRESHEARS, and CLOE PETRICCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCMENAMINS, INC., an Oregon Domestic Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-05168-BHS-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification under Rule 23: "All individuals who resided in Washington State and who worked for McMenamins, Inc. in Washington State, who were employed in the position of bartender or server (or any similar "front-of-the- house" position) at any time from February 9, 2019, to the date of the Order granting class certification." In addition, Plaintiffs request that the Court (1) designate Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, (2) appoint Brian Denlinger, Craig Ackermann, and Tatiana Hernandez as Class Counsel, and (3) order that notice of this action be provided to the Class. The Plaintiffs were all employed by Defendant as front-of-the-house service employees ("FOH employees"), collectively working at four of Defendant's ten Washington locations. As a result of the Defendant's regular understaffing, high customer demand, and its emphasis on and expectation that FOH employees provide prompt and excellent customer service above all else, FOH employees were frequently unable to take timely and full meal periods and rest periods as required by Washington law. The Defendant's timekeeping records for all locations show an absence of meal periods (clock-outs and clock-ins) during 97.7% of all shifts across a 15% sample of Class Members throughout the Class Period. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other FOH employees in Washington to recover back-wages and damages under the Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA"), the Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WRA"); and the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), for missed, late, and interrupted meal and rest periods. McMenamins operates a chain of Pacific Northwest brewpubs. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExUO0d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Denlinger, Esq. Craig J. Ackermann ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (253) 507-4619 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: bd@ackermanntilajef.com cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - Tatiana Hernandez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TATIANA HERNANDEZ, P.C. 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 504 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 909-4248 Facsimile: (310) 388-0639 E-mail: tatiana@thlawpc.com MDL 2977: Colvin Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Class Memo ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colvin v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00480, (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to oppose Pilgrim's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file their own Supplemental memorandum of law in response to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's supplemental memorandum of law. The Colvin Suit is consolidated in BROILER CHICKEN GROWER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977. As to the adverse inference, there is no reason to credit Pilgrim's assertion that the specter of an adverse inference was somehow unknown to it until Plaintiffs' class reply brief was filed on June 9, 2023. Pilgrim's supplemental brief only accomplishes two things on this score: (1) it attacks strawman arguments that Plaintiffs have not made, and (2) it rehashes Pilgrim's arguments about the supposed "hyper- localized" nature of Broiler Growing. Supplemental briefing is inappropriate where it fails to identify "new legal arguments" and merely seeks to "reargue the points and authorities in the opening briefs." Finally, neither of Pilgrim's arguments moves the needle on class certification because both raise classwide issues, not issues individualized to any one Plaintiff or member of the Class. Pilgrim's assertion that Plaintiffs might not be able to prove a conspiracy involving all 21 Co-Conspirators applies to the Class as a whole, regardless of how it is ultimately resolved by the factfinder. Likewise, Pilgrim’s argument regarding the adverse inference, however it is ultimately decided, will be resolved the same way for each member of the Class. Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45CPlR5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net dlanger@bm.net enoteware@bm.net mwallin@bm.net dwalker@bm.net - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M. Bingham, Esq. Kristopher Koepsel, Esq. William A. Edmondson, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 699-8914 Facsimile: (918) 587-9708 E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com kkoepsel@riggsabney.com dedmondson@riggsabney.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory L. Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@gregdavislaw.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS & ADAMSLLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. VANWINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 East Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 340-6554 Facsimile: (405) 340-6562 E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD COLEMAN MONTOYA, PLLC (TN) 518 Monroe Street Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 921-6500 Facsimile: (615) 921-6501 E-mail: jwhitfield@wcbfirm.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)789-1813 E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Meegan F. Hollywood, Esq. Benjamin Steinberg, Esq. ROBINSKAPLAN, LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com MHollywood@RobinsKaplan.com BSteinberg@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. DAMPIER LAW FIRM 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (773) 969-6160 E-mail: msilverman@rlbfirm.com - and - Grant L. Davis, Esq. Thomas C. Jones, Esq. Timothy Gaarder, Esq. Thomas E. Ruzicka, Jr., Esq. DAVISBETHUNE & JONES, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2930 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-1600 E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net tgaarder@dbjlaw.net tjones@dbjlaw.net truzicka@dbjlaw.net - and - Robert Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE, TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us MDL 2977: Haff Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Class Memo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haff Poultry, Inc., et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00033-RJS-CMR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to oppose Pilgrim's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file their own Supplemental memorandum of law in response to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's supplemental memorandum of law. The Haff Suit is consolidated in BROILER CHICKEN GROWER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977. As to the adverse inference, there is no reason to credit Pilgrim's assertion that the specter of an adverse inference was somehow unknown to it until Plaintiffs' class reply brief was filed on June 9, 2023. Pilgrim's supplemental brief only accomplishes two things on this score: (1) it attacks strawman arguments that Plaintiffs have not made, and (2) it rehashes Pilgrim's arguments about the supposed "hyper- localized" nature of Broiler Growing. Supplemental briefing is inappropriate where it fails to identify "new legal arguments" and merely seeks to "reargue the points and authorities in the opening briefs." Finally, neither of Pilgrim's arguments moves the needle on class certification because both raise classwide issues, not issues individualized to any one Plaintiff or member of the Class. Pilgrim's assertion that Plaintiffs might not be able to prove a conspiracy involving all 21 Co-Conspirators applies to the Class as a whole, regardless of how it is ultimately resolved by the factfinder. Likewise, Pilgrim’s argument regarding the adverse inference, however it is ultimately decided, will be resolved the same way for each member of the Class. Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YM7mdq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net dlanger@bm.net enoteware@bm.net mwallin@bm.net dwalker@bm.net - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M. Bingham, Esq. Kristopher Koepsel, Esq. William A. Edmondson, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 699-8914 Facsimile: (918) 587-9708 E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com kkoepsel@riggsabney.com dedmondson@riggsabney.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory L. Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@gregdavislaw.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS & ADAMSLLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. VANWINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 East Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 340-6554 Facsimile: (405) 340-6562 E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD COLEMAN MONTOYA, PLLC (TN) 518 Monroe Street Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 921-6500 Facsimile: (615) 921-6501 E-mail: jwhitfield@wcbfirm.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)789-1813 E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Meegan F. Hollywood, Esq. Benjamin Steinberg, Esq. ROBINSKAPLAN, LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com MHollywood@RobinsKaplan.com BSteinberg@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. DAMPIER LAW FIRM 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (773) 969-6160 E-mail: msilverman@rlbfirm.com - and - Grant L. Davis, Esq. Thomas C. Jones, Esq. Timothy Gaarder, Esq. Thomas E. Ruzicka, Jr., Esq. DAVISBETHUNE & JONES, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2930 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-1600 E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net tgaarder@dbjlaw.net tjones@dbjlaw.net truzicka@dbjlaw.net - and - Robert Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE, TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us MDL 2977: Sanderson Opposes Pilgrim's Bid for Leave to File Memo ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Sanderson and Koch Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00478, (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to oppose Pilgrim's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file their own Supplemental memorandum of law in response to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's supplemental memorandum of law. The Sanderson Suit is consolidated in BROILER CHICKEN GROWER ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL 2977. As to the adverse inference, there is no reason to credit Pilgrim's assertion that the specter of an adverse inference was somehow unknown to it until Plaintiffs' class reply brief was filed on June 9, 2023. Pilgrim's supplemental brief only accomplishes two things on this score: (1) it attacks strawman arguments that Plaintiffs have not made, and (2) it rehashes Pilgrim's arguments about the supposed "hyper- localized" nature of Broiler Growing. Supplemental briefing is inappropriate where it fails to identify "new legal arguments" and merely seeks to "reargue the points and authorities in the opening briefs." Finally, neither of Pilgrim's arguments moves the needle on class certification because both raise classwide issues, not issues individualized to any one Plaintiff or member of the Class. Pilgrim's assertion that Plaintiffs might not be able to prove a conspiracy involving all 21 Co-Conspirators applies to the Class as a whole, regardless of how it is ultimately resolved by the factfinder. Likewise, Pilgrim’s argument regarding the adverse inference, however it is ultimately decided, will be resolved the same way for each member of the Class. Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qBatsd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net dlanger@bm.net enoteware@bm.net mwallin@bm.net dwalker@bm.net - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M. Bingham, Esq. Kristopher Koepsel, Esq. William A. Edmondson, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 699-8914 Facsimile: (918) 587-9708 E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com kkoepsel@riggsabney.com dedmondson@riggsabney.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory L. Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@gregdavislaw.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS & ADAMSLLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. VANWINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 East Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 340-6554 Facsimile: (405) 340-6562 E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD COLEMAN MONTOYA, PLLC (TN) 518 Monroe Street Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 921-6500 Facsimile: (615) 921-6501 E-mail: jwhitfield@wcbfirm.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)789-1813 E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Meegan F. Hollywood, Esq. Benjamin Steinberg, Esq. ROBINSKAPLAN, LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com MHollywood@RobinsKaplan.com BSteinberg@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. DAMPIER LAW FIRM 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (773) 969-6160 E-mail: msilverman@rlbfirm.com - and - Grant L. Davis, Esq. Thomas C. Jones, Esq. Timothy Gaarder, Esq. Thomas E. Ruzicka, Jr., Esq. DAVISBETHUNE & JONES, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2930 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-1600 E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net tgaarder@dbjlaw.net tjones@dbjlaw.net truzicka@dbjlaw.net - and - Robert Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE, TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Leet Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEMBERS Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Brianna Leet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEMBERS Life Insurance Company doing business as: Trustage Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00587 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. MEMBERS Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers life, accident, and health insurance throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 737 Bainbridge Street, #155 Philadelphia, PA 19147 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com MERCURY AIR CARGO: Moch Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Erich Moch, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCURY AIR CARGO SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through l 00, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16561 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. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07061. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;" "Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;" "Failure to Provide Meal Periods;" "Failure to Provide Rest Periods;" "Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination;" "Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements;" "Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment;" "Violation of Labor Code;" "Unfair Competition."[BN] The Defendants are 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 MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Hale Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ David Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Milliman Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01206 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 8, 2023) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure client customers' personally identifiable information (PII), in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Plaintiff is a former customer of CMFG Life Insurance Company d/b/a TruStage Financial Group, Inc, which is one of Milliman's client companies. Milliman obtains and stores sensitive information of its client companies' former and current customers so it could perform its regular business activities, says the Plaintiff. Allegedly, on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023, one of Milliman's IT vendors became the subject of a cyberattack. Milliman confirmed that PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members were among those compromised in the data breach. Milliman's information security practices were inadequate, resulting in the data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief allowed by law regarding Millima's violations, the suit asserts. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Milliman Solutions, LLC is a Delaware corporation that offers a wide range of commercial and personal insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 16212 Reitan Road NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 - and – Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com MODEFA USA LLC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modefa USA, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Modefa USA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07588 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Modefa USA, LLC -- https://www.mymodefa.com/ -- offers a variety of items in their online Islamic Gift Shop from Turkish Hijabs, Islamic Clothing, Muslim Prayer Rugs, Islamic Jewelry, and Muslim Home Decor.[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 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid for Class Cert. Modified to March 29, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01510-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order that the Court's scheduling order is modified as follows:1 1. Non-expert discovery due by: Feb. 16, 2024 2. Motion for Class Certification March 29, 2024 filed by: 3. Opposition to Class Certification May 24, 2024 filed by: 4. Reply to Class Certification June 7, 2024 filed by: 5. The Court will hold a hearing on June 21, 2024 the Motion for Class Certification on: Mohawk produces floor covering products for residential and commercial applications. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pojmit at no extra charge.[CC] MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Quay Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL QUAY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01796-JRT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify conditional class and notice to Putative Class Members, as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class is conditionally certified. 2. Court-supervised notice will be issued with the above-noted changes as to the timeframe, which will run from August 5, 2018, through February 14, 2022, and the retaliation protection language. 3. Within 10 days from the date of the order, Monarch is to provide an electronic list of all individuals who were employed by Monarch as non-exempt nurses who were subject to the automatic meal period deduction at any time in the three years prior to February 14, 2022, including each employee's first and last names, employee ID number, last known address, and dates of employment. 4. The statute of limitations will be tolled from October 27, 2021, to August 1, 2022. 5. The dispute on contact with current employees will be referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff Quay brought this action against her former employer Monarch, alleging a failure to reimburse her for unused, unpaid meal breaks in violation of the FLSA, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA), and the Minnesota Code of Regulations on Wages and Labor, (MCRW). Quay worked as a certified nursing assistant and trained medical aide for Monarch and while employed, was subject to Monarch's former policy. Monarch provides short-term rehabilitation and long-term healthcare services to its live-in patients throughout Minnesota. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44izNRs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Winters Anderson, Esq. Carter Tilden Hastings, Esq. William Clifton Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 80 South Eighth Street, 4700 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 The Defendant is represented by: Bradley J. Lindeman, Esq. Melissa Dosick Riethof MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P. 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement in Principle Reached n IPERS Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley 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 May 20, 2023, the firm reached an agreement in principle to a purported antitrust class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled "Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al." In August of 2017, the firm was named as a defendant in said case alleging, inter alia, that the firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was referred by the District Court to a magistrate judge who, on June 30, 2022, issued a report and recommendation that the District Court certify a class. Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management. Morgan Stanley, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. MOSAIC HEALTH: Appeals Remand Ruling in Doe Suit to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ MOSAIC HEALTH SYSTEM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled John Doe, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mosaic Health System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-06008-JAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to State Court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jill A. Morris on July 20, 2023. The appellate case is captioned John Doe, et al. v. Mosaic Health System, et al., Case No. 23-2816, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on August 9, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN DOE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher Dandurand, Esq. Stephen Michael Gorny, Esq. GORNY LAW FIRM Suite 200 4330 Belleview Avenue Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 756-5071 - and - Foster Calhoun Johnson, Esq. Kyle Andrew Poelker, Esq. AHMAD & ZAVITSANOS One Houston Center, Suite 2500 1221 McKinney Street Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Defendants-Appellants MOSAIC HEALTH SYSTEM, et al. are represented by: Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 764-4013 - and - Colby Millard Everett, Esq. Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER Suite 4400 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 MOTION PICTURE: Klawonn Seeks to Certify Account Plan Member Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patricia Klawonn, on behalf of the Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan, v. Board of Directors for the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plans, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09194-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying the following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate): "All participants and beneficiaries of the Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan at any time on or after July 24, 2014, excluding Defendants, or any other persons with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions." In addition, the Plaintiff will and hereby does move the Court to appoint Plaintiff as the class representative for the class, and Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel (Nichols Kaster, PLLP as lead class counsel and Rosen Marsili Rapp LLC as local counsel). There are two grounds for this motion. First, the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), as the proposed class consists of thousands of class members and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class; the claims of the proposed class representatives are typical of the claims of the proposed class; and the proposed class representatives and proposed class counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Second, this action satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B) because prosecuting individual separate actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and adjudications by individual class members would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications. In the alternative, this action also satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff brings this motion for class certification to provide participants in the Motion Picture Industry ("MPI") Individual Account Plan the same opportunity for class-wide relief that is typically granted to plan participants in other cases involving similar The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) claims. Under ERISA, participants have an express statutory right to bring suit in a representative capacity on behalf of their plan to remedy any harm done to the plan as a result of a breach of fiduciary duty. The Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan is a "defined contribution plan" for purposes of ERISA. The Plan covers eligible employees of motion picture industry employers that have executed a collective bargaining agreement containing a participation provision approved by the Board of Directors for the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plans. From the end of 2014 through 2019, the Plan had between 79,000 and 92,000 participants, and between $3.7 billion and $5.1 billion in assets. The Board is the Plan Sponsor and Administrator of the Plan. Motion Picture provides retirement products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45FKApK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Marsili, Esq. ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP 3600 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 389-6050 E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Patricia C. Dana, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com pdana@nka.com MYRIAD GENETICS: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Myriad Genetics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on August 3, 2023, the parties to "In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on September 27, 2019, entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement. The parties filed a motion seeking court approval of the settlement. Defendants continue to deny any liability. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Myriad has agreed to pay a settlement amount of $77.5 million, consisting of at least $20 million in cash and up to $57.5 million in freely tradeable shares of Myriad common stock. Within ten business days of preliminary court approval of the settlement, which is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2023. Myriad Genetics Inc. is into in vitro and in vivo diagnostic substances and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SALAZAR is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Michael Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Basketball Association, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-7935, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing the Plaintiff's and other Class members' personal viewing information. On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. On Aug. 7, 2023, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is captioned Salazar v. National Basketball Association, Case No. 23-1147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 10, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Lee Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION is represented by: Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0151 NATIONAL GENERAL: Class Cert Hearing in King Extended to Dec. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edd King, et al., v. National General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 22, 2015), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting the Joint Discovery Letter ("JDL") in which the National General Defendants seek to depose four experts who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- The National General Defendants' deadline Sept. 11, 2023 to file their opposition to the motion for class certification is extended by two weeks, to: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply is Oct. 26, 2023 extended by the same time, to: -- The hearing on the motion for class Dec. 14, 2023 certification previously scheduled for Nov. 9, 2023, is continued to: The nature of suit states Contract -- Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment. National General is a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property and casualty insurance company.[CC] NEW YORK: Bentkowski Appeals Permanent Injunction Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BENTKOWSKI, et al. are appealing a permanent injunction ruling entered by the Hon. Lyle E. Frank in their lawsuit entitled Robert Bentkowski, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 154962/2023, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The appellate case is captioned Robert Bentkowski, et al. vs. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 23-04103, filed in the New York Appellate Division's First Judicial Department on August 11, 2023. As previously reported, Bentkowski, et al., brought this action pursuant to Article 78, to annul the Defendants' implementation of a new healthcare plan for City retirees. The Plaintiffs alleged that the City has unlawfully tried to divest Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents of promised healthcare benefits by attempting to switch the retirees from their existing healthcare plans to an inferior plan, the Aetna Medicaid Advantage Plan. The Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from forcing retirees to switch from their existing healthcare benefits, and from being required to either enroll in an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan or seek their own health coverage. The City opposed the application. On June 5, 2023, the Court issued a preliminary injunction in this matter. The Defendants were temporarily enjoined until further order of the Court from requiring any City retirees, and their dependents from being removed from their current health insurance plan(s), and from being required to either enroll in an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan or seek their own health coverage. On August 11, 2023, Judge Frank held that the Court has been informed by the parties that they do not wish for the Court to hold any additional argument, nor will there be further submissions. As such, the matter is ripe for a final determination. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for the reasons indicated on July 6, 2023, namely that both the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the provisions of New York City Administrative Code Section 12-126 bars the actions sought to be taken by the Defendants. The Court does not reach the last point of relief in the petition, namely that the Defendants should be enjoined from disseminating alleged false and misleading statements of the Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan. "[T]he Respondents are permanently enjoined from requiring any City retirees, and their dependents from being removed from their current health insurance plan(s), and from being required to either enroll in an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan or seek their own health coverage," Judge Frank wrote in his 2-page ruling. [BN] Defendants-Respondents THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Devin Andrew Slack, Esq. NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0817 E-mail: dslack@law.nyc.gov NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Jeon Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeon v. NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 19-CV-1424 (NGG) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Securities Act Class, which brings claims pursuant to Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, will consist of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the ADS of NIO Inc. pursuant and/ or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with NIO's September 12, 2018 Initial Public Offering." -- The Exchange Act Subclass, which brings claims pursuant to Section l0(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, consists of: "Those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NIO ADS during the period from October 8, 2018 to March 5, 2019, inclusive." The Rosen Law Firm is appointed class counsel. The Defendants motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted, and the Sur-Reply attached to that motion is deemed the Defendants' sur-reply on this Motion. The court denies both parties' requests for oral argument as moot. The Defendants argue that -- The Securities Act Class claims are barred by the statute of repose; The proposed class representatives are atypical and inadequate for either class in violation of Rule 23(a); Individual issues predominate the Exchange Act Subclass, in violation of Rule 23(b)(3); and Failure to put forward a proposed method for calculating classwide damages further undermines a finding of predominance, in violation of Rule 23(b) (3). NIO is a Chinese company that designs and produces electric vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXG3r5 at no extra charge.[CC] NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Sidoli Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sidoli v. Nio Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03188-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Securities Act Class, which brings claims pursuant to Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, will consist of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the ADS of NIO Inc. pursuant and/ or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with NIO's September 12, 2018 Initial Public Offering." -- The Exchange Act Subclass, which brings claims pursuant to Section l0(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, consists of: "Those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NIO ADS during the period from October 8, 2018 to March 5, 2019, inclusive." The Rosen Law Firm is appointed class counsel. The Defendants motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted, and the Sur-Reply attached to that motion is deemed the Defendants' sur-reply on this Motion. The court denies both parties' requests for oral argument as moot. The Defendants argue that -- The Securities Act Class claims are barred by the statute of repose; The proposed class representatives are atypical and inadequate for either class in violation of Rule 23(a); Individual issues predominate the Exchange Act Subclass, in violation of Rule 23(b)(3); and Failure to put forward a proposed method for calculating classwide damages further undermines a finding of predominance, in violation of Rule 23(b) (3). NIO is a Chinese company that designs and produces electric vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0lF8B at no extra charge.[CC] NIO INC: Court Certifies Securities Act Class in Tan Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tan v. NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03188-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Securities Act Class, which brings claims pursuant to Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, will consist of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the ADS of NIO Inc. pursuant and/ or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with NIO's September 12, 2018 Initial Public Offering." -- The Exchange Act Subclass, which brings claims pursuant to Section l0(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, consists of: "Those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NIO ADS during the period from October 8, 2018 to March 5, 2019, inclusive." The Rosen Law Firm is appointed class counsel. The Defendants motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted, and the Sur-Reply attached to that motion is deemed the Defendants' sur-reply on this Motion. The court denies both parties' requests for oral argument as moot. The Defendants argue that -- The Securities Act Class claims are barred by the statute of repose; The proposed class representatives are atypical and inadequate for either class in violation of Rule 23(a); Individual issues predominate the Exchange Act Subclass, in violation of Rule 23(b)(3); and Failure to put forward a proposed method for calculating classwide damages further undermines a finding of predominance, in violation of Rule 23(b) (3). NIO is a Chinese company that designs and produces electric vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUqiSF at no extra charge.[CC] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ambridge Area Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern Corporation. The case is styled as Ambridge Area School District, Western Beaver County School District, Blackhawk School District, Union Area School District, South Side Area School District, Beaver Area School District, School Districts, and on behalf of similarly situated school districts; A.W., M.W., L.W., H.F., by and through their parent/legal guardian VERA FINNEY; MINOR J.D., by and through his parent/legal guardian ROBERT D. DOUGHTY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-01530-CB (W.D. Pa., Aug. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Personal Injury. Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. King, III, Esq. DILLON, MCCANDLESS, KING, COULTER & GRAHAM L.L.P. 128 West Cunningham Street Butler, PA 16001 Phone: (724) 283-2200 Fax: (724) 283-2298 Email: tking@dmkcg.com NVIDIA CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nvidia Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2023, that the 9th Circuit panel reversed and affirmed in part the district court's dismissal of the securities class suit on August 25, 2023. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. NVIDIA Corporation -- https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/ -- is an American multinational technology company incorporated in Delaware and based in Santa Clara, California.[BN] OES GLOBAL INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OES Global, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OES Global, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01057-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OES Global, Inc. -- https://oesglobalinc.com/ -- are a premium supplier of Gatorade, Sqwincher, and many hydration other hydration products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com OHIO DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ohio Dominican University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ohio Dominican University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00885 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ohio Dominican University -- https://www.ohiodominican.edu/index.html -- is a private Dominican liberal arts university in Columbus, Ohio.[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 OLYMPUSAT HOLDINGS: Standing Order Entered in Worldwide Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIVN WORLDWIDE, LTD., v. OLYMPUSAT HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06326-PA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered a standing order: -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. -- Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court, including all status and settlement conferences. -- All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Olympusat is a company that provides technical and management functions for operating and distributing television networks. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OKKlTu at no extra charge.[CC] OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Filing --------------------------------------------------------- Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 the plaintiffs and defendants executed a stipulation of settlement dated December 9, 2022 which provided for dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants by a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired company securities from February 8, 2017 through October 31, 2017. On April 25, 2023, following notice to class members and a hearing, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment approving the settlement, which became effective May 25, 2023, upon the expiration of the period for appealing the court's judgment. Upon the effective date of the settlement, the settlement payment of $30.75 million was permitted to be transmitted from an escrow account funded by the company's directors and officers' insurers to a settlement fund to be distributed to class members by a third party administrator. In the second quarter of 2023, after the company fulfilled all of its obligations pursuant to the court-approved settlement. The company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, were named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit in said court. Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purported to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and sought monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. Said class action alleged that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the company's leases and the certain doubtful receivables. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that, together with its consolidated subsidiaries invests in healthcare-related real estate properties located in the United States and the United Kingdom, providing financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with a particular focus on skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and to a lesser extent, independent living facilities, rehabilitation and acute care facilities and medical office buildings. ONE GROUP: Dolce Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- PRISCILLA DOLCE, MILLETTE TERRELL, ELLA SCHROEDER and CIERA COMBS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. THE ONE GROUP HOSPITALITY, INC. dba KONA GRILL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02092 (D. Colo., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, treble damages, penalties, interest, and other damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs further assert state wage claims pursuant to the Arizona Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act; Official Code of Georgia Annotated; Idaho Code; and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio common law for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs are similarly situated persons who have worked for Defendant Kona Grill as bartenders/servers at any time during the relevant time period(s) and have been allegedly subjected to an invalid tip pool and have not been paid the correct amount of minimum wage in violation of state and federal law. The One Group Hospitality, Inc., dba Kona Grill, is a hospitality company that operates upscale, high-energy restaurants and lounges and provides hospitality management services for hotels, casinos and other high-end venues.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - and - Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A. 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com OTONOMO INC: Mollaei Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- SAMAN MOLLAEI is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment in the lawsuit entitled Saman Mollaei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Otonomo Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02854-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for personal property claims. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Trina L. Thompson on Jan. 18, 2023. On Feb. 15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment, which the Court denied on July 18, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Saman Mollaei v. Otonomo Inc., Case No. 23-16079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 9, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Saman Mollaei Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 16, 2023; -- Appellant Saman Mollaei opening brief is due on November 16, 2023; -- Appellee Otonomo Inc. answering brief is due on December 18, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. John Aaron Lawson, Esq. EDELSON, PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Defendant-Appellee OTONOMO INC. is represented by: Melanie Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 - and - Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. Joseph Craig Hansen, Esq. Michael H. Rubin, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 PACIFICORP: Consolidated Dietrich Suit Over Wildfires Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on August 26, 2022, a putative class action complaint seeking declaratory and equitable relief against PacifiCorp was filed, captioned "Margaret Dietrich et al. v. PacifiCorp," Case No. 22CV29187, in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon. On December 19, 2022, the Dietrich case was consolidated and is currently stayed. The complaint was filed by two Oregon residents individually and on behalf of a class initially defined to include residents of, business owners in, real or personal property owners in and any other individuals physically present in specified Oregon counties as of September 7, 2020 who experienced any harm, damage or loss as a result of the Santiam Canyon, Beachie Creek, Lionshead, Echo Mountain Complex, Two Four Two or South Obenchain fires. The complaint was amended on September 6, 2022, to add a claim for damages of over $900 million. The amended complaint adds four more individual plaintiffs and modifies the class definition to cover only the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, Two Four Two, and South Obenchain fires. The amended complaint alleges: (i) negligence due to alleged failure to comply with certain Oregon statutes and administrative rules; (ii) gross negligence due to alleged conscious indifference to or reckless disregard for the probable consequences of defendant's actions or inactions; (iii) private nuisance; (iv) public nuisance; (v) trespass; (vi) inverse condemnation; (vii) accounting/injunction; and (viii) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The amended complaint seeks the following: (i) an order certifying the matter as a class action; (ii) economic damages not less than $400 million; (iii) double the amount of economic and property damages to the extent applicable under Oregon statute; (iv) reasonable costs of reforestation activities; (v) doubling and trebling of certain other damages to the extent applicable under certain Oregon statutes; (vi) noneconomic damages not less than $500 million; (vii) prejudgment interest; (viii) an order requiring an accounting with respect to the amount of damages; (ix) an order enjoining PacifiCorp from leaving power lines energized in areas of Oregon experiencing extremely critical fire conditions; (x) an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, investigation costs, disbursements and expert witness fees; and (xi) other relief the court finds appropriate. The plaintiffs and proposed class demand a trial by jury. PacifiCorp is an electric power company in the western United States under the Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company group. It has a service territory throughout Oregon, northern California, and southeastern Washington. PACIFICORP: Liable to Oregon Wildfire Victims, Jury Says -------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that in June 2023, a jury issued its verdict finding its subsidiary, PacifiCorp, liable to 17 individual plaintiffs and to the class with respect to the four wildfires in Oregon allegedly caused by PacifiCorp. The jury awarded the 17 named plaintiffs $90 million of damages, including $4 million of economic and property damages, $68 million of noneconomic damages and $18 million of punitive damages based on a 0.25 multiplier of the economic and noneconomic damages. No judgment has been entered by the Multnomah County Circuit Court and no determination has been made as to the timing, process and procedures that will be used to adjudicate individual class member damages. On September 30, 2020, a class action complaint against PacifiCorp was filed, captioned "Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al.," in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon. The complaint was filed by Oregon residents and businesses who seek to represent a class of all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or personal property was harmed beginning on September 7, 2020, by wildfires. In November 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and Two Four Two wildfires. In May 2022, the Multnomah County Circuit Court granted issue class certification and consolidated the James case with several other cases. While PacifiCorp requested an immediate appeal of the issue class certification, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied the request. In April 2023, the jury trial for the James case with respect to 17 named plaintiffs began in Multnomah County Circuit Court. PacifiCorp is an electric power company in the western United States under the Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company group. It has a service territory throughout Oregon, northern California, and southeastern Washington. PAPA JOHN'S: To Settle Anti-Poaching Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Papa John's International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 14, 2022, the parties in a putative class action filed in December 2018 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky captioned "In re Papa John's Employee & Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation" reached a settlement in principle to resolve the case. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange for the company's payment of a total aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million and other non-monetary consideration, all claims in the action will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, and the company will receive a release. The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the District Court and contains certain customary contingencies. The suit alleges that the "no-poaching" provision previously contained in the company's franchise agreement constituted an unlawful agreement or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Papa John's International, Inc. is the fourth largest pizza delivery restaurant chain in the United States, with headquarters in the Louisville, Kentucky and Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan areas. PIER HOUSE: Farrow Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Juan Farrow, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees and all other persons similarly situated v. PIER HOUSE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, VENICE TERRACE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23LBCV01019 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay compensation in violation of Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, and the applicable Wage Orders. This is only a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code for: failure to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failure to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8; failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failure to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in California and was employed by the Defendants from May 10, 2021 until April 18, 2023. The Defendants are a full service restaurant.[BN] The is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Raffi Tapanian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com raffi@hbklawyers.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Allowed to File Bid to Strike Berlanga's Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO BERLANGA, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., a Delaware corporation; POLARIS SALES INC., a Minnesota corporation; POLARIS INC. (f/k/a POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC.), a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting Polaris leave to file a motion to strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Reply in Support of Class Certification. Polaris brings this Motion on the grounds that plaintiff's Reply improperly makes several new arguments not raised in his opening brief, some of which in fact contradict his prior arguments and pleadings, and supports these new arguments with misstatements, mischaracterizations, and false statements about the record. Specifically, Polaris will move to strike the following improper new arguments raised in plaintiff's Reply: -- Plaintiff's new argument that the putative class vehicles have "safety defects" making them "unfit for sale." -- The Plaintiff's new argument that the OSHA test is a "mandatory" government regulation, which also contradicts the statutory language and case law interpreting it. -- Plaintiff's new argument that differences among absent class members in reliance, causation, materiality, and similar elements of plaintiff’s claims cannot be considered in evaluating class certification under California consumer protection laws, which was not raised in his opening brief and is contrary to law. Polaris designs, engineers and manufactures powersports vehicles, which include Off-Road Vehicles. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PeoIws at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN 8827 W. Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 858-1063 E-mail: kristensen@czrlaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0028 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Christopher W. Wood, Esq. DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 E-mail: cwood@dbbwc.com The Defendants are represented by: David A. Klein, Esq. Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq. Paul D. Collier, P.C., Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4200 Facsimile: (310) 552-5900 E-mail: david.klein@kirkland.com andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com paul.collier@kirkland.com - and - Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. R. Allan Pixton, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 191 North Wacker Dr., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: richardgodfrey@quinnemmanuel.com allanpixton@quinnemanuel.com POLK COUNTY, FL: Faces Suit Over Schools' Air Conditioning Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kylie Jones at fox13news.com reports that Polk County Public Schools are gearing up to head back to the classroom, but educators are raising concerns about ongoing air conditioning issues. Amid heat advisories around Florida, the Polk Education Association filed a class action grievance against the school district over air conditioning outages and issues at different schools throughout the district. "The PCPS violated section 6.6-2 of the teacher CBA by unilaterally changing temperatures throughout the district, resulting in excessively hot schools and classrooms which infringe on teachers' duty to teach and a students' right to learn," the grievance read. PEA President Stephanie Yocum said teachers or staff at more than a dozen schools have reported issues with air conditioning in their specific classrooms. The affected schools listed in the grievance include North Lakeland Elementary School, Cambridge, Lake Gibson Middle School, Spessard Holland Elementary School, Davenport School of the Arts, Horizon Elementary School, George Jenkins, Sandhill Elementary School, Alturus Elementary School, Traviss and Bartow Middle School. Yocum said she received more reports of issues from teachers and staff at additional schools. The school district says it always gets an influx of work orders for air conditioning repairs when teachers first come back to their classrooms to get ready for the school year. But, Yocum says a lot of the air conditioning issues have been going on since the middle of last school year. MORE: Toy cars made by retirement community helps first responders connect with kids in traumatic situations "It is unacceptable to have children come into a building that they cannot learn in it and teachers can't work in," Yocum said. The extremely high temperatures have on exacerbated conditions. "We have not seen it to this magnitude, but knowing that we've had, you know, a hotter summer, they should have been stockpiling a lot of these parts so that we're not waiting until the issue is happening to order parts and not have them," Yocum said. In response to the complaints, the district said contracted vendors are helping install new A/C units and duct work. "All available portable A/C systems are being deployed from our inventory and will be used first in critical areas, such as portables and interior classrooms," a PCPS spokesman said. Yocum says these issues should've been taken care of in the spring and at the beginning of the summer. "Because we can't adequately do what we're supposed to do in our jobs if the learning environment is not conducive to that," she said. The school district said staff will also be paid overtime to handle work orders, including on nights and weekends. A spokesman said extra teams of HVAC and maintenance techs are being deployed to schools to assess and prioritize work orders. "Approximately $6 million has been spent to purchase more than 500 new A/C units. Installation is taking place as soon as possible," a PCPS spokesman said. "Students in classrooms without working A/C will be relocated to other areas on campus until fixes are made." Yocum says there should've been an emergency plan in place beforehand. "While it's unbearable to be working in those kind of conditions, it is unconscionable to expect children to be in those areas when there's 20, 30, sometimes 40 students in a class right now," she said. The school district was not able to report how many work order have been placed since teachers and staff returned to school, or how many schools were impacted. The PEA is requesting that the schools named in the grievance have their HVAC set at a minimum of 68 degrees, that any damaged air conditioning unit be repaired immediately and that alternative cooling equipment is provided at no cost to teachers and staff.[GN] POLY PAK: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Lucky Transfer ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luckey Transfer, LLC v. Poly Pak Plastics, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-01092-JES-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. 3, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E6NOqQ at no extra charge.[CC] POWER DESIGN: Padilla Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ramiro Padilla, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. POWER DESIGN, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15064 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. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07065. The Complaint asserts class action claims for: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-complaint wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; failure to reimburse business expenses; and Violation of California Business And Professions Code all in Violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Awards $6.85M in Attorney's Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BETH MONTERA, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-06980-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting renewed motion for Attorney fees and expenses. -- Attorney fees are awarded in the amount of $6,853,502.78. -- BHO is awarded $5,873,274.28. -- Lynch Carpenter, LLP, is awarded $382,018.50. -- Iredale & Yoo, APC, is awarded $598,210.00. -- Nontaxed expenses are awarded in the amount of $1,072,126.04. -- BHO is awarded $1,039,423.44. -- Lynch Carpenter, LLP, is awarded $8,709.80. -- Iredale & Yoo, APC, is awarded $23,992.80. Any motion or stipulation for attorney fees and costs incurred in litigating the prior and current fee motions must be filed no later than October 6, 2023. Premier Nutrition engages in the research, development, and production of nutrition products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47SRbPB at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Okonski Suit Over Data Breach Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth Okonski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01548-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to implement reasonable data security practices and safeguards laid out in the Federal Trade Commission guidelines. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive's negligence, insufficient data security procedures, and lack of oversight and supervision resulted in a data breach. During the breach, which allegedly occurred for years, Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information were compromised. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, and all other remedies the Court deems proper. Progressive is an insurance company headquartered in Mayfield Village, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Court OK's Class Certification in Brown Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEDDRICK BROWN and MICHELLE BOST, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00175-TCB (N.D. Ga.), Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. entered an order certifying the following class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Mountain Insurance Company to a Georgia resident where the claim was submitted from October 11, 2015, through the date of this Order, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle;" - and - "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois to a Georgia resident where the claim was submitted from June 8, 2016, through the date of this Order, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." The Plaintiff Keddrick Brown owned a 2014 Dodge Charger insured by Defendant Progressive Mountain Insurance Company. In May 2021, he was involved in an accident after which Progressive deemed his car a total loss. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OMVpQ4 at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE SOFTWARE: Harris Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Software Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-11816 (D. Mass., Aug. 8, 2023) accuses the Defendant of inadequate data security, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiff and Class Members' personal identifying information were compromised during a data breach perpetrated by the Clop crime group on the Defendant's file transfer software, MOVEit. The Plaintiff argues that the cyberattack could have been prevented if the Defendant adequately secured its network, properly encrypted its data, and thoroughly selected its IT partners. The Plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction, damages, attorney's fees and costs, litigation expenses, and all other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Progressive Software Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities across the US and the world. Its principal place of business is located in Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 383-4906 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: krose@forthepeople.com - and – John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com Ramen@forthepeople.com PROTECTIVE PET: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Protective Pet Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Protective Pet Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07595 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Protective Pet Solutions -- https://protectivepetsolutions.com/ -- offers innovative products to safeguard the pet.[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 PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: PLEE Class Suit Submitted for Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parents Leading for Educational Equity (PLEE); et al., v. Providence Public School Department; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00301-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. McElroy entered an order as follows: 1. By agreement, this matter is submitted to mediation of the issues presented by Plaintiffs and the putative class before Judge McElroy. 2. The Defendants agree that they will not contend that the case has become moot as to the individual Plaintiffs or the putative class solely as the result of actions taken by Defendants with respect to the named Plaintiffs after the date of this Order and before any determination of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, without prejudice to the Defendants' argument that the case has already been rendered moot as of August 3, 2023. 3. The determination of Plaintiffs' Motion Class Certification, is deferred and the time for Plaintiffs to file a reply to Defendants' Objection, is held in abeyance and new dates for responses shall be set if mediation shall be unsuccessful. 4. The determination of Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, is deferred and the time for Defendants to file their response is held in abeyance and new dates for response shall be set if mediation shall be unsuccessful. 5. The parties agree to the exchange of information for all members of the putative class and that all such information shall be subject to the within protective order limiting access to personally identifiable information concerning members of the putative class to counsel for Plaintiffs and their consultants, if any, who shall first be identified to Defendants before disclosure. 6. The parties shall meet in a party-only mediation session on August 9, 2023, at 10:00 am and with the Court on August 16, 2023 at 9:00 am. The parties are free to schedule interim meetings and conferences as necessary. Providence is the administrative force behind the primary public school district of Providence, Rhode Island. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOu84v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ellen Saideman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN 7 Henry Drive Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: (401) 258-7276 Facsimile: (401) 709-0213 E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com - and - Lynette Labinger, Esq. RONEY & LABINGER LLP 128 Dorrance Street, Box 710 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 465-9565 E-mail: LL@labingerlaw.com - and - Jennifer L. Wood, Esq. THE R.I. CENTER FOR JUSTICE 1 Empire Plaza, Ste. 410 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 837-6431 E-mail: jwood@centerforjustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Cottone, Esq. Kaelyn R. Phelps Prigge, Esq. RI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 255 Westminster Street Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 222-4600 E-mail: Anthony.Cottone@ride.ri.gov - and - Mary Ann Carroll, Esq. HENNEOUS CARROLL LOMBARDO LLC 155 South Main Street, Suite 406 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 424.5224 E-mail: macarroll@hcllawri.com QUALVOICE LLC: Class Action Settlement in Frederick Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. QUALVOICE LLC, and RODNEY NEDD, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1) Granting final approval of the settlement for the Rule 23 and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement classes in accordance with the parties’ Settlement Agreement; 2) Authorizing the distribution of settlement checks to all Plaintiffs who previously opted into this action as well as all Class Members who timely submitted a valid Claim Form and Release ("Claim Form"), representing their respective shares of the class settlement; 3) Awarding Service Award to the Named Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000.00 for his work provided to secure the result on behalf of the Class Members; 4) Awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $143,170.00, for legal services performed in prosecuting and settling the claims in this action, to Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel; 5) Awarding $6,830.00 for costs and out-of-pocket expenses to Class Counsel; 6) Awarding $12,000.00 for claims administration fees and costs to Arden Claims Service LLC, the court-appointed Claims Administrator in this matter; 7) Providing for the release of all claims as specified in the Settlement Agreement by all Class Members who did not properly and timely opt-out of the settlement; and 8) Dismissing this action against Defendants with prejudice, but with the Court’s continued jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the parties' settlement, as well as over the administration and distribution of the settlement fund. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E75530 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com QUEENLY INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Queenly Inc. The case is styled as Lashawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Queenly Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07572 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Queenly -- https://queenly.com/ -- is the dedicated marketplace and search engine for the formalwear industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com RAINBOW USA: Faces Keitt Suit for Underpayment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Linda Keitt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rainbow USA, Inc., Case No. 716366/2023 (N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023), seeks damages and other legal and equitable relief over the Defendant's violations of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the New York City Administrative Code (Fair Workweek Law). The Plaintiff was employed as a retail worker by Defendant Rainbow USA from 2020 through around May 2023. She was a covered, non-exempt employee under the NYLL and therefore was entitled to be paid in full for all hours worked. However, Plaintiff and Class Members were underpaid as a result of Rainbow USA's common compensation policies and practices, says the suit. Rainbow USA primarily engages in the sale of consumer goods at locations throughout New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 E-mail: mark@bglawny.com RED FLOWER INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Flower, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Red Flower, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07571 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Red Flower -- https://redflower.com/ -- is beauty wellness. potent botanical beauty. biodegradable and biocompatible.[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 REPUBLIC REIGN: Convertino Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- KRISSA CONVERTINO, individually and behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC REIGN, LLC d/b/a REPUBLIC GARDEN & LOUNGE, LEVA BONAPARTE AND LAMAR BONAPARTE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04075-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2023) is an action to recover minimum wage, unpaid tipped wage compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties resulting from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unauthorized deductions from wages, and for other relief under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a VIP server from May 2021 to May 2023. Plaintiff as well as the other VIP servers' primary duty was to serve guests alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks in the VIP area of the nightclub. Republic Reign is an upscale nightclub located in Charleston, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. 652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 588-5587 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net RIDGWAY LLC: Ruid Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RUID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RIDGWAY LLC, et al., Case No. 22-cv-634 (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying of a class action against the Defendants, and authorizing notice to members of the following class: "All hourly-paid employees employed at The Price Erecting Company between May 27, 2020, and the date of certification who, at any time during that period, received safety and/or performance bonuses and who worked over 40 hours in any workweek to which such bonus(es) applied." Ridgway was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business includes installing building equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 3, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45AQWXI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Shareholder Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that a motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on January 23, 2023. The California Superior Court for San Mateo County overruled the company's demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties are now engaged in discovery. On June 16, 2020, a Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the company for a putative class action lawsuit that claims, on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021. RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of software-as-a-service solutions that enables businesses to communicate, collaborate and connect. RXO LAST MILE: Court Grants Bid to Compel Class List in Green Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LEON GREEN and WALDO TEJADA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RXO LAST MILE, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-1896 (JAM) (D. Conn.), Magistrate Judge Roberta A. Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the class list. Plaintiffs Green and Tejada, seek to compel the Defendant to comply with its obligation to provide a class list of delivery drivers so that they can send out the required notice for this class action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs argue that in support of their previous motion for class certification, they identified about 275 contractors who met the class definition. However, after the class was certified and the Plaintiffs requested a class list from the Defendant to enable their counsel to contact the class members, the Defendant only provided a proposed list of fifty-eight contractors. The Plaintiffs also seek to approve the proposed class notice so that they can send it to the class members. The main dispute centers around the Court's use of the phrase "in Connecticut" when defining the class. On Sept. 22, 2022, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Meyer granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class was defined as: All individuals who personally or on behalf of their business entity, signed a Delivery Service Agreement with RXO and who personally performed deliveries for RXO full-time in Connecticut between November 2017 and the present. "Full-time" is defined as "personally making deliveries at least 80 percent of the days RXO assigns routes to the contractor," and restricted the class to contractors "who generally did so for at least 12 consecutive weeks, and who averaged at least four days a week of work for RXO." On Oct. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs provided the Defendant with a proposed notice to the class and requested a class list. The Defendant produced a class list identifying 58 contractors who performed 100% of their deliveries in Connecticut. It took the position that the remaining contractors do not belong in the class. The Plaintiffs argue that class members contract with RXO (either personally or on behalf of a business entity), execute Delivery Service Agreements, work full-time for RXO personally performing deliveries, and perform deliveries in Connecticut during the relevant time period. They note that contractors need not work 100% of their time in Connecticut for the Connecticut wage laws to apply to them. They contend that the class that was certified is not overbroad. Furthermore, they argue that class notice needs to only be the best notice practicable under the circumstances and class notice should not be withheld simply because some recipients of the notice may not ultimately be found to members of the class. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' interpretation is overly broad and incorrect and argues that the phrase "in Connecticut" modifies "full-time." It contends that class membership should be limited to those individuals who, as the class definition states, performed deliveries "full-time in Connecticut." The Defendant's interpretation only requires that an individual must meet the "full-time" criteria with respect to Connecticut deliveries. The Defendant further argues that failing to respect the "in Connecticut" qualifier runs afoul of traditional choice of law principles because the Plaintiffs' interpretation creates a real risk that many of the class members would be able to recover under Connecticut law despite having attenuated relationships with the state. It expresses concern about the potential for double recovery by individuals who might be a part of the Connecticut case and the pending identical case in Massachusetts. Judge Richardson prefers to err on the side of comporting with due process and providing broad notice to the class members. She says while each of the competing interpretations is reasonable, she would prefer for non-class members to receive notice rather than for class members to not receive it. Judge Richardson is concerned that the Defendant's interpretation of the class definition significantly limits the class of contractors, and that rightful members of the class may not receive notice. In addition, she believes that the arguments presented by the Defendant should have been asserted at the pre-class certification phase, because at that time, the Defendant knew the Plaintiffs anticipated having a class list of over 200 contractors. While Judge Richardson does not define what Judge Meyer meant by "in Connecticut," she believes Judge Meyer would err on the side of comporting with due process and providing broad notice to the class members. Thus, using the interpretation that Defendant requests would not comport with due process. Therefore, Judge Richardson grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the class list. Judge Richardson has also reviewed the proposed class notice submitted by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that both parties have a redline version of the notice that they agreed to on Nov. 3, 2022. The Plaintiffs have no objection to this revised notice. Therefore, the form of class notice that the Defendant attached to its objection is approved. Judge Richardson's Order is not a Recommended Ruling. This is a discovery ruling or order which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by a district judge upon motion timely made. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhyztc7 from Leagle.com. RXO LAST: Directed to Provide Class List in Green Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON GREEN and WALDO TEJADA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RXO LAST MILE, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01896-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Robert A. Richardson entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel the class list. The Court also notes that Defendant is engaged in similar litigation in Massachusetts where the plaintiffs in that case are represented by the same counsel who represents the Plaintiffs in this litigation. In the Massachusetts case, the plaintiffs filed a similar motion to compel the class list and Defendant presented substantially similar arguments. The Honorable Timothy Hillman granted in part and denied in part the motion. Hillman found that the definition of "in Massachusetts" meant: "An individual who reported to a facility in Massachusetts more often than to a facility in any other state for at least four weeks during the class period OR who made at least 60% of their deliveries in Massachusetts for at least four weeks during the class period." While this Court will not define what Judge Meyer meant by "in Connecticut," the Court believes Judge Meyer would err on the side of comporting with due process and providing broad notice to the class members. The Court has also reviewed the proposed class notice submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendant. Defendant asserts that both parties have a redline version of the notice that they agreed to on November 3, 2022. The Plaintiffs identified about 275 contractors who met the class definition. However, after the class was certified and Plaintiffs requested a class list from Defendant to enable Plaintiffs' counsel to contact the class members, the Defendant only provided a proposed list of fifty-eight contractors. The Plaintiffs also seek to approve the proposed class notice so that they can send it to the class members. XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47JS7pu at no extra charge.[CC] SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to Sept. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et al. v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to continue hearing date for class certification motion to September 15, 2023. Santa Monica is a coastal city west of downtown Los Angeles. Santa Monica Beach is fringed by Palisades Park, with views over the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45N9ync at no extra charge.[CC] SECRETS OF TEA CAFE: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Secrets of Tea Cafe LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Secrets of Tea Cafe LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01082-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Secrets of Tea -- https://secretsoftea.com/ -- offers fertility, pregnancy, weight loss, herbal, and baby tea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com SHOES WEST INC: Remus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoes West, Inc. The case is styled as Lisa Remus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shoes West, Inc. Guardian Ad Litem, Case No. 2:23-cv-07062 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Shoes West -- https://www.shoewest.com/ -- offers comfortable & adjustable women shoes, Heels, Boots, Sandals, Pumps and many more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com SIMMONS BANK: Wilkins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- SHUNDA WILKINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court ruling entered in her lawsuit entitled Shunda Wilkins, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Simmons Bank, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00116-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for breach of contract. On July 27, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on Dec. 9, 2020. On Dec. 13, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Feb. 9, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Mar. 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on July 14, 2023. Moreover, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the Court entered judgment in the agreed amount of $3,099.41 in favor of Simmons Bank and against Shunda Wilkins on Simmons's counterclaim. The appellate case is captioned Shunda Wilkins, et al. v. Simmons Bank, Case No. 23-2838, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on August 11, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on September 20, 2023; -- Brief of Appellants David Watson and Shunda Wilkins is due on September 20, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SHUNDA WILKINS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William F. Burns, Esq. WATSON & BURNS 2500 S. Houston Levee Road Germantown, TN 38139 Telephone: (816) 833-1800 - and - Francis J. Flynn, Esq. Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ballwin, MO 63011 - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL & GOLD 4th Floor 1100 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 615-3948 - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. Edward Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB & KLASE Suite 480 1900 The Exchange, S.E. Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 - and - James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH & JENNINGS Suite 200, Freedom Building 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Defendant-Appellee SIMMONS BANK is represented by: Debra L. Bogo-Ernst, Esq. WILLKIE & FARR 50th Floor 300 N. LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9062 - and - Emmett B. Chiles, IV, Esq. Robert Ryan Younger, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS Suite 1900 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 - and - Lucy Lee Holifield, Esq. Joshua D. Yount, Esq. MAYER & BROWN 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 ST. PETERS FLY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Peters Fly Shop, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. St. Peters Fly Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07575 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. St. Peter's Fly Shop -- https://stpetes.com/ -- serves the Northern Colorado communities fly fishing needs with equipment, classes and guided fishing trips.[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 STACKSOCIAL INC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against StackSocial, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. StackSocial, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01055-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. StackSocial Inc. -- https://stacksocial.com/ -- designs and develops e-commerce platforms. The Company platforms offers web publishers to integrate relevant e-commerce products and advertising services into their sites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com STATE FARM: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Brown, Andy Velazquez, William Midgett, and Diane Coughlin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., A P&C DOMESTIC MUTUAL; and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2023CH06670 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-06065. The Plaintiffs bring claims against State Farm and co-defendant Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO") for negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy – public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion, and negligence per se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cari K. Dawson, Esq. Tiffany Powers, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 W Peachtree St NE, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-881-7000 Email: cari.dawson@alston.com tiffany.powers@alston.com - and - Frederick J. Sudekum, III, Esq. SUDEKUM, CASSIDY & SHULRUFF, CHTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-803-6250 Fax: 312-262-3413 Email: fjs@scslegal.com jrc@scslegal.com mr@scslegal.com zm@scslegal.com saw@scslegal.com STATE FARM: Yancey Class Action Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH YANCEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00377-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to transfer this case in its entirety to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court held that transferring the case with a tentative settlement agreement would be a "waste of judicial resources." Not so here, where the parties have submitted no evidence of a pending settlement agreement. In short, all of Plaintiffs' cited cases presented compelling circumstances weighing against transfer. No such compelling circumstances exist here, and the Court transfers the case under the first-filed rule. The Plaintiffs were involved in accidents, and State Farm deemed the vehicles to be total losses. State Farm chose to pay the "actual cash value" of the totaled cars. To calculate the actual cash value of totaled vehicles, State Farm used AudaExplore, which provides "Autosource Market-Driven Valuations." State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44mNuyV at no extra charge.[CC] SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Sweetwater Franchise Group LLC and its third-party accounting firm Alford, Holloway & Smith PLLC failed to protect the personal information of current and former Sonic drive-in restaurant employees that was exposed in a February data breach, a proposed federal class action said. Plaintiff Andrea Turner, who worked at an SFG Sonic location around a decade ago, alleged that the company and its accounting firm failed to encrypt or adequately protect sensitive information collected from employees, secure the hardware used to store sensitive information, or follow required data-security practices.[GN] TACTILE SYSTEMS: To Settle Mart Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------ Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that a hearing for final approval of the settlement of a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 29, 2020, was scheduled for August 23, 2023. Said suit is captioned "Brian Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al.," File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT. On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the company and eight of the company's present and former officers and directors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of investors who purchased the company's common stock in the market during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that the company and certain officer defendants made materially false or misleading public statements about the company's business, operational and compliance policies, and results during the alleged class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2) that the company and the individual defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in order to allow the individual defendants to sell the company's stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (3) that the individual defendants engaged in improper insider trading of the company's stock in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and (4) that the company and the individual defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because each defendant is a controlling person. On June 18, 2021, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants’ motion to dismiss. All claims against three individual defendants were dismissed, and most claims against four other individual defendants were dismissed. On November 21, 2022, the company announced that it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this matter. The settlement is subject to court approval. On February 28, 2023, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement and the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement with the court. On April 26, 2023, the court issued a minute order indicating the motion would be approved and on May 4, 2023, issued the written order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 19, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. manufactures and distributes medical devices for the treatment of patients with underserved chronic diseases at home. TAXACT INC: Kirkham Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Kirkham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TAXACT, INC., Case No. 2023CH06670 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03303. The Complaint alleges that TaxAct shared "sensitive taxpayer data with Meta Platforms, Inc. ('Meta') and Google LLC and its affiliates ('Google') without the taxpayers' knowing and voluntary consent." Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law for alleged violations of 26 U.S.C. section 6103 and 7431(a)(2), and also asserts state law claims under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Pennsylvania Wiretap Act").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Phone: (215) 568-3100 Email: therrold@bakerlaw.com - and - James W. Ducayet, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853 7000 Facsimile: (312) 853 7036 Email: jducayet@sidley.com TAYYAB FOOD: Asghar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Abdullah Asghar, and similarly situated persons v. TAYYAB FOOD, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 4:23-cv-04360 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and Cal. Labor Code as a result of the Defendants by failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked approximately 12 hours per day, at least five days per week throughout the period of his employment, which began on about July 1, 2018 and continued until about November 2, 2022. During the entire course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff was only paid for 8 hours of work per day. During the entire course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages. During the entire course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff was not provided with wage statements or paystubs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at all material times by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee paid by the hour. The Defendants private for-profit company in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com TESLA INC: Cohen Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sean Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., a California and Texas Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 23CV035176 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. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07057. The Complaint alleges six causes of action: common law fraud; negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violation of the False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code; and Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Jazaeri, Esq. Franklin P. Brannen, Jr., Esq. Allison Huebert, Esq. TESLA, INC. 1 Tesla Road Austin, TX 78725 Phone: +1.512.557.8797 Email: bjaz@tesla.com fbrannen@tesla.com ahuebert@tesla.com - and - David L. Schrader, Esq. Nicolette L. Young, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: david.schrader@morganlewis.com nicolette.young@morganlewis.com - and - Brian M. Ercole, Esq. 600 Brickell Ave, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-3075 Phone: +1.305.415.3000 Fax: +1.305.415.3001 Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com TETHER HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Anderson's Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW ANDERSON, and SHAWN DOLIFKA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TETHER HOLDINGS LIMITED, TETHER LIMITED, TETHER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TETHER OPERATIONS LIMITED, IFINEX INC., BFXNA INC., and BFXWW INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-10613-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: a. grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety; and b. grants the Plaintiffs leave to move to replead. Plaintiffs Anderson and Dolifka bring the proposed class action against Tether Holdings Limited, Tether International Limited, and Tether Operations Limited, (collectively, "Tether"), as well as IFINEX Inc., BFXNA Inc., and BFXWW Inc., (collectively, "Bitfinex") asserting claims for violations of the New York Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.Y. Gen Bus. Law Section 349 et seq.), the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.600), breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 USC section 2201. The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs assert that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action based on diversity of citizenship, under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), and under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). Tether makes and sells cryptocurrency coins known as "Tether tokens" ("USDT"). USDT are a type of crypto-asset referred to as a "stable coin" and are intended to be pegged to the value of a specific fiat currency -- in this case, the U.S. dollar. Each USDT is intended to be worth one dollar. Tether began selling Tether tokens sometime on or prior to Jan. 1, 2015. By the time of the Complaint, there were more than 69 billion USDT in circulation. "Bitfinex" is made up of three related corporations, who operate the Bitfinex cryptocurrency platform where consumers can trade various crypto assets, including Tether tokens. Plaintiffs Anderson and Dolifka are consumers who purchased USDT between 2017 and Oct. 24, 2021, and bring this proposed class action on behalf of all consumers who have purchased USDT since 2014. From the time it began operations, Tether continually represented that it maintained a store of cash reserves to back every USDT in circulation, at a 1-to-1 ratio. It also repeatedly, and publicly, promised to undergo professional financial audits to demonstrate that it maintained reserves equal to 100% of the USDT in circulation. These representations were made via Tether's verified corporate Twitter account and directly on Tether's website. Despite these representations, Tether had cash reserves totaling a dollar amount far less than 100% of the number of USDT in circulation. In an October 2021 settlement report, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") concluded that from at least June 1, 2016, to Feb. 25, 2019, Tether failed to maintain fiat currency reserves in accounts in Tether's own name or in an account titled and held in trust for Tether to back every Tether token in circulation. On March 31, 2021, it released a mandated financial disclosure that represented it had cash reserves totaling 3.87% of the value of the USDT in circulation, with the rest of its reserves comprised of large proportions of commercial paper holdings, "corporate bonds, funds and precious metals," and "secured loans." The Plaintiffs further allege that Tether's most recent representations are still not credible, and that Tether continues to misrepresent the size and composition of its financial reserves to consumers. Additionally, Tether has yet to undergo a single professional financial audit. Judge Swain explains that an action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. When determining a motion to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must accept all factual allegations plead in the Complaint as true, but it may also consider relevant materials beyond the pleadings. Article III of the Constitution of the United States restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases or controversies. To demonstrate constitutional standing, a plaintiff must establish: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) redressability of the injury by a "favorable decision." Judge Swain holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact. To demonstrate injury, the Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that they have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' The Plaintiffs do not allege the price they paid for their USDT, whether and at what price they sold their USDT, or any corresponding loss in value that allegedly occurred because of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations. In fact, publicly available information of which the Court can take judicial notice indicates that, if the Plaintiffs sold their USDT today, they could still receive the "pegged" price: $1.00.1 If they are dissatisfied with the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs have the option to sell their USDT for its represented value. The Plaintiffs have alleged no facts showing that they are incapable of recouping their investment in USDT or that their tokens are somehow less valuable despite their consistent market valuation. Instead, the Plaintiffs assert they suffered a cognizable injury because they would not have bought USDT at the same price had they known Tether's representations were false. Their argument relies on the proposition that overpaying for a product results in a financial loss constituting a particularized and concrete injury in fact. Judge Swain finds that the Plaintiffs' argument errs because it relies on a series of disanalogous cases involving consumer goods wherein customers were deprived of some value of the product. The Plaintiffs have not plead any facts showing that their USDT had a diminished actual value at all. It is insufficient for them to allege that they spent money that, absent the Defendant's actions, they would not have spent, without pleading facts to show that the Defendants' misrepresentations deprived them of any value. In the absence of plausible allegations of injury, the Plaintiffs lack standing and their Complaint must be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Swain grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its entirety. The Plaintiffs may, however, file a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint that is compliant with the requirements of constitutional standing discussed. Any such motion must comply with the applicable federal, local, and individual rules of motion practice and must include the Plaintiffs' proposed Amended Complaint, as well as a redline comparing that pleading to their original Complaint. Should the Plaintiffs fail to file a motion for leave to amend within 21 days of the entry of the Memorandum Order, their claims will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without further advance notice. The Memorandum Order resolves Docket Entry no. 29. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 4, 2023 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/muffdjyj from Leagle.com. THERAPYMATCH INC: M.G. Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as M.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THERAPYMATCH, INC. d/b/a HEADWAY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV037579 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-04422-KAW. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action for violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), aiding and abetting violation of the CMIA, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), aiding and abetting unlawful interception under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), unlawful recording of and eavesdropping upon confidential communications under CIPA, and violation of Art. I of the California Constitution, against Defendant in connection with its alleged unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and putative class members' personal health information ("PHI") and/or personal identifying information ("PII") to third parties, which was discovered on or around May 2023.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. Dyanne J. Cho, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com dcho@bakerlaw.com TINDER INC: Consumer Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, 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 June 27, 2022, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles issued an order staying the class claims in case captioned "Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.," Case No. BC583162 pending the Ninth Circuit Court's decision on case captioned "Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc.," Case No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of California). On May 28, 2015, said putative state-wide class action was filed against its subsidiary, Tinder Inc. in said court. The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium "Tinder Plus" service. The complaint seeks certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. Match Group, Inc., through its portfolio companies, is a provider of digital dating apps. TINDER INC: Kim Consumer Suit on Appeal in Ninth Circuit Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, 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 case captioned "Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc.," Case No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of California) is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court. Said putative state-wide class action was filed against its subsidiary, Tinder Inc. principally alleging that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium "Tinder Plus" service. The complaint seeks certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On March 4, 2022, the trial court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. On March 31, 2022, two objectors to the Kim settlement filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Match Group, Inc., through its portfolio companies, is a provider of digital dating apps. TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to May 6, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF HOLDCO LP, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Roberts entered an amended scheduling order and discovery plan: -- Initial disclosures were exchanged on: Jan. 20, 2023 -- Substantial Completion of the Sept. 29, 2023 Production Documents Responsive to Plaintiff's January 2023 RFPs and Defendant's February 2023 RFPs: -- Motions to add parties: Dec. 1, 2023 -- Motions to amend pleadings: Dec. 1, 2023 -- Plaintiff's expert(s) and Motion May 6, 2024 for Class Certification: -- Defendant's expert(s) and Resistance June 10, 2024 to Class Certification: -- Plaintiff's rebuttal expert(s) and July 15, 2024 Reply in Support of Class Certification: -- Completion of discovery: July 31, 2024 -- Dispositive motions: Aug. 12, 2024 -- Trial ready date: Jan. 9, 2025 Transamerica primarily offers insurance and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44pVnUg at no extra charge.[CC] TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: All Expert Discovery in Rand Due July 1, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RAND, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 7:21-cv-10744-VB-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Reznik entered a revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order: 1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). The parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. (If all parties consent, the remaining paragraphs of this form need not be completed.) 2. This case is to be tried to a jury. 3. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed by December 28, 2022, or thereafter with good cause shown. 4. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed by December 15, 2022. 5. All fact discovery shall now be completed by February 29, 2024. 6. Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by January 6, 2023. 7. Interrogatories shall be served by January 6, 2023 (initial interrogatories). 8. Non-expert depositions shall now be completed by February 29, 2024. 9. Requests to admit shall be served by July 30, 2023. 10. All expert discovery, including expert depositions, in support of class certification shall now be completed by July 1, 2024. 11. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures in support of class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall now be made by April 1, 2024. 12. Deposition of experts for class certification shall now be completed by July 1, 2024. 13. The Defendant's Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification shall now be filed by September 18, 2024. 14. The Plaintiff's Reply in support of Class Certification shall now be filed by October 17, 2024. Travelers operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44tVcHB at no extra charge.[CC] TURK INDUSTRIES: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turk Industries, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Turk Industries, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01085-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Turk Industries, LLC doing business as Nutr -- https://thenutr.com/ -- is a lifestyle & wellness brand, and creator of the Nutr Machine – making plant-based milks at the push of a button.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com UMR INC: Fails to Cover Preventive Care, Troxel Suit Contends ------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Troxel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UMR, Inc. and Quantum Health, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-02521 (D. Minn., Aug. 16, 2023) sues the Defendants for failing to provide first-dollar coverage of preventive services in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Plaintiff contends that UMR and Quantum's failure to cover preventive care has likely resulted in millions of dollars in unpaid benefits for insureds like Luke Troxel. On March 4, 2021, Mr. Troxel had an office visit with his physician to discuss pre-exposure prophylaxis. His physician determined the medication was medically necessary and ordered the labs required to begin PrEP. Mr. Troxel received those lab services and subsequently received and filled a PrEP prescription. UMR and Quantum administer Mr. Troxel's employer-sponsored health benefit plan and have each refused to cover preventive office visits and lab services necessary to obtain and refill his PrEP prescriptions. Rather than provide first-dollar coverage for these services as required by law, UMR processed the claim as a covered service at an in-network level of benefits and applied a provider-negotiated discount, but paid nothing because Mr. Troxel had not met his deductible. According to UMR, Mr. Troxel was responsible for $311.65 for the medical exam plus additional charges for lab services, the Plaintiff alleges. To date, Mr. Troxel has incurred over $1,000 in charges from his provider as a direct result of UMR's failure to provide first-dollar coverage for PrEP Required Services. His provider has billed him for these services and asserts that he owes those amounts, the Plaintiff adds. This alleged unlawful, ongoing practice of the Defendants creates an additional barrier that makes it difficult for those eligible for PrEP to use it and will contribute to the spread of HIV. Individually and on behalf of similarly situated enrollees in ERISA plans administered by UMR and Quantum, Mr. Troxel brings this class action under ERISA to recover benefits due to him and the class, to clarify their rights to future benefits, and to enjoin the Defendants from denying first-dollar coverage for preventive services in the future. Mr. Troxel is a participant in a non-grandfathered group health plan sponsored by his current employer and that plan is administered by UMR and Quantum. UMR is a third-party administrator of employer-sponsored health plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Asp, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. Derek C. Waller, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: dwasp@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com dcwaller@locklaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Cotton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH COTTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04953 (D.N.J., Aug. 17, 2023) seeks all available relief under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a New Jersey Warehouse Worker from approximately September 1998 to present. He primarily works at the New Jersey warehouse located in Lawnside. United Parcel Service Inc. is one of the world's largest package delivery companies. The company does business in the industry of personal delivery services and the supply chain industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten L. Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend case schedule. -- The Plaintiff shall file class Nov. 21, 2023 certification motion no later than: -- The Defendant shall file its response Jan. 24, 2024 to the Plaintiff's class certification motion: -- The Plaintiff shall file any reply in Feb. 21, 2024 support of his motion for class certification by: -- Discovery cut-off is: Feb. 21, 2024 -- The Parties shall have until: March 4, 2024 -- The hearing on the Plaintiff's March 15, 2024 Motion for class certification shall be set for: United Services is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Ks93l at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The University Of Charleston, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The University Of Charleston, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00884 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Charleston -- https://www.ucwv.edu/ -- is a private non-profit university with its main campus in Charleston, West Virginia.[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 UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Claims in Class Suit Narrowed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN DOE 8, JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, JOHN DOE 12, JOHN DOE 13, and JOHN DOE 14, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ANTHONY N. (AKA NINO) GIARRATANO, and TROY NAKAMURA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting motions to dismiss in part: -- The court grants the motion to dismiss the claims of John Does 4– 14 as barred by the statute of limitations, except for claims 1 and 5 for discrimination under Title IX and Cal. Educ. Code section 66270. -- For Does 1–3, the court dismisses the contract claims and the prayer for injunctive relief with leave to amend. The court denies the motion to dismiss Does 1–3's claims for retaliation and a violation of Cal. Educ. Code section 66281.5. The court denies the motions to strike allegations related to abuse in the Catholic Church. -- Any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days and must attach a blackline compare of the amended complaint against the current complaint. The plaintiffs in this putative class action are former University of San Francisco Division I baseball players who are proceeding as John Does 1–3 (more recent players) and John Does 4–14 (earlier players). The plaintiffs allege that since 1999, USF head coach Anthony Giarratano and assistant coach Troy Nakamura created a sexualized environment -- by being naked, miming and discussing sexual acts, belittling players with vulgar names, and handing out sex toys, among other conduct -- and then berating and punishing players who did not participate. They sued the coaches for their behavior and USF for allowing the behavior to persist, claiming Title IX discrimination and retaliation, negligent supervision and retention of the coaches, discrimination in violation of California Education Code section 66270, a failure by USF to identify its gender-discrimination policies in violation of California Education Code section 66281.5, other negligence claims, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and ratification. University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7bV8I at no extra charge.[CC] US CONVEYOR: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Trinity -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trinity Metals, LLC v. U.S. Conveyor Technologies Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01149-JES-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. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ee8Pjj at no extra charge.[CC] VINTAGE STOCK: Faces Stapleton Class Suit Over Telephonic Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD STAPLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VINTAGE STOCK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05055-LMC (W.D. Mo., Aug. 16, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes its goods and services, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. The Defendant's text messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members' cellular telephones, the Plaintiff contends. On May 2023, the Defendant sent text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding its goods and services. To send the text messages, the Defendant allegedly used a messaging platform, which permitted the Defendant to transmit blasts of text messages automatically and without any human involvement. The telephone number utilized by the Defendant to send the messages (88284) is not capable of receiving telephone calls and does not connect the call recipient, upon calling such number, to the Defendant, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The Defendant is a Missouri-based "entertainment superstore."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. Christopher Gold 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Office: (786) 289-9471 Direct: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com VISTAMAR RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISBER PEREZ ARGUETA, FERNANDO ROMERO REYES, and JOSE REYES RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VISTAMAR RESTAURANT & LOUNGE CORP. d/b/a VISTAMAR RESTAURANT and RAFAEL ROBLES, Case No. 1:23-cv-02559-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court conditionally certifying a collection action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Vistamar is a Latin restaurant & lounge in City Island, Bronx. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qN5m8a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Camille Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison A venue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin Sharav, Esq. Victor J. Molina, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VICTOR J. MOLINA 930 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10451 E-mail: v.j.molina@verizon.net juris_ben@msn.com WALMART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks to Temporarily Stop Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs file a motion to toll statute of limitations for absent class members. On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Cheryl Yslas filed her class and collective action complaint against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order ("COMPS") and the Colorado Wage Act. On September 27, 2022, the Defendants answered the Complaint. On November 22, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to amend her Complaint to add Michael Sprague as a Named Plaintiff. On December 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and entered the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on the docket. On January 4, 2023, Defendants answered the FAC. On January 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Stage-One Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members. On February 9, 2023, Judge Neureiter granted Defendants' request to take limited discovery prior to responding in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. On March 4, 2023, following Sam's Club's written discovery and depositions of the Named Plaintiffs, Sam's Club filed their response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their Motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45OeW9V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com WALMART INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 28 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KUKORINIS v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02402 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 19, 2022), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order granting in part and denying in part the joint motion to extend the Case Management and Scheduling Order's deadlines. -- The deadlines for disclosure of expert reports are: For Plaintiff: Nov. 30, 2023 For Defendant: Jan. 2, 2024 For rebuttal: Jan. 29, 2024 -- The discovery deadline is: Feb. 28, 2024 -- The deadline for the motion for Dec. 28, 2023 class certification is: -- The dispositive motions March 28, 2024 deadline is: -- The deadline for all other June 10, 2024 motions is: -- The final pretrial conference is: July 11, 2024 -- The trial term is: Aug. 2024 -- The deadline for mediation is: March 6, 2024 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Diversity-Fraud Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States.[CC] WHALECO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 1, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA JOHNSON, v. WHALECO, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00403-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a case management and scheduling order: Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Feb. 12, 2024 Defendant's Expert Disclosure March 15, 2024 Class Discovery Deadline April 12, 2024 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification May 1, 2024 Defendant's Response May 15, 2024 Plaintiff's Rebuttal May 31, 2024 Hearing on Class Certification To be determined A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qNpSWq at no extra charge.[CC] WILHELM LLC: Lainez Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Lainez, on behalf of himself and all similarly aggrieved employees v. WILHELM, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. SCV-268075 was removed from the Sonoma County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04421. The Class Action Complaint alleged causes of action for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, meal period violations, rest period violations, wage statements, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph R Lordan, Esq. Vincent R Fisher, Esq. Bo Kyung Kim, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: JLordan@OHaganMeyer.com VFisher@OHaganMeyer.com BKim@OHaganMeyer.com WIPRO LIMITED: Jiron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wipro Limited, et al. The case is styled as Javier Jiron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wipro Limited, Does 1 to 50, Case No. CGC23608621 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 24, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Wipro -- https://www.wipro.com/ -- is an Indian multinational corporation that provides information technology, consultant and business process services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Haulk, Esq. 1101 5th Ave., Ste. 100 San Rafael, CA 94901-3046 Phone: 415-453-9433 Fax: 415-453-8269 Email: mhaulk@rflawllp.com WORLEYPARSONS GROUP: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rudy Castillo, individually and for others similarly situated v. WORLEYPARSONS GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-03134 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as one of its Straight Time Employees. the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees by the hour. The Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay its Straight Time Employees overtime. Instead, the Defendant misclassified its Straight Time Employees as independent contractors and paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those after 40 in a workweek (or "straight time for overtime"). Indeed, the Defendant uniformly misclassified its Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. But the Defendant never paid its Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis." the Defendant's uniform straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Project Manager from February 2023 until June 2023. WorleyParsons provides engineering, construction, consulting, and advisory services to the energy, oil and gas, construction, and chemical industries across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com YELP INC: Prelim Agreement Reached Invasion of Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Yelp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on July 17, 2023, the company reached a preliminary agreement with the plaintiffs to settle a putative class action lawsuit asserting claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco for $15.0 million. The parties are currently negotiating the definitive terms of the settlement, which will then be presented to the Superior Court for approval. On October 12, 2016, plaintiff sought statutory damages and other relief based on alleged unlawful call recording. The company filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it had never recorded the plaintiff, which the Superior Court granted. The plaintiff appealed and, in October 2020, the California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed the decision of the Superior Court, holding that the recording of only the company's consenting sales representatives could violate CIPA, even if the plaintiff was not recorded. The California Supreme Court subsequently denied review of the Court of Appeal's decision and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. On January 18, 2023, the Superior Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In February 2023, the company filed a petition for a writ with the Court of Appeal seeking reversal of the Superior Court's class certification decision. The Court of Appeal summarily denied the writ petition on May 25, 2023, following which the company filed a petition with the California Supreme Court on June 2, 2023 seeking an order directing the Court of Appeal to review the merits of the company's writ petition. Yelp is a local resource of consumers for its ratings and reviews of businesses across a broad range of categories, while businesses advertise on Yelp to reach its large audience of purchase-oriented and generally affluent consumers. Yelp has operations in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland and Germany. YELP INC: Settles Securities Suit in California Court ----------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting final approval to the settlement on January 27, 2023 and, on the same day, entered judgment on a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. Said case was filed on January 18, 2018. The settlement resolved all claims asserted against all defendants in the securities class action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The proposed settlement was subsequently filed with the court, which preliminarily approved it on July 25, 2022. The settlement was then funded by defendants' insurers during the three months ended September 30, 2022. Yelp is a local resource of consumers for its ratings and reviews of businesses across a broad range of categories, while businesses advertise on Yelp to reach its large audience of purchase-oriented and generally affluent consumers. Yelp has operations in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland and Germany. ZOOM VIDEO: US Privacy Class Suits Settlement Finalized ------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Video Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for June 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2023, that the settlement in the U.S. privacy class suits is finalized. Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were filed against the Company in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts relating to its alleged privacy and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions"). The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment. The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and state-specific classes of individuals using the Company's services in certain time periods. The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The federal cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the NDCA with our consent; lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint on October 28, 2020. On March 11, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part, its motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiffs leave to amend. On July 30, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle the action on a classwide basis, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court on July 31, 2021. On October 21, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company have paid $85.0 million into an escrow account that will be used to pay claims filed by settlement class members, attorneys’ fees and expenses, administrative costs, and service payments to plaintiffs. On April 21, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. On May 19, 2022, two objectors to the settlement appealed the Court's final approval order. On May 20, 2022, a third objector appealed the Court’s final approval order. On October 17, 2022, the Company, the plaintiffs, and all three objector-appellants agreed to settle the appeals, and on October 27, 2022, the Company and plaintiffs initiated proceedings in the district court to obtain Court approval of the settlements, which the district court approved on December 16, 2022. On January 13, 2023, a new objector appealed the court's December 16, 2022 approval of the settlements of the prior appeals, and on March 31, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the new appeal. With the appeals resolved, the class action settlement is final and the settlement administrator is in the process of making payments to claimants. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries connect people through its core unified communications offering, which brings together video, phone, chat, webinars events, and contact center, and enables meaningful experiences across disparate devices and locations. ********* 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 ***