/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230907.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 7, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 180 Headlines AB BAKERY: Reyes Files Conditional Collective Certification Bid AB CAR RENTAL: Marchesani Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages ADENA HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Simpson Alleges AGUIRRE PRACTICE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ALLIED CEMENT: Hornick Sues Over Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT AMANDA WORLEY: Barnett Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers AMSHER COLLECTIONS: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Goldstein ARDAGH GLASS: Stipulated Briefing Schedule in Castaneda Suit OK'd ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Wins Partial Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit ASHLEY GLOBAL: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Hernandez ATHENA HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Dahlbeck Says BAE SYSTEMS: Hearing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Dec. 11 BALTIMORE BUILDERS: Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Initial Nod BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Loses Bid to Strike Young's Class Claims BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Thorat Seeks Servers' Minimum Wages BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in King Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Fowler B3 Suit BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Seeks to Certify Putative Classes CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Griffin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CENGAGE LEARNING: Plaintiffs Oppose Objections to Judge's Report CHEGG INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Keller Suit CLUB 360: Seeks Reconsideration of July 31, 2023 Order COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees CONGO BRANDS: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines CONIFER REVENUE: Remand of Morales Suit to L.A. Super. Court Denied CONVERSE INC: Summary Judgment in Madeira Suit Affirmed in Part CREDIT BUREAU: Clerk's Taxation of Costs in Bassett Suit Reversed CURIOSITY INC: Faces Dhruva Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Loses Bid to Remand DISH NETWORK: Class Settlement in Krakauer TCPA Suit Wins Final OK DSV SOLUTIONS: Bid to Remand Sanchez Suit to Superior Court Denied EIDP INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Banks' 3rd Amended Complaint EXP REALTY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 14, 2024 FAIRFAX COUNTY: D.C. Appeals Revised Case Dimissal Order to 4th Cir FEDEX GROUND: Holder Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages FIELD ASSET: Carranza Suit Remanded to California Superior Court FIFTH THIRD: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Fox Suit Gets Initial Nod FIFTH THIRD: Settles Credit Card Fee Dispute with Merchants FITZCON CONSTRUCTION: Ordered to Correct Chuchuca Settlement Papers FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Sulligan Class Action FREUD AMERICA: Tuter Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement FUBOTV INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Tossed GARFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA GOLDMAN SACHS : Rent-the-Runway IPO Securities Suit Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Robinhood IPO Securities Suit Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Suit Over Array Tech IPO Dismissed GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Certify Class in Cabrera Suit Granted in Part GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Website Not Blind-accessible, Wahab Says HALL MANAGEMENT: Lewis Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class HISAMITSU AMERICA: Bid to Modify Case Schedule Partly Granted HNTB CORPORATION: Class Discovery in Morel Due Dec. 11 HRA PHARMA: S.D. New York Grants Iglesias Leave to Amend Complaint HUMANA INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Modified to March 6, 2024 JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid JEFF SANDY: Wexford Health, Primecare Seeks to Seal Exhibit 8 JOSEPH DEPAOLO: Bid to Consolidate Schaeffer and Singh Actions OK'd KERN COUNTY, CA: Court Grants Bid to Modify Settlement in T.G. Suit LADDER FINANCIAL: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Love Claims LONNIE BURTON: Court Dismisses JPay Suit Over Jurisdiction Issue LOWE'S COMPANIES: Downing Appeals Lowe's' Dismissal from FCRA Suit LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Merger Dismissed LUCID GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Goel Securities Suit M AND N HOME: Farzana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MANUS DENTAL: Faces Stamper Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Rashad Bid to Facilitate Notice Tossed MATTERPORT INC: Bid to Certify Class in Lynch Suit Granted in Part MATTRESS FIRM: $4.9MM Class Deal in Payero Suit Wins Final Approval MDL 2573: Court Raises Settlement Issues in HIV Antitrust Suit MDL 2936: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Sept. 11 MINDGEEK USA: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 9 MOTION PICTURE BOD: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 20 MYLAN GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Volkert NESTLE USA: Ninth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Prescott Class Suit NICOLE COLBERT: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish People NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to Certify Putative Class NOVAVAX INC: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule NY POKE HOLDINGS: Fromer Suit Seeks Employees' Unpaid Wages OHIO: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Bradbury v. ODRC OREGON: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Coronado v. Governor Brown PALMS ASSOCIATES: $880K Settlement in Johnson Suit Wins Final Nod PEOPLECONNECT INC: Opposes Nolen Amended Bid for Class Status PEOPLECONNECT INC: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal PEPSICO INC: Discovery in Gumner Suit Due Dec. 19 PERMANENT GENERAL: Completion of Dispositions Extended to Dec. 12 POWUR PBC INC: Xenes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court OK's Drummond Bid for Class Status PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Loses Bid to Exclude Experts' Reports RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 13 ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 27 ROMEO POWER: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice in Securities Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Norris Files Suit in C.D. California SARASOTA COUNTY FL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 15, 2024 SCOTT SHAY: Bid to Consolidate Schaeffer and Singh Actions OK'd SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: O'Meara Sues Over Securities' Inflated Prices SPARC GROUP: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Dismissal of Certain Claims in Croce Upheld STANDARD INSURANCE: VannEubanks Seeks to Certify Putative Class SUPER MICRO: Settlement in Hessefort Class Suit Wins Final Nod TARGET CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Named Lead Counsel in Perez Suit TD BANK NA: Lafurge Suit Removed to D. New Jersey THOMSON REUTERS: Court OK's Brooks Class Certification Bid TOTAL DISTRIBUTION: Teamsters Union Alleges Layoffs Without Notice TOUCHLAND LLC: Faces Elder Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Memo TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Class Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Class Suit UNION SECURITY: 5th Amended Sched Order Entered in Lewis-Abdulhaadi UNITED STATES: Everett v. IRS Director Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend UNITED TAPE: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Tapia-Rendon Suit UNITED WATER: Knott Suit Seeks to Certify Class VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop VITAL RECORDS: Court Approves Roe Class Certification Bid WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Sept. 29 WEST VIRGINIA: Court Tosses Rose Bid to Seal Exhibits WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Bennett ZYMERGEN INC: Wang Wins Class Certification Bid ********* AB BAKERY: Reyes Files Conditional Collective Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO REYES, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S BAKERY RESTAURANT, R&R 1579 BAKERY CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S LOUNGE, and REYNALDO BRAVO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01612-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45P6BCC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (CL 4086) 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 AB CAR RENTAL: Marchesani Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARCHESANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 613546/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to recover damages for untimely paid wages for Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant allegedly paid the Putative Collective Members on a biweekly basis, which violated the requirement that manual workers be paid within seven days after the end of the workweek in accordance with the law. The Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members are defined as those individuals who work or worked for Defendant in New York State as mechanical technicians, mechanics, car detailers, cleaners, technicians, oil and tire changers, fleet drivers, transporters, drivers, courtesy bus drivers, vehicle service attendants, car specialists, journeymen, journeywomen, and gate agents between October 31, 2016, and June 14, 2023. AB Car Rental Services, Inc. operates car rental locations in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com ADENA HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Simpson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA SIMPSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ADENA HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A ADENA MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02633-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 18, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, or they would have worked more than 40 hours per week if their hours were not reduced by the meal break deductions. However, they were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all of hours worked over 40 as a result of the Defendants' meal break deduction policy. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare employees were often too busy with patient care and performing substantive work duties to take a full, 30-minute meal break, the lawsuit contends. The FLSA collective consists of: All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees of the Defendant who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek that they had a meal break deduction applied, beginning three (3) years prior to the filing date of this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this case The Plaintiff brings her Ohio Acts claims as a class action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following class: All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees3 of Defendant who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek that they had a meal break deduction applied, beginning two (2) years prior to the filing date of this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this case ("Ohio Rule 23 Class Members"). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2005 until April 2023. The Defendant is a network of approximately four (4) hospitals and six (6) regional clinics throughout the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com AGUIRRE PRACTICE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA JOHNSON and NOLANDA HOLDER-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGUIRRE PRACTICE OF PEDIATRICS PLLC, d/b/a AGUIRRE MEDICAL and/or AGUIRRE PEDIATRICS, MARIA AGUIRRE, individually, and ADRIAN AGUIRRE, individually. Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01034 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable penalties brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members their earned overtime rate of one and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for Defendants as front office employees, at any time from August 18, 2020, through the final disposition of this matter, who were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. Aguirre Practice of Pediatrics PLLC is a pediatric medical facility located in San Antonio, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 lauren@a2xlaw.com ALLIED CEMENT: Hornick Sues Over Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW HORNICK and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ALLIED CEMENT LLC, a Florida corporation, NIMA BEHROOZIAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-23221-JEM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendnts unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a warehouse worker for Allied Cement from October of 2019 through March 2022. He asserts that Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay him and similarly situated employees the statutory overtime rate as required by the FLSA. Allied Cement LLC is in the business of importing cement and similar building products for resale to the local market in South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1533 Sunset Drive, Suite 150 Miami, FL 3343 Telephone: (786) 446-7288 Facsimile: (786) 323-7274 AMANDA WORLEY: Barnett Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BARNETT, et al., v. AMANDA WORLEY, in her official capacity as Cumberland County General Sessions Judge, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and class-wide preliminary injunction. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45PeEPS at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an application for leave to file under seal. -- The Plaintiffs submit the application concurrently with their Motion for Class Certification, which references and attaches numerous exhibits and discovery materials designated as Confidential by Defendant American Honda Motor Company (AHM) under the Stipulated Protective Order. -- The Plaintiffs seek to seal documents designated as Confidential by AHM as well as unredacted versions of Plaintiffs' briefing and declarations in support of class certification that rely on documents designated as Confidential by AHM. These documents constitute: The unredacted version of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motion for Class Certification; The unredacted version of the Declaration of David Stein; Exhibits 1-49, 51-77, and 81-117 to the Declaration of David Stein; and The unredacted versions of Exhibits 120-22 and 124-26 to the Declaration of David Stein. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5, Plaintiffs conferred with Defendant on August 10 and 14, 2023, in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the need for filing documents under seal by proposing redactions to those documents. -- The Plaintiffs are filing herewith the Declaration of Steve Lopez, which identifies the material designated "Confidential" by AHM that Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal in this Application. The Plaintiffs include Matthew Villanueva, Roxana Cardenas, Robert Morse, James Adams, Larry Fain, Joseph Russell, Peter Watson, Susan McGrath, Ann Hensley, Craig DuTremble, and Vincent Liem American Honda is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PkcUsI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Steven Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying multiple statewide classes of consumers pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: -- California Class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in California;" -- Florida Class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Hondaauthorized dealership in Florida." -- New York Class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in New York." -- Ohio Class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership in Ohio;" -- North Carolina Class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership in North Carolina;" -- New Jersey Class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership in New Jersey;" -- Arizona class: "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Arizona." -- Massachusetts class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership in Massachusetts;" and -- Iowa class "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from a Honda- authorized dealership in Iowa." Class Vehicles For each statewide class, Plaintiffs request that the term "Class Vehicle" be defined as "any model year 2017-2019 Honda CR-V or model year 2018-2020 Honda Accord, excluding vehicles designated as ‘Fleet’ orders in Honda's sales data." Exclusions The Plaintiffs request that the following persons and claims be excluded from each statewide class: Honda Motor Company and American Honda Motor Company; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of Honda; any entity in which Honda has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of Honda; any successor or assign of Honda; anyone employed by counsel in this action; any judge to whom this case is assigned and his or her spouse; members of the judge's family as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges; members of the judge's staff; and any claims for personal injury, property damage, or subrogation. Class Claims The Plaintiffs request that the following causes of action from their Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint be certified for class treatment: 1. California class: Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action, for violation California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for violation of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (breach of implied warranty). 2. Florida class: Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action, for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). 3. New York class: Plaintiffs' Tenth Cause of Action of the New York's General Business Law section 349 (GBL). 4. Ohio class: Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Cause of Action, for breach of implied warranty in tort under Ohio law; and Plaintiffs' Fifteenth Cause of Action, for negligence under Ohio law. 5. North Carolina class: Plaintiffs' Thirteenth Cause of Action, for violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA). 6. New Jersey Class: Plaintiffs' Eleventh Cause of Action, for violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA); and Plaintiffs' Twelfth Cause of Action, for violation of New Jersey's implied warranty of merchantability. 7. Arizona class: Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA). 8. Massachusetts class: Plaintiffs' Sixteenth Cause of Action, for unjust enrichment. 9. Iowa class: Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action, for violation of Iowas Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds Act; and Plaintiffs' Ninth Cause of Action, for breach of implied warranty under Iowa law. Class Representatives The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint the following representatives for each class: 1. California class: Plaintiffs Roxana Cardenas and Matthew Villanueva. 2. Florida class: Plaintiff James Adams. 3. New York class: Plaintiff Peter Watson. 4. Ohio class: Plaintiff Vincent Liem. 5. North Carolina class: Plaintiffs Ann Hensley and Craig DuTremble. 6. New Jersey Class: Plaintiff Susan McGrath. 7. Arizona class: Plaintiff Robert Morse. 8. Massachusetts class: Plaintiff Joseph Russell. 9. Iowa class: Plaintiff Larry Fain. Class Counsel Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Interim Class Counsel, Gibbs Law Group LLP and Greenstone Law APC, to represent the certified classes pursuant to Rule 23(g). American Honda is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sAJnlD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Steven Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com AMSHER COLLECTIONS: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Goldstein -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZALMAN GOLDSTEIN v. AMSHER COLLECTIONS SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03954-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order re: motions for class certification: 1. Joint Brief: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. The joint brief shall set out each issue (or sub-issue), including legal argument and direct citation to the evidence, followed seriatim by the response with respect to that issue (or sub-issue), including legal argument and direct citation to evidence. 2. Citation to Evidence: "All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are encouraged. 3. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief: The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows: A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. AmSher is an agency that offers a wide range of services and solutions in the collection lifecycle to solve credits. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qQtYNv at no extra charge.[CC] ARDAGH GLASS: Stipulated Briefing Schedule in Castaneda Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEX CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARDAGH GLASS INC. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the parties' stipulated briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion for remand. On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the action by filing a complaint styled as a class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled Alex Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Case No. CV035655. On June 16, 2023, the Defendant was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. On July 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, thereby removing the action to this Court. On July 18, 2023, the Defendant initiated the meet and confer process on its anticipated motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On July 21, 2023, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Defendant's Responsive Pleading Deadline by 21 days (or Aug. 14, 2023) to allow the Parties additional time to meet and confer on Defendant's anticipated motion and to meet and confer on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for remand. On Aug. 4, 2023, the Parties met and conferred on the Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for remand. The Parties were unable to reach a resolution regarding their respective motions. Given the overlap of issues in the Parties' respective motions, and to preserve judicial time and resources, the Parties have agreed to a briefing schedule whereby their respective motions will be heard at the same time. Based on the facts described, they stipulate and agree, subject to Court approval, to the following briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion for remand: 1. The deadlines for the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand will be extended to Aug. 25, 2023; 2. The Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and the Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Remand will be filed no later than Sept. 8, 2023; 3. The Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Remand will be filed no later than Sept. 15, 2023; and 4. Hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand be scheduled on Oct. 26, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., or a date thereafter convenient for the Court. Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, Judge Gilliam granted the stipulation and so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfbebmm8 from Leagle.com. SABRINA L. SHADI -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- NICHOLAS D. POPER -- npoper@bakerlaw.com -- MATTHEW J. GOODMAN -- mgoodman@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant ARDAGH GLASS INC. JONATHAN M. LEBE -- jon@lebelaw.com -- CHANCELLOR NOBLES -- chancellor@lebelaw.com -- BRIELLE EDBORG -- brielle@lebelaw.com -- LEBE LAW, APLC, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff ALEX CASTANEDA. ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Wins Partial Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, EDWARD C. MILLER, GETZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and ESTATE OF VIRGINIA MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the narrow issue of proceeding in a representative capacity under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2), and -- Denying the Defendant Argent's motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of Plaintiff proceeding in a representative capacity for plan-wide relief. The Plaintiff's and Defendant's pending Motions for Summary Judgment on issues of material fact and whether the whether the ERISA claims succeed as a matter of law remain pending before the Court The Court therefore believes that notwithstanding its finding that Plaintiff may proceed in a representative capacity pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(2), the above procedural protections will safeguard the interests of all beneficiaries. On August 2, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the narrow issue of whether the Plaintiff can pursue her claims in a representative capacity or recovery plan-wide relief, which is at issue in both Motions. In May 2017, the family decided to sell Morton Buildings through an ESOP transaction, which sold the ownership of its stock to participating employees. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Morton Buildings and a participant in the ESOP transaction. The Plaintiff initially sought to represent a class of participants in the ESOP. Plaintiff alleges that Argent Trust Company ("Argent"), and Edward Miller, the Getz Family Limited Partnership, the Estate of Henry A. Getz, and the Estate of Virginia Miller (the "Shareholder Defendants"), caused the ESOP to engage in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 as amended (ERISA) that stemmed from a breach of Argent's fiduciary obligations to the Plan. Argent Trust operates as an investment management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44vSJwf at no extra charge.[CC] ASHLEY GLOBAL: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Hernandez ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ, v. ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-05066-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification: 1. Joint Brief: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. 2. Citation to Evidence: All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are encouraged. 3. Evidentiary Appendix: The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence. 4. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief: The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows: A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45KEULp at no extra charge.[CC] ATHENA HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Dahlbeck Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- COREY DAHLBECK and MARIA RIVERA, individually and for others similarly situated v. ATHENA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a ATHENA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01104 (D. Conn., Aug. 18, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs Dahlbeck worked for Athena as a licensed practical nurse from November 2020 until June 2022 at Defendant's Summit Commons Rehabilitation & Health Care Center in Providence, Rhode Island. Plaintiff Rivera worked for Athena as a licensed practical nurse from July 2017 until March 2019, and again from March 2021 until July 2021 at Defendant's facility in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Athena Health Care Associates provides skilled nursing services in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com BAE SYSTEMS: Hearing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting continuance of hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's motion for attorney fees. -- The Joint Motion and orders that the November 27, 2023 hearing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees is continued to December 11, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. Bae Systems is a provider of non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sxCh1d at no extra charge.[CC] BALTIMORE BUILDERS: Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON R. MILLER, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BALTIMORE BUILDERS SUPPLY & MILLWORK, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04867-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the settlement of Plaintiff Miller's claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and the settlement of Covered Class Members' state-law claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). On April 4, 2023, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order, which preliminarily approved the settlement and authorized the issuance of notice to Class Members. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily appointed Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC as Interim Class Counsel. The notice process is now complete, and the settlement is ripe for final approval. The Settlement Class consists of: "All individuals listed in the Preliminary Class Member List and Allocation Schedule, which includes all present and former hourly non-exempt employees of Defendants during the period of September 30, 2019 to November 19, 2021, who worked overtime hours during one or more workweeks and who were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and who did not request exclusion from the settlement (the "Settlement Class")" The Defendants include Baltimore Builders Supply & Millwork, Inc., Hometown Hardware, Inc., Richard E. Foreman, and Robin L. Hayes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EkcvQE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. Joseph F. Scott Ryan A. Winters SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Morris L. Hawk, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA 1375 East Ninth Street One Cleveland Center, 10th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 623-0150 Facsimile: (216) 623-0134 E-mail: mhawk@ralaw.com BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Loses Bid to Strike Young's Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER INN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-6209 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies Beekman's motion to strike class allegations. Young, a legally blind individual, brought the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq. ("ADA") action, along with related state and city claims, on July 21, 2022. In short, she alleged that Defendant Beekman, a restaurant, failed to design, maintain, and operate its website in a manner that is fully accessible to her and other blind or visually impaired people. Young brought the case as a putative class action, and it seeks certification of a nationwide class, as well as state and city subclasses, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Before the Court is Beekman's motion to strike class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Young uses screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. In April 2022 and December 2022, she visited Beekman's website, https://www.beekmandelamaterinn.com/, and encountered multiple access barriers that denied her full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public. During her visits, she was allegedly unable to obtain information about purchasing gift certificates, food items, and other products sold in Beekman's restaurant. She was also unable to gather information related to location, hours, pricing, and privacy policies. Id. Due to these circumstances, Young felt frustrated, humiliated, isolated, and segregated. If and when Beekman's website becomes available, she intends to revisit the website so that she may make dining reservations and visit Beekman's "well known and historic restaurant." Young seeks to certify a nationwide class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) to include "all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Beekman's Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by the Website during the relevant statutory period." She also seeks to certify a New York state sub-class, as well as a New York City sub-class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). In the alternative, the complaint asserts that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions that are common to the class members predominate over question affecting only individual class members, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of their litigation. Young filed the complaint on July 21, 2022. The Court granted Beekman an extension of time to file an answer on Sept. 13, 2022, and Beekman thereafter requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of the instant motion. The Court held the conference on Nov. 22, 2022, at which it permitted Young to amend the complaint and set a briefing schedule for Beekman's motion. Young filed the FAC on Dec. 9, 2022, asserting four claims: (1) a violation of the ADA; (2) a violation of the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); (3) a violation of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and (4) declaratory judgment. It set out national, state, and city class allegations. Beekman moved to strike the class allegations on Dec. 21, 2022. The motion was fully briefed on March 2, 2023. Beekman argues that the class allegations set out in the FAC must be stricken because class certification is unnecessary to obtain the relief the Plaintiff seeks. It asserts that if Young prevails on her claim for injunctive relief, those modifications would be accessible to all users of its website, which obviates the need for certification of a class. And regarding Young's Rule 23(b)(3) allegations specifically, Beekman contends that money damages are not permitted under Title III of the ADA and, accordingly, there can be no certification of a 23(b)(3) class under Title III. Young asserts that the allegations are necessary and striking them at this juncture would be premature. About Beekman's argument that any future injunctive relief as to Young would apply to all users of its website, Young emphasizes that injunctive relief is not the only relief she seeks or that would be sought by the class. Indeed, she seeks monetary damages pursuant to the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL Judge Ramos opines that the Defendant's motion to strike Young's class allegations are premature. Beekman has not shown that it would be impossible to certify the alleged class regardless of the facts the Plaintiff may be able to obtain during discovery. The viability of those allegations depends, at least in part, on the outcome of discovery. At this juncture, before any such discovery has taken place -- and well before the class certification stage -- it is simply too early to grant Beekman's request. Judge Ramos reiterates the importance of the posture of the instant case. Following discovery, Beekman will have the opportunity to challenge class certification pursuant to the several detailed requirements of Rule 23. However, at this juncture, he declines to preemptively strike Young's class allegations where there exists a set of circumstances in which the proposed classes could be certified at a later point in the litigation. For the reasons stated, Beekman's motion to strike class allegations is denied. The parties are directed to appear for a telephonic status conference on Sept. 25, 2023, at 10:00 AM. The parties are to dial (877) 411-9748 and enter access code 3029857#. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 15. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/285cy6cw from Leagle.com. BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Thorat Seeks Servers' Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- ANKIT THORAT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-03039 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip credit requirements and the subsequent failure to pay its employees at the federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant pays its servers below the federal minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Accordingly, the Defendant violated the FLSA by the following respects: (i) failing to correctly inform the Plaintiff of the desire to rely on the tip credit to meet its minimum wage obligations; (ii) requiring its tipped employees to pay for items for their uniform, including pants, shorts, belts, and shoes; (iii) requiring the Plaintiff to perform improper types, and excessive amounts, of non-tipped work, including taking out trash, doing dishes, cleaning tables, cleaning the soda machine, and cleaning the tea station; and (iv) requiting the Plaintiff was required to spend greater than 20% of his time and/or more than 30 consecutive minutes performing non-tip producing side work, including setting up tables, refilling condiments, rolling silverware, making tea and coffee, and folding napkins. As a result of these violations, the Defendant has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server at the Landshark Bar & Grill at the Margaritaville Resort on Lake Conroe, Texas from April 2022 to May 2023. The Defendant operates hotels and resorts across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADISON GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUESKY HEALTHCARE, INC. dba SPRENGER HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, GRACE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CMS & CO. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and VILLAGE OF THE FALLS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01617 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 20, 2023) challenges Defendants' timekeeping and pay practices which allegedly violates employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay their non-exempt employees overtime compensation at one and one-half times their "regular rate" for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant knew it was receiving a benefit by retaining and utilizing the labor of Plaintiff and the Class Members while providing no compensation, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant intentionally designed their compensation structure so as to obtain that benefit. Bluesky Healthcare, Inc., which does business as Sprenger Health Care Systems, is a domestic limited liability company that is headquartered in Lorain County, Ohio and, at all times relevant, owned skilled nursing, long-term care, respite care, assisted living, and rehabilitation facilities throughout Ohio and South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in King Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CLIFTON KING v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-4393 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants the motion of BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c. (collectively, the "BP parties") to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; b. grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an on- and offshore cleanup worker and as a resident of Mississippi and Alabama. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: a rash on his leg, respiratory issues including coughing, an acute asthma attack, and breathing difficulties, eye irritation, nausea, vomiting, headaches, exacerbation of depression and suicidal ideation, sinus problems, and congestion. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is his sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his report dated March 14, 2022, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Vance holds that at issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. She finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for the Plaintiff's specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that the sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, his contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy he seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/35yxej3b from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Fowler B3 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JULIAN MARQUISE FOWLER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-3208 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants the motion of BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. (collectively, the "BP parties") to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; b. grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps/pain, ankle pain and swelling, joint pain, anxiety/depression, decreased sense of smell, facial pain or sinus pain, nasal congestion/discharge, nosebleed, throat irritation, dizziness, headaches, shortness of breath, wheezing, eye burning and irritation, eye pain, watering, rashes on legs and feet, skin blistering, dryness/flaking, inflammation, redness, swelling, itching, peeling, scaling, and welts. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his report dated March 14, 2022, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Vance holds that at issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. She finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for the Plaintiff's specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, his contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy he seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/umjyeadv from Leagle.com. BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Seeks to Certify Putative Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, as Curator of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, and BARBARA J. ADAMS, as Power of Attorney for DAVID G. ADAMS, on their own behalf and all others similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order (i) certifying the putative classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), or, alternatively, (23)(c)(4); (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (iii) appointing the law firms of Collins Law PL, AARP Foundation, Creed & Gowdy PA, and Kennerly Montgomery & Finley PC as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two Florida classes and two North Carolina classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(3) against Defendant Brookdale as follows: 1) North Carolina classes a. Class definitions: i. North Carolina consumer protection class: "All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living or memory care facility in North Carolina between April 24, 2016 and this Court's preliminary approval date of the class, whether currently or formerly residing, and who contracted with a Brookdale facility to assess their personal service needs and develop a Personal Service Plan for which they paid, but for whom there does not exist an arbitration agreement that Brookdale can enforce." ii. North Carolina contract class: "All persons included in the North Carolina consumer protection class except residents whose contractual relationship with Brookdale is governed exclusively by a predecessor’s agreement and not by a standard Brookdale agreement. iii. Enforceable arbitration agreement. For both North Carolina classes, part II.A.3 below defines the objective criteria for determining whether there exists an arbitration agreement that Brookdale can enforce. b. Class representatives: Plaintiffs Fox (in his capacity as the administrator of Mr. Gunza's estate) and Plaintiff Harris (in his capacity as the executor of Ms. Smith's estate) will represent both North Carolina classes. c. Class claims: i. North Carolina consumer protection class: North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count II). ii. North Carolina contract class: breach of contract (Count III) and tortious interference with a contractual relationship (Count V). 2) Florida classes: a. Class definitions: i. Florida consumer protection class: 1. All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living or memory care facility in Florida between March 14, 2022 and this Court's preliminary approval of the class, whether currently or formerly residing, and who contracted with a Brookdale facility to assess their personal service needs and develop a Personal Service Plan for which they paid, but for whom there does not exist an arbitration agreement that Brookdale can enforce. 2. However, the Florida consumer protection class excludes members of the certified class in Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Case No. 17-cv- 60664-CMA. ii. Florida contract class: 1. All persons who resided at a Brookdale assisted living or memory care facility in Florida between May 3, 2015, and this Court's preliminary approval of the class, whether currently or formerly residing, and who contracted with a Brookdale facility to assess their personal service needs and develop a Personal Service Plan for which they paid, but for whom there does not exist an arbitration agreement that Brookdale can enforce. 2. However, the Florida contract class excludes: (a) residents whose contractual relationship with Brookdale is governed exclusively by a predecessor's agreement and not by a standard Brookdale agreement; and (b) members of the certified class in Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Case No. 17- cv-60664-CMA. b. Class representatives: Plaintiff Bright (in her capacity as the curator of Mr. Foote's estate) and Plaintiff Adams (in her capacity as the attorney-in-fact for Mr. Adams) will represent the Florida contract class. Plaintiff Adams alone will represent the Florida consumer protection class. c. Class claims: i. Florida consumer protection class: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count I). ii. Florida contract class: breach of contract (Count III) and intentional interference with a contractual relationship (Count V). Brookdale operates independent living, assisted living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qSaO9U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ali Naini, Esq. Kelly Bagby, Esq. Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq. Stefan Shaibani, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC, 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2103 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org eaniskevich@aarp.org anaini@aarp.org sshaibani@aarp.org - and - Christa L. Collins, Esq. COLLINS LAW PL 433 Central Ave 4th Floor Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 218-1763 E-mail: christa@clcclassactionlaw.com - and – Michael S. Kelley, Esq. KENNERLY, MONTGOMERY & FINLEY, P.C. 550 Main Street, Fourth Floor Knoxville, TN 37902 P.O. Box 442 Knoxville, TN 37901 Telephone: (865) 546-7311 Facsimile: (865) 524-1773 E-mail: mkelley@kmfpc.com - and – Bryan Gowdy, Esq. CREED & GOWDY, P.A. 865 May Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 350-0075 E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Griffin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chicory Griffin v. Sheryl Sandberg, Cambridge Analytica, Case No. 3:23-cv-04047-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule 23 class certification. Cambridge Analytica is a now-defunct consulting company that specialized in using data science methodologies to support political campaigns. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OT3CCj at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] CENGAGE LEARNING: Plaintiffs Oppose Objections to Judge's Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernstein, et al., v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file Opposition to the Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge Cave's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification with redactions. The redacted portions of Plaintiffs' Response reference documents and information that Cengage has designated as "Confidential" or "Attorney's Eyes Only" and has sought leave to seal. The Plaintiffs will file unredacted versions via ECF using the "Selected Parties" viewing level. The Plaintiffs take no position as to whether redactions or sealing are appropriate and reserve the right to challenge Cengage's confidentiality designations. Cengage provides learning solutions. The Company offers courses for instructor and trainer development, and supplementary information. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YTTxtr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rohit Nath, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. Suite 1400, 1900 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: RNath@susmangodfrey.com CHEGG INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Keller Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA KELLER, Plaintiff v. CHEGG, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-06986-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Chegg's motion to compel arbitration. As alleged in the first amended complaint, Chegg is an online platform that delivers educational products and services to high school and college students. Chegg is said to have experienced four data breaches between 2017 and 2020. Named plaintiff Keller sued Chegg on behalf of himself and a putative class of "individuals whose data was impacted or otherwise compromised." Keller alleges that Chegg did not adequately protect customer data, for which he seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under a variety of California common law and statutory claims. Chegg asks to send the case to arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and an arbitration clause in Chegg's Terms of Use (TOU). Keller filed an oversize opposition that did not conform to the Court's standing order with respect to page limits. On this one occasion, the Court allows the oversize brief, but the parties are advised that in any future proceedings, non-conforming filings will be summarily stricken from the docket. The motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. Keller's main objection to arbitration is that he did not consent to it. The record demonstrates otherwise. To start, undisputed evidence establishes that Chegg routinely updated the TOU and pushed notifications to customers about the updates. As the Chegg Vice President of Engineering averred, when a customer logged in after an update, they saw a pop-up screen stating that Chegg had "made some changes to the Arbitration Agreement." The pop-up window was scrollable and contained the full text of the TOU. Chegg users were required to click "I accept" to access and use Chegg. Chegg updated its terms on Feb. 19, 2019, March 17, 2021, and June 29, 2021, and sent out pop-up messages. It tracked customers' acceptance of the updated TOUs. Chegg posted seven revisions of the TOU between 2015 to the present, which are the years during which Keller used Chegg. All contain an arbitration provision that expressly states that arbitration will be governed by the FAA and the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) rules, waives both parties' right to participate in a class action, and delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The current TOU contain a separate Class Action Waiver and provide that "any claim that all or part of the Class Action Waiver is unenforceable, illegal, void or voidable will be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and not by an arbitrator." The first question is whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate. Judge Donato finds that the undisputed facts establish that the parties formed a valid agreement to arbitrate. The pop-up window is a quintessential "clickwrap agreement" in which a website presents users with specified contractual terms on a pop-up screen and users must check a box explicitly stating 'I agree' to proceed. Courts routinely find clickwrap agreements valid and enforceable because the user must affirmatively acknowledge receipt of the terms of the contract. This is especially true when, as in the case, the agreement is presented in an online pop-up window that contained the entire agreement within a scrollable textbox. Consequently, Judge Donato concludes that Keller consented to arbitration. The question Keller poses of whether the arbitration clause covers his claims is reserved for the arbitrator. Judge Donato finds that since 2015, the TOUs have featured an express delegation clause. Keller did not specifically challenge the validity of the delegation clause, so it is for the arbitrator, and not the Court, to decide arbitrability. The remaining issue is the enforceability of the class action waiver, which the parties reserved for the Court. Keller says that the waiver is unenforceable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017). Judge Donato holds that Keller overreads McGill. The California Supreme Court concluded that a waiver of the right to seek "public injunctive relief" is "invalid and unenforceable." It did not bar class action waivers per se. As McGill acknowledged, California law does not require plaintiffs to obtain a class to enjoin future wrongful business practices that will injure the public. In the instant case, the class action waiver says nothing at all about public injunctive relief, and certainly does not attempt to bar such relief. Consequently, the waiver stands. The case is ordered to arbitration on an individual basis. It is stayed and will be administratively closed pending the conclusion of arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2y5w7b6m from Leagle.com. CLUB 360: Seeks Reconsideration of July 31, 2023 Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR MEHER; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 31, 2023 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/469GWoH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas Borncamp, Esq. Hassan Elrakabawy, Esq. YUKEVICH | CAVANAUGH 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 362-7777 Facsimile: (213) 362-7788 E-mail: tborncamp@yukelaw.com helrakabawy@yukelaw.com COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WIGHTMAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND FOR ALL OTHER CURRENT AND FORMER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, v. COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS INC.; AND DOES 1 - 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-01784-TWR-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the following class: "All current and former hourly-paid and non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this action until the date that final judgment is entered in this matter." The Class Period includes the four years preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this action, to present. Class Certification is sought on the following claims: Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages. The Defendants allegedly failed to properly pay Plaintiff and the proposed class for all hours worked on behalf of Defendants. The Plaintiff William Wightman requests that the Court appoint him as the Class Representative in this matter, and to appoint Marlin & Saltzman, LLP and the Davtyan Law Firm as lead class counsel. The action seeks relief for thousands of workers employed by Cobham. Although the case is complex by virtue of its size and impact, the theories of liability upon which Plaintiff seeks certification are fairly simple. The Defendant manufactures components used in applications across the United States aerospace and defense industry. It operates two production facilities in California, located in San Diego and San Jose, respectively. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from June 2020 to August 2020 as a nonexempt production employee at its San Diego facility. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants' time keeping practices are inadequate and do not capture certain work tasks performed by their employees. Cobham manufactures components used in applications across the United States aerospace and defense industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YXiZ1c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan S. Lazar, Esq. Cody R. Kennedy, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: alazar@marlinsaltzman.com ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. 880 E. Broadway, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM Glendale, CA 91205-1218O Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com CONGO BRANDS: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berrios v. Congo Brands, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01529 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. Congo Brands helps organizations with talent management, logistic, branding, merchandising, and product development services. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] CONIFER REVENUE: Remand of Morales Suit to L.A. Super. Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RYAN MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01987-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. The Plaintiff filed his putative class action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on March 16, 2023. The Defendant, a self-proclaimed global streaming media platform with approximately 20 million users, had been entrusted with the Plaintiff and the Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). On Jan. 20, 2022, a cyber-attack against the Defendant allowed a malicious third party to access its computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal information in its possession. Sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members was unlawfully accessed and stolen due to the cyber-attack. Information compromised in the cyber-attack includes the following: full name, date of birth, address, and medical/treatment information, including medical record number, provider name, diagnosis or symptom information, and prescription/medication, health insurance information (such as payor name and subscriber/Medicare/Medicaid number), and billing and claims information. Based on these allegations, the Complaint alleges five causes of action against the Defendant: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and a putative class. The Complaint defines the putative class as, "All individuals whose PII was compromised in the Jan. 20, 2022 data breach announced by Conifer on or around September 30, 2022, who reside in the state of California." On March 16, 2023, the Defendant removed the case to this Court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The Plaintiff responded with a motion to remand, arguing that the district court lacks jurisdiction under CAFA because the Defendant failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements. He argues that the action should be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court. CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions if (1) the parties are minimally diverse, (2) the aggregate number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes is 100 or more persons, and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs. Although the substance of the Plaintiff's Motion addresses only the amount in controversy requirement, the Motion also suggests, albeit without substantial argument, that the Defendant did not satisfy the other requirements either. Judge Birotte finds that the Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Conifer, the only named defendant, is a limited liability company. An LLC is a citizen of every state which its owners/members are citizens. None of Conifer's members are a citizen of California. Because the Plaintiff is a citizen of a State different from the Defendant, CAFA's minimal diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied. Next, Judge Birotte finds that the Defendants have established that the Plaintiff's proposed class exceeds 100 members. Conifer determined that over 120,000 California residents who may have been affected by the data breach were sent a notice of the incident. Thus, the allegations of the Complaint and Kellner's Declaration satisfy CAFA's numerosity requirement. Judge Birotte then examines the amount in controversy. Based on the class size of 120,000, the Defendant has calculated the amount put in controversy by the ongoing credit monitoring and identity theft repair services that the Plaintiff seeks. It has presented evidence of the costs of credit monitoring. The Plaintiff seeks various other kinds of relief, and the Defendant has presented some evidence that making changes to its data systems and complying with an injunction would cost more than $2 million. Because the cost of credit monitoring alone would exceed $5 million, the Court need not consider the other types of relief the Plaintiff seeks. Hence, the Defendant has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million for federal court jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Plaintiff asks the Court to permit jurisdictional discovery. He indicates he would seek discovery on the exact number of the putative class members, but the Defendant has already presented evidence showing that there are at least 120,000 likely class members, and Plaintiff has not meaningfully controverted this assertion. The Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery is therefore denied. The Plaintiff also asks to amend the complaint to "clarify certain jurisdictional facts." But he has not specified which jurisdictional facts he would clarify. The request is denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Birotte denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8sdw4b from Leagle.com. CONVERSE INC: Summary Judgment in Madeira Suit Affirmed in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES, 1-50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-55161 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the district court's denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment for Converse. Madeira, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, appeals two decisions of the district court: (1) the district court's denial of class certification, and (2) the district court's grant of summary judgment for Converse. Madeira appeals the denials of class certification for the "regular rate of pay" and "rounding" subclasses. The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification for the "regular rate of pay" subclass because Madeira failed to establish predominance of common issues under Rule 23(b)(3). Because Madeira offered insufficient evidence to support his position that Converse maintained a common bonus policy that applied uniformly to all putative class members, the district court correctly held that "individual questions predominate. The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's denial of class certification for the rounding subclass. At this stage of the proceeding, the district court is limited to resolving whether the evidence establishes that a common question is capable of class-wide resolution, not whether the evidence in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial. Whether Converse had a policy or practice that restricted its employees in a manner that amounted to employer control during the period between their clock-in and clock-out times and their rounded shift-start and shift-end times, is a common question, capable of class-wide resolution. The Ninth Circuit turns to Madeira's challenges to the district court's order granting Converse summary judgment on his individual claims. On appeal, he contends the district court applied the incorrect law in granting Converse's motion for summary judgment on his minimum wage and overtime claim. The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that the district court did not err in applying FLSA's "percentage of total earnings" exception to Madeira's claims because California law adheres to the standards adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor to the extent that those standards are consistent with California law. California law is not inconsistent; an employer is not required to incorporate a "percentage of total earnings" bonus into the regular rate of pay calculation. However, on the rounding claim, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Converse. Contrary to the district court's finding, the Ninth Circuit finds that Madeira did not waive his rounding claim theory because he put Converse on sufficient notice of it when he moved for class certification of the related subclass before the close of discovery. On the merits, the California Supreme Court's pending decision in Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638, 657-660 (2022), could potentially alter the analysis of a "rounding" claim. If so, that decision would be retroactive on all cases not final. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit orders the district court to defer ruling on Converse's motion for summary judgment on this claim until Camp is decided. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j9pw3p2 from Leagle.com. CREDIT BUREAU: Clerk's Taxation of Costs in Bassett Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Defendants, Cas No. 8:16CV449 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the Plaintiff's motion to reverse the Clerk's taxation of costs. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to reverse the Clerk's taxation of costs in this matter. Bassett moves for review and reversal of the clerk's taxation of costs on grounds that the Defendants engaged in misconduct throughout discovery, failed to respond to discovery fully and fairly, which resulted in additional expense including written discovery, depositions, and expert witness fees. She also contends the wide financial disparity between the parties and her inability to pay justifies denial of costs. Further she contends denial of costs is justified because of the wide financial disparity between the parties, her inability to pay, and her good faith pursuit of valid claims. In this action, the Plaintiff challenged the Defendant's practice of assessing interest without first obtaining a judgment in alleged violation of Nebraska law. The complex class action case went to trial and the Plaintiff ultimately prevailed. Bassett was awarded a judgment, and an injunction was ordered to stop the challenged practice. The Defendant appealed and the judgment was vacated by the Eighth Circuit on the narrow but complex procedural issue of standing. The Eighth Circuit did not reach the merits of Bassett's claims. Based on its familiarity with the action, the Court finds the Plaintiff acted in good faith in pursuit of valid claims on complex legal issues. The record shows the Defendants were recalcitrant in providing discovery as to their net worth. The Plaintiff consequently had to take several depositions and retain a net worth expert. The Defendants later stipulated to net worth. The Plaintiff has shown that she lacks the ability to pay the costs. The record also shows the Defendants hotly contested numerous issues at every stage of the litigation. Judge Bataillon finds the Plaintiff has overcome any presumption in favor of taxation of costs. He says the Plaintiff has shown there is a significant financial disparity and she is without ability to pay. Based on its familiarity with the case, Judge Bataillon finds the Plaintiff pursued her action in good faith on complex and evolving legal issues. Insofar as the costs were incurred largely because of the Defendant's conduct, he finds an award of costs to the Defendants as prevailing parties would be inequitable under the circumstances. Accordingly, in his discretion, Judge Bataillon finds the clerk's taxation of costs should be reversed. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dcszrpy from Leagle.com. CURIOSITY INC: Faces Dhruva Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROHAN DHRUVA and JOSHUA STERN, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CURIOSITY INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02265-MJM (D. Md., Aug. 18, 2023) is a class action suit brought against the Defendant for allegedly violating the Video Privacy Protection Act by collecting and sharing highly-specific and sensitive information about Plaintiffs and other consumers' video consumption habits without their consent. According to the complaint, Curiosity violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information -- including a record of every documentary video consumed by Plaintiffs and Class members -- to unrelated third parties without their consent. Curiosity installed computer code on its website, called the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records Plaintiffs and Class members' private video consumption. Behind the scenes of the webpages that display videos -- and unbeknownst to video viewers -- this code collects Plaintiffs and Class members' video-watching history and discloses it to social media company Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiffs and Class members' video consumption habits to deliver targeted advertisements to them, says the suit. Curiosity Inc. develops, owns, and operates CuriosityStream.com, a streaming video platform broadcasting website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-2225 Facsimile: (410) 547-2432 E-mail: bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq., Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Loses Bid to Remand ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DAK RESOURCES, INC., a Florida corporation; MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00163-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report with proposed dates for filing a motion for class certification within 30 days of the date of the order. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence the rest period violations claim equals an AIC of at least $1,152,000 The Court finds Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence the waiting time penalties claim equals an AIC of $3,600,000. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated various Labor Code sections, including Labor Code sections 226, 1194, which provide for attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff's claims for rest period violations, meal period violations, waiting time penalties, and attorneys' fees. The Defendant, a specialty retail company, employed Plaintiff and other individuals as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees in California. ECF No. 1-4.) On November 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action in San Joaquin Superior Court, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant: (1) failed to pay lawful wages including overtime; (2) failed to provide lawful meal periods; (3) failed to provide lawful rest periods; (4) failed to reimburse employee expenses; (5) failed totimely pay wages during employment; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at termination of employment; (7) failed to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (8) violated unfair competition law. The Defendant is a specialty retail company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QXb1TO at no extra charge.[CC] DISH NETWORK: Class Settlement in Krakauer TCPA Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-333 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Catherine G. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants the joint motion for approval of a class actions settlement. The parties seek approval of a settlement of the long-running class action. After a full examination of the record and the proposed settlement considering its long experience with this matter, Judge Eagles approves the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Judge Eagles explains that courts may approve a class settlement only if it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In applying this standard, the Fourth Circuit has bifurcated the analysis into consideration of fairness, which focuses on whether the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm's length, and adequacy, which focuses on whether the consideration provided the class members is sufficient. Courts apply a four-factor test to determine the fairness of a proposed settlement: (1) the posture of the case at the time settlement was proposed, (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted, (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations, and (4) the experience of counsel in the area of law at issue. Judge Eagles holds that these factors support final approval. The case has been ongoing for almost a decade. The parties engaged in formal discovery and went to trial over six years ago. Identified class members have been paid their share of the judgment, and the amount of unclaimed funds will be fully known in short order. The only remaining issue in dispute -- what should happen to the unclaimed judgment funds -- has been fully litigated in the Court and, until the recent remand related to the settlement, was the subject of an appeal that had been pending for some months. All sides are fully informed, and there has been plenty of time for counsel to negotiate a fair settlement amount. There is no evidence of any collusion or improper conduct. There have been substantial uncertainties associated with proceeding with the cy pres distribution while an appeal was pending that made settlement negotiations appropriate. In sum, Judge Eagles is persuaded that the settlement is fair. Judge Eagles holds that it is in everyone's best interest to settle the case. The bulk of these funds will, under the settlement, go to cy pres recipients, and those distributions can proceed with finality to organizations that address one or more of the objectives of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and positively target and support the interests of the plaintiff class. From the approximately $22.5 million of funds available for distribution, DISH will receive $6 million and will dismiss the appeal pending in the Fourth Circuit. This arrangement is appropriate in light of the strength of the parties' positions. In view of the entire record, Judge Eagles finds the settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. She finds notice of the proposed settlement is required. The settlement does not bind or even affect class members, who have been paid their full share of the judgment and have no interest in unclaimed funds. For these reasons, Judge Eagles grants the joint motion for approval of a class actions settlement. The Clerk will promptly disburse to the Defendant $6 million from the judgment fund within 10 business days of the date of the Order. The Clerk will wire those funds to DISH per the account information provided by its counsel Richard Keshian. Upon its receipt of the $6 million, DISH will promptly notify the Fourth Circuit clerk. The remainder of the unclaimed judgment funds (in the amount of approximately $16.5 million) will be disbursed to cy pres recipients as ordered by the Court at the appropriate time and under the procedures set forth in the Court's July 27, 2023 Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dtm5x7v from Leagle.com. DSV SOLUTIONS: Bid to Remand Sanchez Suit to Superior Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Maria Sanchez v. DSV Solutions, LLC, Case No. EDCV 23-1112 PA (SPx) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies Sanchez's Motion to Remand. The Plaintiff contends that the Notice of Removal filed by the Defendant fails to satisfactorily establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional minimum for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, Judge Anderson finds that the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino on Feb. 1, 2022. The Plaintiff served the Defendant with the Complaint on April 25, 2022, and the Defendant filed its First Notice of Removal on May 25, 2022. The Court ordered the Defendant to show cause in writing why the action should not be remanded because the First Notice of Removal appeared to contain unsupported assumptions supporting its allegations attempting to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. The Defendant responded to the Order to Show Cause and the Court, after reviewing the Defendant's Response, concluded that the Defendant had not adequately supported its assumptions and remanded the action to San Bernardino Superior Court on June 16, 2022. The parties subsequently engaged in various discovery, including the Plaintiff's Deposition on Oct. 5, 2022, and interrogatories propounded by Defendant that Plaintiff responded to May 12, 2023. Relying on the Plaintiff's responses to those interrogatories, the Defendant filed its Second Notice of Removal on June 12, 2023. The Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand challenging the adequacy of the Notice of Removal's allegations concerning the amount in controversy on July 12, 2023. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and a putative class. Specifically, she alleges claims for: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to reimburse for required business expenses; (3) failing to provide timely meal breaks; (4) failing to provide rest breaks; (5) failing to pay all wages owed; (6) failing to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; and (7) unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Complaint alleges a class period extending from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint on Feb. 1, 2022 through the trial date. In her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA because its calculations rely on unsubstantiated assumptions. She additionally contends that the Defendant's reliance on her discovery responses when filing the Second Notice of Removal ignores the fact that it took her deposition approximately eight months earlier and her recovery is likely to be reduced by it settlement of another wage and hour class action in April 2022, which may reduce the class period. In support of its Opposition to the Motion to Remand, the Defendant has submitted its employment records showing that it employed 1,283 individuals in California during the class period as hourly, non-exempt workers, that at least 933 proposed class members ended their employment with it within the relevant statute of limitations period for the waiting time penalties sought, how long the employees were employed, and their hourly rates of pay. Based on that information, and assumptions of violations that each employee suffered one of the alleged unfair labor practices just once for every 70 shifts worked by each employee (a 1.4% violation rate), the waiting time penalties for the 933 former employees ($4,233,289.33) and inaccurate wage statement penalties for the 877 employees who worked within the one-year statute of limitations ($2,019.20), are alone sufficient to meet the CAFA amount in controversy requirement. The Plaintiff challenges the 100% violation rate and maximum 30-day penalty assumed by Defendant in its calculation of the amount in controversy for the waiting time penalty claim. Judge Anderson holds that although the Plaintiff faults the Defendant for failing to disclose that it took her deposition eight months prior to the Defendant's filing of the Second Notice of Removal, the Plaintiff does not assert that the deposition provided information from which it may be fist ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable. Nor does she contend that the Second Notice of Removal's filing within 30 days of the Defendant's receipt of her interrogatory responses was otherwise untimely. Finally, Judge Anderson rejects the Plaintiff's suggestion that the Defendant's settlement of a different wage and hour class action limits her class period such that Defendant's amount in controversy calculations, tied to the class period alleged in her Complaint, must be reduced. The Plaintiff could have amended her Complaint to shorten the class period considering the final approval of the settlement of the other case in April 2022, but she did not. Her Complaint alleges a class period beginning in February 2018, and the Defendant can rely on that class period when calculating the amount in controversy. For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Anderson concludes that the Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. He therefore denies the Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39cbx4yp from Leagle.com. EIDP INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Banks' 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DORIS BANKS, CANDY CAPORALE, BRUCE DAVIS, GENE SULLENBERGER, and CHRISTINE WOOTTEN, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EIDP, INC., THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), ATOTECH USA, LLC, MACDERMID, INC., PROCINO PLATING, INC., a/k/a PROCINO ENTERPRISES, a/k/a PROCINO, and BLADES DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. 19-1672 (MN) (JLH) (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: (1) grants Atotech's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Class Action Complaint; (2) grants 3M's Motion to Dismiss Counts III Through VII of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint; (3) grants EIDP's Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint; and (4) grants in part and denies in part MacDermid's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On July 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hall held a teleconference on the pending motions to dismiss wherein she read her Report and Recommendation into the record and, also on July 28, 2023, Judge Hall issued a corresponding Report and Recommendation on the docket. Judge Hall recommended that (1) Atotech's Motion to Dismiss be granted; (2) 3M's Motion to Dismiss be granted; (3) EIDP's Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss be granted; and (4) MacDermid's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denies in part as follows: the motion should be denied with respect to Count 2 and granted with respect to Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. No party filed objections to the Report pursuant to 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the prescribed period, and Judge Noreika finds no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, she adopted Judge Hall's report. Atotech's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the claims against it in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (except the claims in Count II) are dismissed without prejudice. 3M's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the claims against it contained in Counts III through VII of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. EIDP's Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss is granted and the claim against it in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (except the claims in Count II) are dismissed without prejudice. MacDermid's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to Count II and granted with respect to Counts III through VII and the claims against MacDermid contained in Counts III through VII of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. As stated at the conclusion of the July 28, 2023 teleconference, should the Plaintiffs wish to attempt to further amend their complaint, they will do so by following Judge Hall's procedures as will be set forth in the Scheduling Order entered in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3swkknax from Leagle.com. EXP REALTY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 14, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY USANOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting the Parties' joint request that the Court set a schedule for class certification only and set a trial schedule based on a further status report from the parties after the Court has resolved any motion for class certification or if plaintiff decides not to seek class certification: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties Oct. 13, 2023 and amend pleadings Close of Discovery May 15, 2024 Deadline for Disclosure of Feb. 15, 2024 Expert Reports Deadline for Disclosure of March 12, 2024 Rebuttal Reports Class Certification Motion Deadline June 14, 2024 Class Certification Opposition Deadline July 12, 2024 Class Certification Reply Deadline Aug. 2, 2024 EXP is a residential and commercial real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45tGIbN at no extra charge.[CC] FAIRFAX COUNTY: D.C. Appeals Revised Case Dimissal Order to 4th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- D.C., by his parents and guardians, Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders entered in the lawsuit entitled D.C., by his parents and guardians, Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fairfax County School Board, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01070-MSN-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of a class led by D.C. and M.B., two Fairfax County students with disabilities; their parents; and Hear Our Voices, Inc., a disability advocacy organization. Together, the Plaintiffs challenge Virginia's administration of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare that Virginia's individualized education plan (IEP)-review process violates the IDEA and deprives families of due process. The Plaintiffs then asked the Court to enter an injunction that would force the Defendants to implement changes that would bring Virginia into compliance with the Plaintiffs' understanding of the IDEA. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs objected. On Apr. 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file notice of supplemental authority in further opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 25, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental authority. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff also granted the Fairfax County School Board's and the Virginia Department of Education's Motions to Dismiss. On July 28, 2023, Lisa Coons of the Virginia Department Of Education filed a motion to clarify the July 25, 2023 Memorandum Opinion and Order. On August 1, 2023, Judge Nachmanoff granted the Defendants' motion to clarify and ordered that the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2023 is modified in accordance with her order. The appellate case is captioned D.C. v. Fairfax County School Board, Case No. 23-1854, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 16, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants D.C., by his parents and guardians, Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick, et al. are represented by: Michael B. Adamson, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 - and - Scarlett Collings, Esq. William Randolph Merrill, Esq. SUSMAN & GODFREY, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 - and - Aderson B. Francois, Esq. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 661-6739 - and - Rowland Braxton Hill, IV, Esq. Craig Thomas Merritt, Esq. MERRITT LAW, PLLC 919 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 916-1602 (804) 916-1601 Defendants-Appellees FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al. are represented by: Jeanne-Marie Sidonie Burke, Esq. Julia Bougie Judkins, Esq. FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8115 Gatehouse Road Falls Church, VA 22042 Telephone: (571) 423-1232 (571) 423-1035 - and - Amy Elizabeth Hensley, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 371-2267 - and - Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4746 - and - Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 888 16th Street, NW Black Lives Matter Plaza Washington, DC 20006 - and - Jackie Lynn White, II, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1750 Tysons Boulevard Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 712-5474 FEDEX GROUND: Holder Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Holder and Vincent Vanleuven individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-07483 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to pay spread of hours, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Holder and Vanleuven worked for FedEx as delivery drivers from approximately 2020 until 2022 and from approximately 2020 until 2022, respectively. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matt Dunn, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com - and - John DeGasperis, Esq. BASCH & KEEGAN, LLP 303 & 307 Clinton Ave. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 338-8884 E-mail: jad@baschkeegan.com FIELD ASSET: Carranza Suit Remanded to California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REMBERTO CARRANZA, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02874-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order remanding the case to the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied." It was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that CAFA provided jurisdiction over the unnamed class members' claims; though they were wrong on the law, it was not unreasonable for them to believe that some combination of cases supported their theory, particularly because there is apparently no binding appellate precedent addressing these specific procedural circumstances. Accordingly, the request for fees is denied. The Plaintiff Remberto Carranza alleges that he was an employee of Field Asset Services, that he was misclassified as an independent contractor, and that he was not paid proper wages under various California state laws. The defendants removed the case from state court and now Carranza filed a motion to remand. Because I lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, the motion is granted. Field Asset is a property preservation, restoration and inspection services business. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45pBD4g at no extra charge.[CC] FIFTH THIRD: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp 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 February 6, 2023, the trial court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff's breach of contract claim with respect to out-of-network ATM fees and dismissing the two claims for violations of California consumer protection statutes while denying Fifth Third's motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for certain customer overdrafts and insufficient funds fees. The case is in discovery, and no trial date has been set. On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Troy Howards filed a putative class action against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 1:18-CV-869, S.D. OH 2018), alleging that Fifth Third improperly charged certain fees related to insufficient funds, customer overdrafts, and out-of-network ATM use. Venue was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Ca. Bus. and Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1750 et seq.) Plaintiff seeks to represent putative nationwide classes and California classes of consumers allegedly charged improper repeated insufficient funds fees, improper overdraft fees, and fees for out-of-network ATM use from the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations to present. Plaintiff seeks damages of restitution and disgorgement in the amount of the allegedly unlawfully charged fees, damages proved at trial together with interest as allowed by applicable law. Fifth Third filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with 1,072 full-service banking centers and 2,114 ATMs in eleven states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on three business segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer and Small Business Banking and Wealth and Asset Management. FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Fox Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp 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 May 17, 2023, the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County preliminarily approved the class settlement in the amount of $5.5 million in the case captioned "Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al.," Case No. 2020CH05219. A final approval hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2023. On July 31, 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al.," Case No. 2020CH05219 was filed on behalf of former shareholders of its affiliate MB Financial, Inc. The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain of its officers and directors made material misstatements and omissions regarding an alleged improper cross-selling strategy in filings made in connection with the Bancorp's merger with MB Financial, Inc. On March 19, 2021, the trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with 1,072 full-service banking centers and 2,114 ATMs in eleven states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on three business segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer and Small Business Banking and Wealth and Asset Management. FIFTH THIRD: Settles Credit Card Fee Dispute with Merchants ----------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp 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 15, 2023, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a December 13, 2019 order granting final approval for a settlement of a Visa/MasterCard Merchant Interchange Litigation. In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned "In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation," Case No. 5-MD-1720. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 17 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was initially approved by the trial court but reversed by the Second Circuit and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs' class and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The amended settlement agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the agreement becomes final. The agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. On September 27, 2021, the court entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with 1,072 full-service banking centers and 2,114 ATMs in eleven states throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S. The Bancorp reports on three business segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer and Small Business Banking and Wealth and Asset Management. FITZCON CONSTRUCTION: Ordered to Correct Chuchuca Settlement Papers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FREDDY CHUCHUCA, et al., Plaintiffs v. FITZCON CONSTRUCTION G.C., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-2178 (RA) (JLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James L. Cott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the parties to supplement and correct their settlement papers. Judge Cott has preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement agreement submitted and has several concerns. First, the release in paragraph 2(a) of the settlement agreement is described as Release; Mutual but it is not a mutual release; only the Plaintiffs are providing a release. It should either be mutual, and the Defendants should provide a release, or it should not be described as a mutual release. Second, the stipulation of dismissal at Exhibit A of the settlement agreement is only executed by the Plaintiffs' counsel, not by defense counsel. A fully executed stipulation needs to be submitted to the Court. Third, the Plaintiffs' counsel points out in their letter accompanying the settlement agreement that they have only been able to reach 10 of the 12 plaintiffs to obtain their signatures on the settlement agreement, and report that two Plaintiffs -- Alfredo Varela and Byron Espinoza -- have not responded to repeated attempts to contact them. The Court is not aware of authority that construes the language provided in the Consent to Sue form in the case to enable the representative Plaintiffs to settle on behalf of opt-in plaintiffs without the opt-in plaintiffs having the right to review and approve the terms of the settlement. Accordingly, Judge Cott is reluctant to approve a settlement that binds three absent plaintiffs to terms they have not had an opportunity to review. Judge Cott directs the parties to supplement and correct their settlement papers as follows: they should (a) correct the release in paragraph 2 of the agreement; (b) submit a fully executed stipulation of dismissal; and (c) by Aug. 30, 2023, re-submit a fully executed settlement agreement that includes signatures from plaintiffs Varela, Bonilla, and Espinoza, or alternatively provide a letter-brief offering additional legal support for why the Court can approve an agreement without the signatures of all the plaintiffs (or, alternatively, why the Court should not just approve the settlement agreement as to the nine plaintiffs who have signed off on the agreement and, if the other three plaintiffs do not appear and sign the agreement by August 30, then the case should be dismissed as to them for failure to participate in the action). A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/msk6sf4w from Leagle.com. FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Sulligan Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER SULLIGAN, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-11668-LVP-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order dismissing Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Counts 8, 11, and 15 may proceed with litigation. Accordingly, Ford's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations is granted in part and denied in part. The case is a putative class action initiated on July 20, 2022, involving the recall of certain 2021 to 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles. The Plaintiffs -- currently nine named individuals from seven states -- who represent a nationwide class and subclasses, bring this lawsuit against Ford Motor alleging a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Count 1), fraudulent concealment (Count 2), unjust enrichment (Count 3), and numerous state-specific claims involving fraud and consumer protection laws (Counts 4–19). The Plaintiffs residing in California, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania allege that model year 2021–2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles built from May 27, 2020, through May 24, 2022, created an "unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death, or property damage if their vehicle completely or partially loses power while in operation," as a result of a finding by Ford that "the design and part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor is not robust to the heat generated during DC fast charging and multiple wide open pedal events." The Plaintiff Thomas Dorobiala purchased his 2022 Mustang Mach-E from Gosch Ford Temecula in Temecula, California on February 18, 2022. On February 22, 2022, Mr. Dorobiala was driving his vehicle home from the dealership after receiving the Energy Control Module Software Update when his warning lights came on. The Plaintiff Melissa Orlando purchased a new 2022 Mustang Mach-E from Hemborg Ford in Norco, California on May 31, 2022. In July 2022, Ms. Orlando was driving her vehicle on the freeway when it suddenly shut down. Although she did not have access to a shoulder on the freeway to pull over, Ms. Orlando was able to drive to an exit once the vehicle regained power. Ms. Orlando subsequently took her affected vehicle to the dealership in for a fix due to the recall. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45tHiGv at no extra charge.[CC] FREUD AMERICA: Tuter Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY TUTER v. FREUD AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-282-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement; (2) appointing him as class representative and his attorney as Settlement Class Counsel; (3) approving the Parties' proposed forms and methods of giving Settlement Class members notice of the proposed settlement; (4) directing the notice be given to Settlement Class members in the proposed forms and manners; (5) setting deadlines and procedures for people who fall within the Settlement Class definition to exclude themselves and for Settlement Class members to object to the proposed settlement; and (6) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the settlement should be granted final approval and whether Settlement Class Counsel should be awarded attorney's fees and expenses and the Plaintiff a requested service award. The case s is a consumer class action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Freud America supplies and sells bonded abrasive wheels that are defective because they fail to inform consumers that the Covered Products expire. Specifically, the manufacturers of the wheels mark them with numbers (e.g., V04/2015) that Plaintiff alleges consumers would not understand. The Defendant disagrees with the allegations and denies liability. After successfully defeating two rounds of briefing relating to Defendant's motion to dismiss, conducting written discovery, exchanging documents, and preparing for a corporate representative deposition, the Plaintiff negotiated a nationwide class settlement. -- Settlement Terms The Defendant has agreed to pay up to a maximum amount of $1,900,000.00, inclusive of all cash payments, service award payment, administrative expenses, costs, and attorney’s fees to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the settlement agreement. -- Settlement Class Definition The Settlement Class is defined as: "All Persons who purchased one or more Covered Products at retail in the United States and its territories during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendant and its employees; (ii) any Person who properly and timely opts out pursuant to this Agreement; (iii) federal, state, and local governments (including all agencies and subdivisions thereof (but employees thereof are not excluded); and (iv) any judge who presides over the consideration of whether to approve the settlement of this class action and any member of their immediate family. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Class Period is from January 1, 2017, through the date Preliminary Approval is granted. Freud offers wholesale distribution of cutlery and general hardware. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjE5Uk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Paul D. Anderson, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Nichelle L. Oxley, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com pda@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com nlo@hfmlegal.com FUBOTV INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- fuboTV 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 it is facing putative class action lawsuit filed by shareholders Wafa Said-Ibrahim and Adhid Ibrahim on February 17, 2021, seeking damages and other relief. The case has been dismissed. Plaintiffs allege defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial health and operating condition, including its ability to grow subscription levels, prospects, future profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations, ability to generate advertising revenue, valuation, and entering the online sports wagering market in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 29, 2021, the court consolidated Said-Ibrahim under "In re FuboTV Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:21-cv-01412, S.D.N.Y. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 10, 2021. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 9, 2021 and defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2021. On March 30, 2023, the Court granted the Class Action Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice. fuboTV Inc. is a subscription-based live TV streaming platform for sports, news, and entertainment. GARFIELD DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ZBIGNIEW SOCHA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GARFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORP., 144 WEST 70TH STREET LLC., 146 DEVELOPMENT CORP., 225 W. 16 ST. CORP., 864 W.E. CORP., 866-8 DEVELOPMENT CORP., BRIDGES CREEK REALTY COMPANY, L.L.C., CHELSEA EQUITIES LLC, STRATA REALTY CORP., WEST SIDE EQUITIES LLC., PETE COMAS and ALAN GARFIELD,, Case No. 1:23-cv-07372 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law and related provisions from Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Plaintiff Socha regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week with as many as 80 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid at his regular hourly rate and not paid overtime. The Plaintiff was also not compensated at all for an average 2 hours each week for his time travelling from his home to the various job sites each week with the tools and materials required for the work, the lawsuit claims. On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff Socha suffered an injury while at work at one of the Garfield Properties and is currently on worker's compensation. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA on behalf of all non-exempt construction laborers and superintendents employed by the Defendants in New York on or after the date that is three years before the filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to recover back pay on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees and to enjoin the Defendants from further violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a superintendent and a construction worker from June 2005 until February 28, 2023, with an interruption from April 2021 till August 2021. Garfield owns, operates, and/or controls apartment buildings located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Severyn Rebisz, Esq. REBISZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 58-26 Catalpa Ave. Ridgewood NY 11385 Telephone: (347) 486-4699 GOLDMAN SACHS : Rent-the-Runway 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 a putative securities class action filed on November 14, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Rent the Runway, Inc.'s (Rent the Runway) $357 million October 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Rent the Runway and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 5,254,304 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $110 million. 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: Robinhood 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 a putative securities class action filed on December 17, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Robinhood Markets, Inc.'s approximately $2.2 billion July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Robinhood and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 18,039,706 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $686 million. On February 10, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend, and on March 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On May 12, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the second 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: Securities Suit Over Array Tech IPO Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Array Technologies, Inc.'s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. On July 5, 2023, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million. On December 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, and on May 19, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the amended consolidated complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice. 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. GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Certify Class in Cabrera Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RENE CABRERA, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division: a. denies Google's motion for summary judgment; b. denies Google's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' expert reports; and c. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The action involves a long-running dispute between Google and advertisers who used its AdWords program. In this dispute, Plaintiffs Rene Cabrera and RM Cabrera Co., Inc. ("RMC") allege that Google failed to properly apply Smart Pricing discounts and failed to limit advertisements to the geographic locations that advertisers were targeting. Now before the Court are several motions: Google's motion for summary judgment Google's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' expert reports, and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Cabrera is a Florida citizen who co-owns RMC (formerly known as Training Options). In 2008, he opened an AdWords account to purchase advertising on behalf of Training Options, and it is these purchases that are now the subject of Cabrera's and RMC's individual claims against Google. However, in 2009, Cabrera sold the assets of Training Options and allowed the corporation to dissolve. The Court found that this sale included Training Options' claims against Google and that Cabrera lacked standing to raise those claims. To remedy this issue, Cabrera requested that the purchaser of Training Options assign the relevant claims back to him, and the purchaser agreed. Cabrera then reinstated Training Options (renamed as RM Cabrera Co.) for the purpose of bringing the instant claims. As a broad overview, the action pertains to Google's AdWords program, which allows advertisers to create and display ads on webpages within Google's advertising networks. There are two components to those advertising networks: (1) the "Search Network," which consists of google.com and Google's partner search websites, and (2) the "Display Network," which consists of other webpages whose owners partner with Google to display advertisements. AdWords operates via an auction system. When a user visits a webpage or performs a search, advertisers will compete in a second-price auction to display their ads to that user. In a second-price auction, the winning bidder only pays a de minimis amount more (in the case, a penny) than the second-highest bid. Bids are typically made on a cost-per-click basis, which is the amount the advertiser is charged when someone clicks on its ads. One feature that Google offers as part of AdWords is known as "Smart Pricing." This feature discounts the price that advertisers pay based on the likelihood that a click "converts" or leads to a "conversion," i.e., a successful transaction as defined by the advertiser. SUF, Facts 13-14 (undisputed). In practice, Google provides the Smart Pricing discount by applying a multiplier, where lower multipliers represent a greater discount. According to the Plaintiffs, Google is contractually obligated to Smart Price all clicks. Before an advertiser can join the AdWords program, it must sign a standard contract that the parties refer to as the AdWords Agreement. The AdWords Agreement states that charges are solely based on Google's measurements for the applicable Program, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. In turn, extrinsic evidence allegedly shows that Smart Pricing is a "measurement" within the meaning of that clause. The Plaintiffs claim that Google has violated this measurements clause of the AdWords Agreement in two ways: (1) by failing to Smart Price some clicks altogether and (2) by failing to provide a sufficient Smart Pricing discount for others. The action began in 2011, when former plaintiff Rick Woods filed suit. After extensive motion practice, including summary judgment, the parties finally arrived at the class certification stage in 2018. The Court denied class certification at that time, finding that Woods' entanglement with class counsel raised a conflict that rendered him inadequate to represent the putative class. However, it granted leave to amend to substitute in a new proposed class representative. Shortly thereafter, Cabrera, one of the current plaintiffs, joined the suit. In November 2018, Cabrera filed a renewed motion for class certification. Google filed an opposition, and Cabrera replied. Google also filed multiple motions under Daubert to strike various experts that Plaintiffs had set forth in support of class certification, only one of which remains to be resolved in this Order. While Cabrera's motion for class certification was pending, Google filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted Google's motion and dismissed Cabrera for lack of standing. Subsequently, the parties settled Woods' individual claims, after which Cabrera appealed the dismissal of his claims. In early 2021, the Ninth Circuit reversed, vacating the Court's 2/16/19 Order and remanding for further proceedings. Later that year, Cabrera joined RMC as a named plaintiff, the third different plaintiff since the instant action began. Because several years had passed since the parties initially filed their class certification papers in 2018, and a new plaintiff had joined the suit, the Court called for a supplemental round of briefing. Google also filed a motion for summary judgment after the parties had completed supplemental briefing on class certification. The Plaintiffs' 2018 motion for class certification, Google's most recent motion for summary judgment, and Google's Daubert motion are now before the Court. First, Google seeks summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Smart Pricing claims on three grounds: (1) the Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence showing that they were damaged because they have failed to account for the auction dynamics that determine AdWords pricing; (2) Cabrera has no claim because any damage was suffered by RMC, the third-party beneficiary of the AdWords Agreement; and (3) the AdWords Agreement does not specify a particular Smart Pricing formula, so there is no breach as to any clicks that were Smart Priced "to at least some degree." Judge Davila finds that summary judgment in favor of Google on the Plaintiffs' Smart Pricing breach of contract claim is not warranted. Despite Google's efforts to contest the Plaintiffs' theory of damages and interpretation of the AdWords Agreement, he says the Plaintiffs have advanced enough evidence to establish questions of fact unsuitable for summary judgment. And while the evidence may ultimately establish that Cabrera may not file suit for damages because RMC is the third-party beneficiary of the AdWords Agreement, Google has failed to produce evidence justifying summary judgment on that argument. As such, Google's motion for summary judgment on the Smart Pricing breach of contract claim is denied. With respect to RMC's Location Targeting UCL claim, Google moves for summary judgment on three bases: (1) RMC could not have reasonably relied on Google's "LT Settings Screen" statement; (2) the statement is not material to reasonable advertisers; and (3) RMC did not suffer a cognizable UCL injury. Judge Davila finds that Google's motion for summary judgment on RMC's Location Targeting UCL claim is not meritorious. Google has challenged RMC's evidence on elements that are largely not required under California law for UCL fraud claims, such as reasonable (as opposed to actual) reliance and materiality. In any event, Judge Davila finds that RMC has identified genuine issues of fact and introduced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, Google's motion for summary judgment on the Location Targeting UCL claim is denied. The Court has previously decided several Daubert motions in connection with class certification. It granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motions, striking the report of Professor Ronald Wilcox as untimely but refusing to strike the various expert reports and declarations of Dr. Lawrence Wu. As for Google's motion, the Court declined to strike the opinions of Saul Solomon regarding proposed damages models for Plaintiffs' Location Targeting claims, but it deferred ruling on Google's objections to Dr. James L. Gibson and to Solomon's opinions regarding proposed damages models for the Plaintiffs' Smart Pricing claims. Judge Davila finds that Dr. Gibson is qualified under Daubert and has formed his opinions based on sufficient facts and reliable methods. He therefore denies Google's motion to strike Dr. Gibson's reports. He also denies Google's motion to strike Solomon's Smart Pricing opinions. He finds that Google may disagree with Plaintiffs' theory of liability, but that does not make Solomon's opinions unreliable. Google's argument is also no more persuasive in the Smart Pricing context, and Judge Davila rejects it for the same reasons articulated in its prior order. Solomon relies on the opinions of Dr. Gibson, who analyzed large data samples, and Solomon is not required to perform full calculations of class-wide damages at this stage. That is enough to satisfy Daubert. The Plaintiffs proposed the following definition for the Smart Pricing Class: All persons and entities located within the United States who, between Aug. 22, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2013, advertised through Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks were not Smart Priced because they (1) originated from a property on Google's Display Network and Google applied no Smart Pricing measurement, or (2) were AFMA Clicks, Search Bundled Clicks, or mGDN Clicks. Having reviewed the evidence presented and considered the arguments asserted regarding the certification of the Location Targeting Class, Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a). Furthermore, he finds that questions common to the Location Targeting Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the parties' dispute. Accordingly, he finds that the Location Targeting Class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, Judge Davila denies Google's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike expert reports. He also grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, he certifies the Location Targeting Class and Search Bundled Clicks Subclass. However, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that common questions predominate as to the Non-Smart Priced Clicks, AFMA Clicks, and mGDN Clicks Subclasses, so the Court declines to certify those subclasses. His denial as to those three subclasses is without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class certification after addressing the issues identified in his Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvub6ft8 from Leagle.com. GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Website Not Blind-accessible, Wahab Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT HEALTHWORKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07453 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.omegaxl.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. She attempted on June 12, 2023 and again on July 22, 2023 to access Defendant's Website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Great Healthworks, Inc. is a manufacturer of health and wellness supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 HALL MANAGEMENT: Lewis Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- HAMAD LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; and HALLS NASHVILLE, LLC D/B/A HALLS CHOPHOUSE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00896 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at their Halls Chophouse restaurant and bar from May 2022 until July 2023 where he worked as a server. He asserts that Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum-wage and overtime obligations to their tipped employees. Hall Management Group owns and operates Halls Chophouse and other related or affiliated restaurant concepts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify classes and appoint counsel. The Plaintiffs move the Court, to certify the following Class and Subclasses related to Defendants' mandate that its employees receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines: -- Primary Class: "All Hawaiian employees who requested accommodation pursuant to Title VII or the ADA from Hawaiian's Mandate and had those accommodation requests denied by Hawaiian." Subclass 1: Members of the class who requested a religious accommodation from Hawaiian’s Mandate, had that accommodation request denied, and were forced either to take an unlawful accommodation of unpaid leave or were terminated or forced into early retirement. Subclass 2: Members of the class who requested a religious accommodation from Hawaiian’s Mandate, had that accommodation request denied, and were coerced into taking the vaccine. (Subclasses 1 and 2 are referred to collectively as the "Title VII Subclasses" or the "Title VII Group".) Subclass 3: Members of the class with a disability who requested an accommodation from Hawaiian’s Mandate, had that accommodation request denied, and were forced either to take an unlawful accommodation of unpaid leave or were terminated or forced into early retirement. Subclass 4: Members of the class with a disability who requested an accommodation from Hawaiian’s Mandate, had that accommodation request denied, and were coerced into taking the vaccine. The Plaintiffs further move this Court to appoint S|L Law PLLC, Siri & Glimstad LLP, and James Hochberg AAL, LLLC as counsel for the Primary Class and Subclasses. Hawaiian Airlines is the largest operator of commercial flights to and from the U.S. state of Hawaii. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PhEyXg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Hochberg, Esq. JAMES HOCHBERG AAL, LLLC 700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 256-7382 E-mail: jim@jameshochberglaw.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. David Austin R. Nimocks, Esq. Jace R. Yarbrough, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com - and - Walker Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 376-3739 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com HISAMITSU AMERICA: Bid to Modify Case Schedule Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI HRAPOFF, et al., v. HISAMITSU AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01943-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting in part and denying in part stipulated request to modify case schedule. The Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Laurie Petitti is due August 18, 2023. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint1 to add an additional plaintiff and remove Plaintiff Petitti is due August 18, 2023. The parties' stipulation states, "Plaintiffs will provide a draft of the Motion to Hisamitsu before filing to determine if the Motion will be opposed. If it is not opposed, Plaintiffs will indicate as such in the caption and Notice of Motion." If Plaintiff Pettiti consents to Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a signed consent. The parties' request that the Court issue an order to show cause regarding the dismissal of Plaintiff Pettiti's claims is denied. The Court will determine whether and when the issuance of such an order is appropriate. The case management conference scheduled for August 11, 2023, is continued to October 6, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. An updated joint case management statement is due September 29, 2023. All other deadlines are vacated. The parties shall propose new case deadlines in their September 29, 2023, case management statement. The Court assumes that the parties will continue to work in good faith toward resolution of the case in the temporary absence of formal deadlines. Hisamitsu manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers pain relieving patches, as well as poultices, plasters, and ointments. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QXbghG at no extra charge.[CC] HNTB CORPORATION: Class Discovery in Morel Due Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MOREL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HNTB CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00408-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion deadline: 1. The deadline for the parties to bring any disputes regarding the Belaire-West notice to the Court's attention is August 25, 2023. 2. Any motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings shall be filed by September 15, 2023. 3. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by December 11, 2023. 4. The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by January 19, 2024. 5. Within three days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_Goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further case management conference. 6. The dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. HNTB is an American infrastructure design firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qJffnA at no extra charge.[CC] HRA PHARMA: S.D. New York Grants Iglesias Leave to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ISAAC IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HRA PHARMA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 8398 (JHR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer H. Rearden of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's application for leave to amend. On Oct. 1, 2022, Iglesias initiated the purported class action against the Defendant asserting claims of unlawful deceptive acts and practices pursuant to New York General Business Law Section 349, false advertising under New York General Business Law Section 350, and unjust enrichment. On Feb. 27, 2023, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law and regulations pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 301, et seq. On March 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. He requests, as an alternative to denying the motion, that the Court grants him leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Defendant did not address the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend on reply or otherwise. Judge Harden explains that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of either that pleading or the earlier of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). The decision to grant or deny leave to amend lies within the sound discretion of the district court. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend, made more than 21 days after service of the Complaint and the motion to dismiss, falls under Rule 15(a)(2). Applying Rule 15(a)(2)'s liberal standard, granting the Plaintiff leave to amend is appropriate in the case. Although the Defendant's motion to dismiss is fully briefed, the Plaintiff's request is unlikely to cause undue delay since (1) the action was filed less than a year ago and (2) the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend prior to the filing of an answer. Accordingly, Judge Rearden grants Iglesias's request to amend his Complaint. The Plaintiff was to file an amended complaint on Sept. 6, 2023. The Defendant's pending motion to dismiss the operative Complaint is denied as moot. By Sept. 13, 2023, should the Defendant wish to move to dismiss the amended complaint, the parties will file a joint letter proposing a briefing schedule. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 20. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wmndfwx from Leagle.com. HUMANA INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Modified to March 6, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin H. Lindsay entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend the scheduling order. The Court finds that the requested extension is reasonable and grants the same. In addition, the Parties requested a telephonic status conference via e-mail to the undersigned's Chambers to discuss the extension prior to filing the motion. The Court finds that a conference is not necessary at this time. The Court's May 11, 2023, scheduling order is amended as follows: 1. The Parties shall complete all fact discovery no later than December 14, 2023. 2. Identification of experts in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) shall be due by Plaintiff no later than December 21, 2023, and by Defendant no later than January 18, 2024. 3. By no later than January 23, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status report with the Court that includes the parties' positions on mediation. 4. The Parties shall complete all expert discovery no later than February 23, 2024. 5. The motion for class certification shall be filed no later than March 6, 2024. Any response shall be filed no later than March 27, 2024, and the reply filed no later than April 11, 2024. 6. All Daubert and dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 11, 2024. Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L1rfHJ at no extra charge.[CC] JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TABATHA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JDC HEALTHCARE, PLLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01134-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff files unopposed motion to continue local Rule 23.2 deadline for her motion for class certification to March 1, 2024. The Plaintiff has not had sufficient time to conduct the discovery that Federal Rule 23 requires for this Court to make an informed decision on a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff and Defendant have only held their Rule 26 Conference on July 31, 2023, and Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on Defendant that very same day. On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff file suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for Defendant's use of text message calls after she had asked that Defendant stop calling her. As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendant caused multiple telemarketing text message calls to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 5283 ("3132 Number") after Plaintiff had requested that Defendant stop sending her text messages. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) were sent a text message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) regarding Defendant's goods, products, or services, (3) to said person's residential telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text messages. JDC provides health care services. The Company offers preventative and cosmetic dentistry, teeth cleaning and whitening, and dental fillings. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qUOnkk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com JEFF SANDY: Wexford Health, Primecare Seeks to Seal Exhibit 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE et al., v. JEFF SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Defendants, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc., move the Court to file under seal Exhibit 8 in the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eg1qQv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert P. Dunlap, Esq. DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 208 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 - and – Stephen P. New, Esq. Russell A. Williams, Esq. NEW, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 - and – Timothy P. Lupardus, Esq. LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE 275 Bearhole Road Pineville, WV 24874 - and – Zachary K. Whitten, Esq. WHITTEN LAW OFFICE, L.C. Pineville, WV 24874 The Attorneys for Fayette County Commission are: Charles R. Bailey, Esq. Harrison M. Cyrus, Esq. John P. Fuller, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC Charleston, WV 25337-3710 The Attorneys for Betsy Jividen, Brad Douglas, and Jeff S. Sandy are: William E. Murray, Esq. ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER, LLP 500 Virginia Street East, Suite 525 Charleston, WV 25301 The Defendants are represented by: Jordan K. Herrick, Esq. David E. Schumacher, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC 500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600 Charleston, WV 25337-3710 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 Facsimile: (304) 343-3133 E-mail: jherrick@baileywyant.com dschumacher@baileywyant.com - and – D. C. Offutt, Jr., Esq. Anne Liles O'Hare, Esq. OFFUTT SIMMONS SIMONTON, PLLC 949 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Huntington, WV 25701 Telephone: (304) 529-2868 Facsimile: (304) 529-2999 E-mail: dcoffuttjr@offutlegal.com alohare@offutlegal.com The Attorneys for Wyoming County Commission, Michael Francis, and John/Jane Doe Employees of The Raleigh County Commission, The Raleigh County Commission are: Wendy E. Greve, Esq. Benjamin B. Vanston, Esq. Chip E. Williams, Esq. Jared C. Underwood, Esq. J. Victor Flanagan, Esq. Daniel J. Burns, Esq. PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC 901 Quarrier Street Charleston, WV 25301 JOSEPH DEPAOLO: Bid to Consolidate Schaeffer and Singh Actions OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SCHAEFFER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOSEPH DEPAOLO, STEPHEN WYREMSKI, and ERIC HOWELL, Case No. 23-CV-1921-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James R. Cho entered an order: -- Granting AP7's motion to consolidate the Schaeffer and Singh Actions; and -- Appointing AP7 as lead plaintiff with Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz as lead counsel. As AP7 points out in its reply brief, the courts in all of these cases disqualified plaintiffs based on evidence that they shorted the securities at issue in the litigation. The same is not alleged in this case. Here, the Retirement Systems do not allege that AP7's loss chart reveals any short selling of Signature Bank's securities. Instead, they base their challenge on deposition testimony from AP7's CEO, Richard Grottheim, acknowledging that AP7's investment strategy includes occasional short selling. The Retirement Systems conclude from this testimony that AP7 short sells "across the board," but this inference is unfounded. No prior lead plaintiff decisions disqualify a presumptive plaintiff based on such tenuous reasoning, and this case will not be the first. The Defendants are former executives of Signature Bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QWVwLA at no extra charge.[CC] KERN COUNTY, CA: Court Grants Bid to Modify Settlement in T.G. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, T.G., et al., Plaintiffs v. KERN COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00257-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the parties' stipulated request for Court order modifying the class action settlement agreement. On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties' proposed class action settlements and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs. Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated request for Court order modifying the class action settlement agreement, filed Aug. 9, 2023. Specifically, the parties ask the Court to approve an addendum ("Second Addendum") that extends the settlement monitoring term approximately six additional months to address concerns about continuous implementation of certain items under the Court School Implementation Plan and other delays that resulted because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On Feb. 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs initiated the action by filing a complaint on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, asserting the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.; (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794 et seq.; (3) violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.; (4) violation of Cal. Gov't Code Section 11135; and (5) violation of California Education Code for Students with Disabilities. They allege that the Defendants -- in their management of juvenile facilities -- have adopted policies and practices that adversely affect youth with mental, behavioral, learning, intellectual, and/or developmental disabilities. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On Aug. 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs and Defendants Kern County Superintendent of Schools and Superintendent Mary C. Barlow, in her official capacity (collectively "KCSOS") entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement to resolve the issues in the case. Under the settlement agreement, KCSOS was required to develop a Court Schools Implementation Plan ("Schools Plan" or "CSIP"). The agreement also required the parties to retain a "Monitoring Expert" to monitor KCSOS' compliance with the Schools Plan for the term ("Monitoring Term") of the settlement. Dr. Elliott was set to monitor KSOS' compliance with the Schools Plan for a period of three years beginning on Jan. 1, 2020. However, on March 18, 2020, due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, as required by federal, State of California and local orders, KCSOS stopped providing regular in-person classroom instruction to students in the juvenile facilities. On May 6, 2020, the Parties executed an "Addendum to the Class Action Settlement Agreement" to address the implementation delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Addendum placed the Monitoring Term in abeyance. On March 5, 2021, the parties and Dr. Elliott met and conferred and agreed to lift the abeyance and restart the Monitoring Term on the following schedule: a. March 29, 2021: Restart Monitoring Term. b. Jan. 11, 2024: End of Monitoring Term. c. Jan. 25, 2024: Final Expert Report Due. In their pending stipulation, the parties represent that Dr. Elliott identified further implementation delays in a report dated May 16, 2023. The Plaintiffs and KCSOS met and conferred and agreed that the Monitoring Term should be extended by an additional six months to achieve full implementation of the Schools Plan. Under the stipulated Second Addendum, the Monitoring Term will be amended as follows: a. The Monitoring Term will end on June 30, 2024; b. The Monitor's next periodic report is due by Dec. 1, 2023; and c. The Monitor's final report is due May 20, 2024. Judge Baker finds that the settlement as proposed with modification (the Addendum) remains and is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the Class Members received adequate notice. Likewise, he finds that the settlement agreement remains fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, with the incorporation of the parties' proposed amendment. The counsel for the Plaintiffs and KCSO both agree that the proposed amendments are necessary to fully implement their agreed upon Schools Plan. Accordingly, Judge Baker grants the parties' stipulated request to modify the class action settlement agreement to the extent of incorporating the Second Addendum and the extended timetable set forth therein. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n9a6tdt from Leagle.com. LADDER FINANCIAL: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Love Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZONOBIA LOVE, ARMANDO MARQUEZ, and ANDREW ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LADDER FINANCIAL, INC. and FULLSTORY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04234 (N.D. Cal., August 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and for invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of wiretapping and intercepting website users' communications, including their entry of personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). Ladder embedded FullStory's JavaScript in the source code on its website to optimize its lead generation efforts. When users seeking an insurance quote enter private information on Ladderlife.com, Ladder shares those communications with FullStory in real time, without notifying users and without first obtaining their consent. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs' and Class members' privacy rights have been invaded, the suit alleges. Ladder Financial, Inc. is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. FullStory, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq. Christina Sarraf, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com mpearson@bermantabacco.com avahdat@bermantabacco.com csarraf@bermantabacco.com - and - Christina D. Crow, Esq. JINKS CROW, PC Union Springs Office 219 Prairie Street North Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334) 738-4229 E-mail: christy.crow@jinkscrow.com - and - Brent Irby, Esq. IRBY LAW LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 936-8281 E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net - and - James M. Terrell, Esq. Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq. METHVIN & TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. The Highland Building 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-3006 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com brebarchak@mtattorneys.com LONNIE BURTON: Court Dismisses JPay Suit Over Jurisdiction Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JPAY LLC, Plaintiff v. LONNIE BURTON and MICHEAL LINEAR, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1492-E (N.D. Tex.), Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On March 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order that: (1) stayed and administratively closed the case; (2) informed the Parties that the Court had concerns with Plaintiff JPay's jurisdictional allegations -- specifically, those relating the 28 U.S.C. Section 1332's amount-in-controversy requirements; and (3) ordered the Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing on the amount-in-controversy issue. On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its Response to the Court's March 30, 2023 Order (the "Supplemental Briefing"). The case arises out of a dispute involving arbitration. On July 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). It sued Defendants Lonnie Burton and Michael Linear seeking to stay on-going arbitration proceedings between them. On July 12, 2022, the Court issued an Order requiring the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint with additional allegations regarding its basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction. That same day, JPay filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (the "Amended Complaint"), which added jurisdictional allegations but did not include any other changes. As pleaded, the Plaintiff provides communications and media products and services to inmates in the Washington State Department of Corrections. In its Amended Complaint, it alleges that the Defendants are users of its services, and, prior to using those services, accepted its Terms of Service and Warranty Policy. The Agreement contains an arbitration provision and a class action waiver. On May 22, 2020, the Defendants filed a complaint in Washington state court, alleging various violations of Washington state law; the Defendants amended their state court pleading on Oct. 31, 2020. Their complaint in Washington state court includes class claims and allegations. The Plaintiff filed a motion to compel arbitration in Washington state court, seeking to compel arbitration of the Defendant's claims. The Washington state trial court granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and compelled the Defendants to bring their claims in individual arbitration pursuant to the Parties' arbitration agreement. The Defendants appealed the Washington state trial court's order, but on June 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington, Division II, denied its motion for discretionary review. On Jan. 14, 2022, each Defendant filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). The Defendants each sought $50,000 in damages. The Plaintiff then filed suit in this Court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Agreement's forum selection clause, seeking: (1) declaratory judgment that the arbitrators in the Defendants' respective arbitration proceedings are without power to hear any challenges to the class action waiver; (2) declaratory judgment that the class action waiver is enforceable and that the Defendants must submit their claims to individual arbitration; (3) injunctive relief preventing the Defendants from challenging the class action waiver in an arbitral proceeding; and (4) an order staying the arbitration proceedings until the Court determines whether the class action waiver is enforceable. The Plaintiff argues that the class action waiver (1) prohibits arbitrators from determining the scope, validity, effect, or enforceability of the class action waiver and (2) vests this Court with the power to hear any challenges to the class action waiver. On March 30, 2023, this Court issued an Order that: (1) stayed and administratively closed the case; and (2) pointed out a deficiency with the Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations in its Amended Complaint. It advised the Plaintiff that its Amended Complaint did not appear to adequately plead the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The Court's Order noted that -- aside from (1) the Amended Complaint's assertion that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 and (2) the Plaintiff's allegation that each Defendant is seeking in arbitration $50,000 in damages -- the Amended Complaint is otherwise devoid of factual allegations regarding the amount in controversy. The Court's Order also noted that, because a single plaintiff may not aggregate claims against multiple defendants to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C Section 1332(a), the Court questioned whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction in the case. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing on the amount-in-controversy issue. The Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Briefing on April 21, 2023. Judge Brown's only concern is whether the Plaintiff has satisfied its burden to establish that the amount in controversy in the case is sufficient for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Section 1332. In response to the Court's Order, the Plaintiff argues that the value of its right to avoid arbitration with Defendants over the class action waiver exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. The Plaintiff argues that the amount-in-controversy is satisfied for each Defendant individually because, while the Defendants demand only $50,000 in arbitration, their arbitration demands incorporate their Washington state court pleadings, which seek attorney's fees and treble damages under Washington state law, pushing their claims above $75,000. Judge Brown is unconvinced by these arguments. She concludes that the Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The controversy before the Court is limited to the Agreement's class action waiver. Because (1) the Plaintiff's requested declaratory and injunctive relief are limited solely to the Agreement's class action waiver and (2) the Plaintiff is not seeking to prevent Defendants from arbitrating their individual claims, the value of those individual claims is not relevant to the amount in controversy before the Court. Moreover, because there is no putative class before this Court, it would be inappropriate for the Court to value the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief by looking to the value of all relief and benefits that could logically flow from the granting of the relief sought. Finally, because the Defendants are not seeking class arbitration in the underlying proceedings, aggregating the claims of a contingent, theoretical, and hypothetical class would constitute an inappropriate advisory opinion. Under these circumstances, Judge Brown must conclude that the Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that Section 1332's amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. Therefore, she dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8ykjpmjm from Leagle.com. LOWE'S COMPANIES: Downing Appeals Lowe's' Dismissal from FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN DOWNING is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing Lowe's Companies Incorporated from his lawsuit entitled Justin Downing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-08159-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On Sept. 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Lowe's and First Advantage Corp. He filed it as a class action suit, asserting his claims on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' actions -- relating to the disclosure, procurement, compiling, and furnishing of the background report upon which his denial of employment was based -- violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. The complaint, as subsequently amended, defines two separate classes -- the "Lowe's Class" and the "First Advantage Class." On Nov. 10, 2022, Lowe's filed the a motion seeking dismissal with prejudice of Counts I and II. In Count I, the Plaintiff and the Lowe's Class assert a claim against Lowe's for violation of the FCRA's "standalone" disclosure requirement, which is found in Section 1681b(b)(2)(A). In Count II, the Plaintiff and the Lowe's Class assert a claim against Lowe's for violation of the FCRA's "clear and conspicuous" disclosure requirement, which is also found in Section 1681b(b)(2) The Plaintiff later filed a Response. The Defendant has since filed a Reply brief, along with two separate Notices of Supplemental Authority. On June 20, 2023, Judge Steven P. Logan ruled that the Disclosure in the case lacked any extraneous information in violation of the standalone requirement, and that it was reasonably understandable such that it did not violate the clear-and-conspicuous requirement. As a matter of law, the Disclosure did not violate Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA. Hence, Counts I and II must be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Logan granted Lowe's' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Counts I and II with prejudice. Lowe's was dismissed from the action. The action was not dismissed entirely, however, as Plaintiff's two separate claims against Defendant First Advantage Corporation remain. On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), which the Defendants opposed on July 14, 2023. On July 31, 2023, Judge Logan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a final judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims against Lowe's pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In sum, the Court held that there is no just reason for delay. There is almost no risk that granting the Plaintiff's Rule 54(b) request will cause duplicate proceedings before the Ninth Circuit because the Lowe's claims are wholly and definitively separate from the First Advantage claims. Further, in the absence of a Rule 54(b) judgment, there is a reasonable chance that a significant delay will occur with respect to final resolution of the Lowe's claims. The appellate case is captioned Justin Downing v. LOW, et al., Case No. 23-16102, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 16, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Justin Downing Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 23, 2023; -- Appellant Justin Downing opening brief is due on October 16, 2023; -- Appellees First Advantage Corporation, Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC answering brief is due on November 16, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JUSTIN DOWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Taylor True Smith, Esq. Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 907-7628 (720) 213-0675 Defendants-Appellees LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., et al. are represented by: Matthew Gregory, Esq. David Schnitzer, Esq. Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-3635 (202) 955-8500 - and - Mandi Jean Karvis, Esq. WICKER SMITH O'HARA FORD & MCCOY 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 860 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 648-2240 LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Merger Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucid 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 7, 2023, that on June 29, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a January 30, 2023 Motion for Leave to Amend, dismissed the Lucid Motors Securities Litigation and terminated the case. Beginning on April 18, 2021, two individual actions and two putative class actions were filed in federal courts in Alabama, California, New Jersey and Indiana, asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the company (formerly Churchill Capital Corp IV), its wholly owned subsidiary, Atieva, Inc. (Lucid Motors), and certain current and former officers and directors of the company, generally relating to the merger of Churchill, Legacy Lucid and Air Merger Sub, Inc. in February 22, 2021. On September 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the New Jersey action voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit. The remaining actions were ultimately transferred to and consolidated under the caption, "In re CCIV / Lucid Motors Securities Litigation," Case No. 4:21-cv-09323-YGR. On December 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action filed a revised amended consolidated complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased stock in Churchill between February 5, 2021 and February 22, 2021. The complaint names as defendants Lucid Motors and the company's chief executive officer, and generally alleges that, prior to the public announcement of the merger, defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding the expected start of production for the Lucid Air and related matters. The complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action as well as compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The company moved to dismiss the Complaint on February 14, 2022 and that motion was granted on January 11, 2023, with Plaintiffs being provided the ability to seek leave to amend. Lucid Group, Inc. is a technology and automotive company focused on designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling the next generation of electric vehicles, EV powertrains and battery systems. LUCID GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Goel Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Lucid 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 7, 2023, that on May 31, 2022, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class action under the federal securities laws against Lucid Group, Inc. and certain officers of the company relating to alleged statements, updated projections and guidance provided in the late 2021 to early 2022 timeframe. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 23, 2023, which is pending before the court. The complaint was filed in the Northern District of California, is captioned "Anant Goel v. Lucid Group, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-03176-JD. This was consolidated into one action, entitled "In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 22-cv-02094-JD. The complaints name as defendants Lucid Group, Inc. and the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and generally allege that defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding delivery and revenue projections and related matters. The complaints in these actions seek certification of the actions as class actions, as well as compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys' fees and expenses. Lucid Group, Inc. is a technology and automotive company focused on designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling the next generation of electric vehicles, EV powertrains and battery systems. M AND N HOME: Farzana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- NAILA FARZANA and MAISHA SABA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. M AND N HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06227 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking redress for late and/or non-payment of minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant from February 2017 until November 2022, Monday through Friday. The Plaintiffs spent most of their work time on their feet, walking, standing, cleaning, handling files, papers, equipment and supplies. M and N Home Care Services provides home health care service in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 MANUS DENTAL: Faces Stamper Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ LYDIA STAMPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANUS DENTAL OF HYDE PARK, LLC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05660 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff has asked the Defendant many times to stop contacting her but the Defendant continues to send her text messages. The Plaintiff wrote Stop to the Defendant first on September 20, 2022. But the Defendant allegedly continued to send the Plaintiff text messages on at least October 21, 2022, November 22, 2023 and January 4, 2023. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, the Plaintiff claims. The Defendant's text message spam caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. The Defendant's text messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiff’s and the Class members' telephones, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Classes defined as follows: INTERNAL DO NOT CALL CLASS: All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) were sent a text message from the Defendant or anyone on the Defendant's behalf, (2) regarding the Defendant's goods, products or services, (3) to said person's residential telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text messages. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above telephonic sales calls. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the number is the Plaintiff's residential telephone line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com Telephone: (954) 533-4092 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ellen Russ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation, OceanWatch Villas Owners Association, Hardin Construction Company, LLC, HKS, Inc., Schmidt & Stacey Consulting Engineers, Inc., Cayce Company, Inc., Royal Concrete, Inc., Cartner Glass of Myrtle Beach, Inc., All Aspects, Inc., ABG Caulking Contractors, Inc., TSG Industries, Inc., First Exteriors, LLC, CPP Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Renovia, and CP Rankin, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff requests a hearing on motion for Reconsideration because she was denied class certification without the benefit of a hearing. The Plaintiff contends that the Order focuses solely on her breach of express warranty claim, concluding an individualized inquiry into what representations by the defendants were made to her would preclude a finding of commonality or typicality as to the class. The only record evidence here is that she filed the claim well within the statute of limitations and did not discover the water intrusion until following Matthew. The plaintiff owns the same fractional (1/52) interest in each of her units that the 18,000 putative class members at OceanWatch own in their property. The Plaintiff and the other owners are responsible for the same pro rata fees paid to the OWVOA. These fees pay for common expenses, maintenance, and repairs across the property. Marriott owns and operates resorts. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YVuS7Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grace M. Babcock, Esq. Chris Moore, Esq. Terry E. Richardson, Jr., Esq. RICHARDSON THOMAS, LLC 383 W. Cheves Street Florence SC 29501 Telephone: (803) 281-8150 E-mail: chris@richardsonthomas.com grace@richardsonthomas.com terry@richardsonthomas.com - and - Robert L. Wylie, Esq. James L. Hills, Jr., Esq. George E. Mullen, Esq. MULLEN WYLIE, LLC Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 449-4800 E-mail: rwylie@mullenwylie.com jhills@mullenwylie.com gmullen@mullenwylie.com MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Rashad Bid to Facilitate Notice Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA WATTS RASHAD and CALVIN BELL, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, v. MASON'S PROFESSIONAL CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, DOROTHY MASON, individually, and ELLIOT MASON, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02635-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to facilitate Notice of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Action. Mason's argues that Rashad and Bell's declarations are clearly deficient, in that they convey only the allegations of the complaint and do not relate the experiences of employees besides themselves. The Court agrees. Rashad and Bell's declarations relay only their own experience with general, unspecific references to "other employees" supplied at the end of every paragraph. No further specific factual details are provided. These details were all allegations within the complaint, and the declaration does not supplement them in any way. Instead, the declarations merely restate the allegations of the complaint with no supporting evidence or other documentation attached. The case is a putative FLSA collective action brought by Plaintiffs Veronica Rashad and Calvin Bell on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees of Defendant Mason's Professional Cleaning Service, LLC. Mason's provides janitorial and custodial services for multiple departments of the City of Memphis, including Memphis City Hall, Memphis City Libraries, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water buildings. Mason is a Professional Commercial janitorial cleaning firm that is capable of servicing large commercial buildings. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eha15x at no extra charge.[CC] MATTERPORT INC: Bid to Certify Class in Lynch Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SHAWN LYNCH, Plaintiff v. MATTERPORT, INC., Defendants, Case No. C 22-03704 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff asserts two business tort claims premised on false and deceptive advertising. He now moves to certify a class under Rule 23 for those two claims. Matterport markets and sells 3D cameras that can be used to create 3D models of real-world spaces. It offers related services such as software for 3D image manipulation and cloud storage. Importantly, Matterport also developed the Matterport Service Partner (MSP) program. This program incentivized 3D camera purchases by helping individuals start their own businesses selling 3D scans captured with these cameras. While enrollment in the program itself was free, eligibility for enrollment was premised on owning a Matterport camera and having a subscription for Matterport software and cloud storage. Lynch alleges that Matterport's marketing of its MSP program was deceptive. After making financial investments to be eligible for (and then enrolling in) the MSP program, he saw few of the benefits that incentivized him to join. Furthermore, Lynch alleges that Matterport also launched another program, Matterport Capture Services, which competed directly with MSPs and further hindered his MSP business by taking away his clients. The Plaintiff purchased a Matterport 3D camera and corresponding cloud storage subscription in March 2018, and became an MSP a month later in April 2018. A prior order on a motion to dismiss winnowed the claims down to the two remaining: violation of Section 17200 of the California Civil Code and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiff now seeks class certification for both claims on the following class definition: All persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations, (a) did not previously own a Matterport 3D camera, (b) applied online through Matterport's website and became an MSP, and (c) purchased a Matterport 3D camera or Matterport Cloud3 services in connection with becoming an MSP, or incurred other expenses to start or operate their MSP business. The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2), a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), and also various issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4). For a class to be certified, a plaintiff must first show that the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that these requirements are met. Within Rule 23's framework, the trial court has broad discretion over whether a class should be certified. Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiff's inability to define the relevant subset of MSPs is an issue over the lack of a coherent class wide theory of liability. His argument that the theory of liability is fixed by defining requirements capturing "only those who relied on the MSP advertisements and purchased a camera in connection with the MSP program" is directly contradicted by the proposed class definition, which actually adds expenditures other than the camera to the premise for harm: Requirement three of the proposed class definition defines a person that "purchased a Matterport 3D camera or Matterport Cloud3 services in connection with becoming an MSP, or incurred other expenses to start or operate their MSP business." The proposed definition is no panacea. Judge Alsup then finds that numerosity is satisfied. The potential exposure to all five misrepresentations on the MSP website also does nothing to establish common questions and answers of reliance, which is the key inquiry. And because the crucial reliance inquiry is relatively individualized, common questions do not predominate. If the Plaintiff cannot prove that damages resulted from the Defendant's conduct, then the Plaintiff cannot establish predominance. Certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class is denied. While the viability of individual claims for relief may vary, ultimately an injunctive class is only proper where "relief from a single practice is requested by all class members." Because that is lacking as to both claims in the case, certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class is denied. The Plaintiff also submits a non-exclusive list of 10 issues he would like certified pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4): a. Whether Matterport misrepresented that the 3D camera is easy to use or it is easy to learn and perform 3D scanning; b. Whether Matterport misrepresented that Matterport would provide the training materials MSPs need to learn to operate the 3D camera and perform 3D scans; c. Whether Matterport misrepresented that the MSP program is a lucrative business opportunity or that MSPs will recoup their initial investment within a matter of months; d. Whether Matterport misrepresented that Matterport would provide MSPs with prequalified leads from individuals or businesses; e. Whether Matterport misrepresented that Matterport would provide the tools and resources to ensure the success of an MSP's business; f. Whether Matterport sold 3D cameras directly to individuals or businesses; g. Whether Matterport developed a program wherein Matterport refers prospective customers to Capture Services technicians for scanning services; h. Whether the Defendants engaged in fraudulent, unfair or unlawful business practices, or unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; i. Whether the Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and j. Whether MSPs who perform the scans are the owners of their scanned images, or whether the scans are the property of Matterport. Judge Alsup finds that the first five issues the Plaintiff seeks to certify are liability determinations of each of the five asserted misrepresentations. Such determinations would not significantly advance this litigation given the lack of cohesion in the class, as laid out. The Plaintiff's claim is tied to the MSP terms of service and what it offered. All MSPs necessarily agreed to the MSP terms of service when signing up, and thus whether or not Matterport's Capture Services program was disclaimed by those same terms is an issue common to every MSP, leaving aside whether or not each individual MSP could bring such a claim in the first place. As such, the foregoing concerns for commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation are not present regarding this issue. Judge Alsup thus defines the following class: All enrolled MSPs when Matterport launched its Capture Services program. The following issue is certified for class treatment: Whether or not the MSP terms of service prevent a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Matterport's operation of its Capture Services program. If the legal answer is "yes," then that will be the end of the implied covenant claim for all. He finds that class wide adjudication of the certified issue would significantly advance the resolution of the underlying case, thereby achieving judicial economy and efficiency. For these reasons, Judge Alsup grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A class of all enrolled MSPs when Matterport launched its Capture Services program is certified, solely to this issue: Whether or not the MSP terms of service prevent a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Matterport's operation of its Capture Services program. Lynch is appointed the Representative of the Class. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8j94sx2d from Leagle.com. MATTRESS FIRM: $4.9MM Class Deal in Payero Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enters Final Order and Judgment in the case, ANTONIO PAYERO and ADAM MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and GLOBAL HOME IMPORTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-03061-VLB (S.D.N.Y.). The Parties have entered into the Settlement Agreement, with its attached exhibits, signed and filed with the Court on Jan. 9, 2023, to settle the Action. On Jan. 18, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in the Action, ordering the dissemination of Class Notice to potential Class Members, providing potential Class Members with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed Agreement, and issuing related Orders. On Jan. 24, 2023, the Court entered an amended order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in the Action, ordering the dissemination of Class Notice to potential Class Members, providing potential Class Members with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed Agreement, and issuing related Orders. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Court entered a second amended order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in the Action, ordering the dissemination of Class Notice to potential Class Members, providing potential Class Members with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed Agreement, and issuing related Orders. The Court also preliminarily certified a Class, for settlement purposes only, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of notice, and set a Fairness Hearing to take place on Aug. 16, 2023. Judge Briccetti has considered the papers submitted by the Parties and by all other persons who timely submitted papers in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, and has heard oral presentations by the Parties and all persons who complied with the Preliminary Approval Order. The Class will consist of all residents in the United States (including its states, districts, territories, or tribal reservations) who purchased an HR Platform bed frame sold under the Bed Tech brand name ("Class Product") during the Class Period. The "Class Products" at issue in the Agreement are Bed Tech-brand HR Platform bed frames bearing the Model Nos. HR33, HR33XL, HR46, HR50, HR60, or HR66. Judge Briccetti finds the following persons have submitted timely and valid Requests for Exclusion from the Class and are therefore not bound by this Amended Final Order and Judgment: Kenneth Murphy, Linda Wills, Linda Helgeson, and Danielle Draut. See also Declaration of Teresa Y. Sutor of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC. The Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel may mutually agree to allow additional Class Members to exclude themselves or to withdraw their exclusion requests by filing an appropriate notice with the Court. Judge Briccetti designates the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class; and the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as the counsel for the Class. The terms and provisions of the Agreement, including any and all amendments and exhibits, are fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Briccetti approves the Agreement. The Parties and Class Members are hereby directed to implement and consummate the Agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions. The Plaintiffs' Counsel will take all steps necessary and appropriate to provide the Class Members with the benefits to which they are entitled under the terms of the Agreement. As described in the Agreement, the Defendants' maximum financial commitment under the Agreement will be $4.9 million. This amount includes only refunds or gift cards paid to Class Members. It does not include any Court-ordered Fee Award, the Plaintiffs' incentive awards, and any and all Settlement Administration Expenses. Compensation to the Class Members under the Agreement will be administered and implemented by RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC under the terms set forth in the Agreement. All Class Members who do not return their Class Product will receive an extended warranty for their Class Product from the later of two years from the end of their standard warranty or two years from the Effective Date. Class Members who wish to receive a refund will have two years from the end of the Effective Date to return their Class Product to a Mattress Firm store. The terms of the Agreement and of this Final Order and Judgment will be forever binding on the Parties and all Class Members, as well as their heirs, guardians, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, attorneys, partners, successors, predecessors-in interest, and assigns, and those terms will have res judicata and other preclusive effect in all pending and future claims, lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of any such persons, to the extent those claims, lawsuits or other proceedings involve matters that were or could have been raised in the Action or are otherwise encompassed by the Release set forth in the Agreement. Nothing in the Final Order and Judgment will preclude any action to enforce the terms of the Agreement, nor will anything in the Final Order and Judgment preclude the Plaintiffs or other Class Members from participating in the claims process described in the Agreement if they are entitled to do so under the terms of the Agreement. Judge Briccetti awards $825,000 in attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to the Class Counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and awards $5,000 as an incentive award to each Plaintiff. The Parties are authorized, without needing further approval from the Court, to agree to written amendments, modifications, or expansions of the Agreement and its implementing documents (including all exhibits) without further notice to the Class or approval by the Court if such changes are consistent with this Final Order and Judgment and do not materially alter, reduce, or limit the rights of Class Members under the Agreement. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Final Order and Judgment. Neither the Final Order and Judgment, nor the Agreement (nor any other document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Final Order and Judgment) is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission or concession by or against the Defendants or the Released Parties of the validity of any claim or defense or any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever or the propriety of class certification. The Action (including all individual and Class claims presented therein) is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party except as otherwise provided in the Amended Final Order and Judgment and the Agreement. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, certification will be automatically vacated and the Final Order and Judgment, and all other Orders entered, and releases delivered in connection therewith, will be vacated and will become null and void. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Final Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/557e67au from Leagle.com. MDL 2573: Court Raises Settlement Issues in HIV Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California orders the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the issues he finds in the DPPs' motion for preliminary approval. Judge Chen has reviewed the DPPs' motion for preliminary approval and orders that the parties file supplemental briefing addressing the issues. A joint brief is strongly preferred; if one party does not take a position on an issue or the parties have divergent views on an issue, that may be reflected in the joint filing. Judge Chen Chen raises several questions, including: 1. Are these numbers of the classes still accurate? Is there overlap? 2. What is the average payout for a class member generally (when both classes are considered)? What is the average payout for a member of the Truvada Class? What is the average payout for a member of the Atripla Class? 3. Is it correct that there will be no deduction from the gross settlement fund for escrow expenses? 4. Does the settlement agreement need to be modified to reflect the representations made in the motion for preliminary approval regarding the maximum amount of each -- especially since a class member may review the terms of the settlement agreement? 5. Given the amount of the gross settlement fund, should class members be given a second opportunity to opt out? 6. Given the amount of the gross settlement fund, can more rigorous notice be given to the classes? 7. For the first sentence in bold at the top of the notice, can there be a statement as to what the estimated average payout will be? Can there be a statement as to what the estimated average payout will be? A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/45h6ffxf from Leagle.com. MDL 2936: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Sept. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion for modification of briefing schedule and agreed request to set certification hearing: (1) The Plaintiffs may file their opposition to Defendants' motions to exclude experts on or before August 21, 2023; (2) The Plaintiffs may file their reply in support of their motion for class certification on or before September 11, 2023; and (3) The parties shall contact the Courtroom Deputy, Shauna Murphy- Carr, to schedule the class certification hearing. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud.[CC] MINDGEEK USA: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. MINDGEEK USA INCORPORATED, MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., MG FREESITES LTD (D/B/A PORNHUB), MG FREESITES II LTD, MG CONTENT RT LIMITED, AND 9219-1568 QUEBEC, INC. (D/B/A MINDGEEK), Case No. 8:21-cv-00338-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order regarding extension of briefing deadlines related to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiff shall file any class certification motion by August 21, 2023. 2. The Defendants shall file any opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion by October 9, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of her class certification motion by October 30, 2023. 4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on Nov. 13, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L5vnGN at no extra charge.[CC] MOTION PICTURE BOD: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving the Parties' stipulation to continue the hearing date and briefing schedule for the class certification motion. -- The Defendants' opposition to the class certification motion shall be filed by October 20, 2023, and Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by November 10, 2023. -- The hearing on the Motion shall be on December 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Motion Picture offers employee retirement income plans and benefit program. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBz9kF at no extra charge.[CC] MYLAN GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Viatris 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 30, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Purported class action complaints were filed starting in October 2016 against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc., certain of Mylan's former directors and officers, and certain of its current directors and officers in on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ. The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to the auto-injector and certain generic drugs. The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of its former directors and officers, and certain of its current directors, officers, and employees. A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24, 2019 excluding defendants, certain of the its current directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Plaintiffs seek damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert costs. Viatris is a global healthcare company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with global centers in Shanghai, China and Hyderabad, India. It operate approximately 40 manufacturing facilities, which produce complex dosage forms, injectables, oral solid doses and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Viatris Inc. was formed on November 16, 2020 when Upjohn, a legacy division of Pfizer, spun off its off-patent branded and generic established medicines business and combined with Mylan N.V. NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Volkert ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Volkert v. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a NCSPLUS INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:23-cv-04037-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PdA2Jh at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE USA: Ninth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Prescott Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, STEVEN PRESCOTT; LINDA CHESLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-15706 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacates the district court's order granting Nestle's motion to dismiss. Prescott and Cheslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeal the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of their putative consumer class action against Nestle. The Plaintiffs allege that Nestle violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False and Misleading Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") by misleading consumers into believing its "Premier White Morsels" product contains white chocolate. The district court concluded that the Plaintiffs (1) failed to state a plausible claim under California's reasonable consumer test as a matter of law and (2) failed to allege standing to seek injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. Reviewing the district court's dismissal order de novo, the Ninth Circuit vacates and remands. It finds that the district court correctly concluded that as a federal court sitting in diversity over the Plaintiffs' California state law claims, it must apply California substantive law. Shortly after the Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in this appeal, the California Court of Appeal decided Salazar v. Walmart, Inc., 83 Cal. App. 5th 561 (2022), a case involving materially identical facts, claims, and arguments. In Walmart, the court concluded that the trial court erred in sustaining Walmart's demurrer without leave to amend as to plaintiffs' claims for implied misrepresentations regarding white chocolate in baking products under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. The trial court had dismissed plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend, finding as a matter of law that no reasonable consumer would believe Walmart's "Great Value White Baking Chips" contain white chocolate. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review and request to depublish the Walmart decision. Although the Walmart decision is not binding, the Ninth Circuit says its application of California law is persuasive and should be followed unless courts are convinced that the California Supreme Court would reject it. However, because Walmart was decided after the district court issued its order, the district court has not had the opportunity to consider the impact of the case -- specifically, whether there is any convincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would decide the issue differently than the California Court of Appeal did in Walmart. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacates the district court's order granting Nestle's motion to dismiss and remands for the district court to consider the Walmart decision in the first instance. To the extent that the Walmart decision may inform the district court's analysis on the issue of standing under Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit vacates and remands as to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to allege standing to seek injunctive relief as well for further proceedings consistent with its memorandum disposition. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/mudwzjn2 from Leagle.com. NICOLE COLBERT: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish People ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILEY BENJAMIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NICOLE COLBERT, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02315-RCL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying proposed class, consisting of: "all Jewish people who are or will be in District of Columbia Department of Corrections custody and request a kosher diet as a religious accommodation;" (2) Appointing Plaintiff Riley Benjamin as the class representative; and (3) Appointing his counsel to represent the class. Accordingly, all the requirements of Rule 23 are met, and the Court should certify the proposed class so that all similarly situated people may benefit from the declaratory and injunctive relief sought, the Plaintiff asserts. The case arises from DOC's denial of religious meals to Jewish individuals in its custody, thereby preventing them from eating a diet in accordance with their faith and substantially burdening their religious exercise. The Defendants are DOC chaplains or supervisory officials. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ef2qEr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Michelman, Esq. Laura K. Follansbee, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 601-4267 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to Certify Putative Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 7-18: a) reconsidering its order denying class certification; b) certifying the putative class in this litigation; c) appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and d) appointing David S. Klevatt of Klevatt & Associates, Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Joseph M. Vanek of Sperling & Slater LLC as lead class counsel. Northwestern is a provider of life insurance and investment products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45BoyVF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - David S. Klevatt, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601-1604 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com NOVAVAX INC: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOTHINATHAN SINNATHURAI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NOVAVAX, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (D. Md.), the Defendants move the Court to enter the Proposed Order, which modifies the Scheduling Order by extending the current deadlines related to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiffs to file any reply brief in further support of their Class Certification Motion until August 25, 2023. The Court did not rule on that motion. On June 9, 2023, Defendants filed a consent motion requesting that the Court extend the deadlines for -- (1) Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion until August 11, 2023, and (2) The Plaintiffs to file any reply brief in further support of their Class Certification Motion until September 22, 2023. Novavax is an American biotechnology company based in Gaithersburg, Maryland that develops vaccines to counter serious infectious diseases. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qP4aRI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Johnson, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com - and - Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: esley@portnoylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: C. Thomas Brown, Esq. Peter L. Welsh, Esq. Edward R. McNicholas, Esq. Stefan P. Schropp, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 951-7464 E-mail: Thomas.Brown@ropesgray.com Peter.Welsh@ropesgray.com Edward.McNicholas@ropesgray.com Stefan.Schropp@ropesgray.com NY POKE HOLDINGS: Fromer Suit Seeks Employees' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- EPHRAIM FROMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NY POKE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a POKEWORKS, Defendant, Case No. 158231/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 18, 2023) seeks damages and other legal and equitable relief against Defendant for alleged 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms; failed to provide a written good faith estimate to any employees hired to work in New York City; failed to provide employees written work schedule 14 days in advance; and failed pay spread of hours compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a fast food employee from approximately October 2021 through August 2023. NY Poke Holdings LLC operates restaurants that prepare and offer food and beverage for customer consumption.[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 OHIO: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Bradbury v. ODRC --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM F. BRADBURY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-2355 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff, an inmate housed at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and various technology providers. He alleges that the ODRC's decision to switch technology providers has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by requiring inmates to return or send to another address of their choosing the "JPay" tablets that they previously purchased. By separate Order, the Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. The matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. This matter is also before the Court on the Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order and for a control number. The Plaintiff alleges that for over ten years ODRC inmates have purchased JPay tablets and downloaded onto those devices' music, video games, books, and other publications. He further alleges that, at the encouragement of the ODRC, and based on promises that inmates could take the technology home with them, inmates have spent thousands of dollars on the devices and downloaded media. However, according to the Plaintiff, in July 2023, the ODRC began to phase out JPay tablets and replace them with "ViaPath" tablets. He alleges that because of this change, inmates are required to get rid of their JPay tablets by Oct. 1, 2023, either by turning them in to a designated staff member for a credit or by sending them to an address of their choice with postage paid by the ODRC. The Plaintiff alleges that the requirement that inmates give up their JPay tablets deprives them of "protected free speech" and is at variance with an ODRC policy that allows inmates to "possess both a JPay tablet AND a GTL tablet." For relief, the Plaintiff seeks an order preventing the ODRC from confiscating the JPay tablets, directing the ODRC to return the tablets, or a refund of the amounts spent on JPay-tablet and media purchases. Judge Deavers holds that the Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a plausible federal claim. First, to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to initiate a class action, he lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners and is not permitted as a pro se litigant to bring a class action lawsuit concerning prison conditions. Next, the Plaintiff has failed to state an actionable claim against the ODRC because the state agency is not a "person" or legal entity that may be sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Further, Judge Deavers finds that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted to the extent that he bases his claim on a violation of prison policy. Finally, the Plaintiff has failed to state a First Amendment claim. To the extent that he alleges that he is being denied protected free speech, an exhibit attached to the complaint indicates that all content (except for games) will transfer from JPay to ViaPath. Accordingly, Judge Deavers recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Considering this recommendation, the Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order and for a control number should be denied as moot. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yk8b2k76 from Leagle.com. OREGON: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Coronado v. Governor Brown -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE L. CORONADO, Plaintiff v. KATE BROWN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-148-SB (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (F&R) in the case on July 20, 2023. Judge Beckerman recommended that the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims without leave to amend, because the Plaintiff's claims in the instant lawsuit are duplicative of his claims as a class member in the recently certified class action lawsuit of Maney v. Brown, Case No. 6:20-cv-570-SB, and Plaintiff does not allege that he opted out of that class action. No party has filed objections. Judge Simon explains that under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. If a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the court will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act does not preclude further review by the district judge sua sponte under a de novo or any other standard. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that when no timely objection is filed, the court review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. No party has made objections. Judge Simon reviews the F&R for clear error on the face of the record and finds that no such error is apparent. Accordingly, he adopts the F&R. Judge Simon grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without leave to amend, but without prejudice to his claims in Maney. Judge Simon also finds that any appeal from his Order would be frivolous and thus would not be taken in "good faith" as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should be revoked. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/57mt573u from Leagle.com. PALMS ASSOCIATES: $880K Settlement in Johnson Suit Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSICA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALMS ASSOCIATES, LLC, and DURHAM MEWS, LLC f/k/a DURHAM SECTION 1 ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-1049 (M.D.N.C.), Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and for Service Award to Class Representative. The matter was originally filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Durham, North Carolina by Johnson who brought a putative class action against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants unlawfully charged eviction-related fees and unlawfully threatened to charge eviction-related fees by sending letters which unlawfully informed their tenants that these improper fees would be charged if an eviction action was filed. She sought monetary and declaratory relief for violation of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Defendants removed the case to federal court and answered the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. The parties also filed a Joint Motion to stay pending determination of the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Defendants' forthcoming Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the Defendants' Motion to Stay. The Defendant then filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the motion was fully briefed, the Court issued a stay pending the outcome of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Bass v. Weinstein Mgmt. Co. During the stay, the parties engaged in extensive, arm's length negotiations regarding the settlement, assisted by a respected mediator. While the matter did not resolve at the mediation, following the mediation, the parties continued discussions and ultimately entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, proposed notice plan, and the Settlement Classes. Pursuant to the plan approved, notice was disseminated to the classes. The Order also set a deadline of April 14, 2023 to opt out or object to the settlement. No one has opted out of the settlement, and no Settlement Class Member has objected to the settlement, the proposed award of fees and expenses to the Class Counsel, or the proposed service award to the class representative. The Settlement Agreement provides monetary relief of $879,827.31, which is composed of a Cash Fund of $225,000, and Debt Relief of approximately $654,827.31. Each Settlement Class member is a member of one or two classes. Collection Letter Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between Oct. 7, 2016 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter. Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between Oct. 7, 2016 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees. Collection Letter Class members may receive $25 per letter sent to them by Defendants up to a total amount of $75. The Collection Fee Class was allotted $10,000 of the Cash Fund, with any unclaimed amounts to be reallocated to the Eviction Fee Class. Eviction Fee Class members were eligible to receive an estimated $190.00 without filing a claim subject to pro rata increases based on Collection Letter Class participation in the settlement. They may also be Collection Letter Class members and file claims for such benefits. The remainder of the Monetary Settlement is Debt Relief for amounts that may have been owed to Defendants. This component of the Settlement Agreement will occur automatically without Class Members filing claims. Under the settlement, all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid by the Defendants out of the monetary relief. Court-approved fees and expenses for the Class Counsel and a service award for the Class Representative will be paid by the Defendants out of the Cash Fund. Judge Osteen finds that the notice was accomplished in accordance with the Court's prior Order and the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in accordance with Rule 23. The settlement is finally approved, and the parties are directed to consummate the settlement in accordance with its terms. Judge Osteen finally certifies the Collection Letter Class and the Eviction Fee Class as follows: Collection Letter Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between Oct. 7, 2016 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter. Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any point between Oct. 7, 2016 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees. Scott C. Harris and Patrick M. Wallace of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Edward H. Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis Howard, are appointed as the Class Counsel; and Jessica Johnson as the Class Representative. The Settlement Agreement also provides that Defendants will not contest the Settlement Class Counsel's application to the Court for payment of attorneys' fees up to the amount of $112,000, plus reimbursement of expenses and costs from the Cash Fund of the Settlement. The requested attorneys' fees amount to approximately 13% of the Total Monetary Relief provided under the Settlement. Attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and costs were negotiated only after the substantive terms of the Settlement were agreed upon. Judge Osteen finds the attorney's fee award of $112,000 is reasonable. The Class Counsel have provided declarations specifying that they have incurred expenses in the amount of $3,725.77 in the prosecution of this litigation on behalf of the classes. Judge Osteen finds their expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred and, as a result, the Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses, in addition to the fee award. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants, subject to court approval, will pay $2,500 to Jessica Johnson for her service as the Class Representative, with such payment to be made from the Cash Fund of the settlement payment. Judge Osteen finds that payment of the service award is appropriate considering Johnson's work on behalf of the Settlement Classes and that no Settlement Class member has objected to the service awards. He approves the service award, which will be paid consistent with the parties' Settlement Agreement. If the Settlement Class members fail to cash their checks within six months of mailing such that the Cash Fund has a positive balance, all remaining amounts in the Cash Fund will be equally divided and disbursed to the approved cy pres recipients and the Defendants as provided in the Settlement Agreement. One-half of any remaining amounts in the Cash Fund will be equally divided by the two cy pres recipients: Haven House Services and SafeChild North Carolina. The other one-half of any remaining amounts in the Cash Fund will revert to the Defendants. The Claims Administrator is ordered to provide a report to the Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel of all money in the Cash Fund left undisbursed within 15 calendar days after the six-month period has elapsed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Osteen grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and for Service Award to Class Representative, and approves the Class Action Settlement. Payment of attorney's fees in the amount of $112,000 to the Class Counsel is approved, and the Class Counsel will be paid $112,000 in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Payment of expenses in the amount of $3,725.77 to the Class Counsel for reimbursement is approved and will be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Johnson will be paid a service award of $2,500 as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator is awarded its expenses and those expenses will be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The funds remaining in the Cash Fund more than six months after checks are mailed to class members will be distributed as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case for purposes of resolving any issues pertaining to settlement administration. The action is dismissed with prejudice. A Judgment is filed contemporaneously with the Memorandum Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bde4yh2n from Leagle.com. PEOPLECONNECT INC: Opposes Nolen Amended Bid for Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant files motion for leave to file surreply in further opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for Class certification and Declarations in support of surreply. The Plaintiff sought certification of a class comprised of individuals for whom "at least one yearbook photograph became searchable for the first time on or after December 18, 2018." Accordingly, PeopleConnect in opposing Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification addressed her photograph theory, demonstrating that inconsistencies among the presentation of putative class members' photographs foreclose certification. Peopleconnect provides online social network services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/466mULN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin T. Halbig, Esq. Debbie L. Berman, Esq. Wade A. Thomson, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 267-6800 Facsimile: (628) 267-6859 E-mail: bhalbig@jenner.com dberman@jenner.com wthomson@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com PEOPLECONNECT INC: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file under seal. PeopleConnect has designated certain information as confidential under the parties' Stipulated Protective Order ("Confidential Information"). PeopleConnect seeks to seal the following documents: -- Declaration of Joel Mathew in Support of PeopleConnect's Sur- Reply: PeopleConnect seeks to seal limited portions of the Declaration of Joel Mathew because those materials contain sensitive Confidential Information. This Declaration consists of or refers to confidential details regarding the internal functions and operations of Classmates.com (the “Website”), a website operated by PeopleConnect, including the technology PeopleConnect uses to make its yearbook library available and searchable on the Website. -- Declaration of Lindsey Toivola in Support of PeopleConnect's Sur- Reply: PeopleConnect seeks to seal limited portions of the Declaration of Lindsey Toivola because those materials contain sensitive Confidential Information. This Declaration consists of or refers to confidential details regarding the internal functions and operations of Classmates.com, a website operated by PeopleConnect, including the technology PeopleConnect uses to make its yearbook library available and searchable on the Website. Peopleconnect provides online social network services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47TK89i at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin T. Halbig, Esq. Debbie L. Berman, Esq. Wade A. Thomson, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 267-6800 Facsimile: (628) 267-6859 E-mail: bhalbig@jenner.com dberman@jenner.com wthomson@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com PEPSICO INC: Discovery in Gumner Suit Due Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GUMNER, v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00332-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be completed by December 19, 2024. Discovery motions must be filed and heard prior to this date. -- The parties shall have until February 17, 2025, to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings. -- A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, April 21, 2025, at 03:00 PM. -- The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 08:30 AM. -- The parties shall have until January 2, 2025, to conduct settlement proceedings. -- The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of their settlement efforts and status. -- The Plaintiff shall have until July 22, 2024, to file and have heard any class certification motion. PepsiCo is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qSAzqM at no extra charge.[CC] PERMANENT GENERAL: Completion of Dispositions Extended to Dec. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL HODGE et al. v. PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00608 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara D. Holmes entered a first modified case management order: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to identify and disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports is extended to September 29, 2023. -- The deadline for Defendants to identify and disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports is extended to November 15, 2023. -- The deadline to complete depositions of such experts is extended to December 12, 2023. -- All other provisions for expert disclosures and discovery remain unchanged. -- All other case management deadlines and provisions found in prior orders and not modified herein remain in full force and effect. Permanent General provides insurance services. The Company underwrites automobile insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ujqkL at no extra charge.[CC] POWUR PBC INC: Xenes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Powur, PBC, Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Xenes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Powur, PBC, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-22787-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Powur -- https://powur.com/ -- offers the most efficient and reliable home solar panels and energy solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 612-9999 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mike@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Ste. C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN Brickell City Tower 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: yaniv@markmigdal.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court OK's Drummond Bid for Class Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order: 1. Denying the Defendants' motions to exclude expert reports and testimonies; 2. Granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 3. Certifying two classes of plaintiffs under the following definitions: a. Progressive Advanced Class "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resident who, from October 12, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on a "dual source" valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." b. Progressive Specialty Class "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Specialty Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resident who, from October 12, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on a "dual source" valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." 4. Approving as class counsel Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC (Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.), Normand PLLC (Amy L. Judkins, Esq., Edmund A. Normand, Esq., and Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.), Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC (Edwin Lee Lowther, Esq., Jake G. Windley, Esq., Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq., and Tiffany Oldham, Esq.), and Honik LLC (Ruben Honik, Esq.); 5. Approving Lee Williams and Yeshonda Driggins as class representatives for the Progressive Advanced Class; 6. Approving Leon Drummond as class representative for the Progressive Specialty Class; Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QYmbYE at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Loses Bid to Exclude Experts' Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order denying Progressive's motions to exclude the expert reports and testimonies of Jeffery Martin, Jason Merritt, Paul Mlinko, and Kirk Felix. Overall, the court is unpersuaded by Progressive’s arguments that commonality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority are not present here. To the contrary, the court finds that the putative plaintiffs have met their burden under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The case involves a group of plaintiffs who allege that their automobile insurance company failed to pay them the actual cash value of their vehicles after said vehicles were deemed a total loss. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a proposed class on behalf of similarly situated insureds, which the insurance company has opposed. Between 2018 and 2021, each plaintiff used the insurance company to cover their respective vehicles for, among other things, total loss. Within that time period, each plaintiff filed a claim with the insurance company after suffering a vehicular accident. The insurance company declared each vehicle a total loss, at which time it had a contractual obligation to pay the plaintiffs the "actual cash value" of their vehicles. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs contend that they ultimately received less than actual cash value because the insurance company incorporated into its valuation process what are called "projected sold adjustments." Such adjustments are used to reflect consumer behavior such as price negotiation and often result in a deflation in calculated actual cash value According to the plaintiffs, though, such adjustments are premised upon outdated perceptions about the automobile market and should have therefore played no role in determining how much the insurance company owed the plaintiffs. Consequently, the putative plaintiffs are now seeking to certify the following classes of individuals: -- Progressive Advanced Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resident who, from October 12, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on a "dual source" valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." -- Progressive Specialty Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Specialty Insurance Company to a Pennsylvania resident who, from October 12, 2017 through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on a "dual source" valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value. Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OVIUSp at no extra charge.[CC] RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Borozny et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than November 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs shall produce any expert reports concerning class certification at that time. -- The Defendants may file any opposition to the motion for class certification no later than January 29, 2024. The Defendants shall produce any expert reports concerning class certification at that time. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any reply in further support of the motion for class certification no later than March 18, 2024. The Plaintiff shall produce any rebuttal expert reports concerning class certification at that time. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate.[CC] ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MEEHAN and CESAR E. CIRVERA SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and those similar situated, v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Sept. 27, 2023 Certification shall be filed by: 2. The Defendant's response shall be Oct. 25, 2023 filed by: 3. The Plaintiff's Reply in Further Nov. 15, 2023 Support of Class Certification, if any, shall be filed by: 4. All other dates and deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order remain in full effect. The Plaintiff is Roadmaster is a hands-on truck driving school helping to prepare students to take their Class A CDL drivers license exam. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L1CwId at no extra charge.[CC] ROMEO POWER: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs and individual Defendants request that the Court stay this action pending the submission of that motion. -- The deadlines set in the Amended Case Management Plan are adjourned sine die pending Plaintiffs' filing a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. -- The motion shall be filed by October 27, 2023. The pending motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. -- By August 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs shall file a motion for default against Romeo Power, Inc., or shall file a letter A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eg96lP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Norris Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is styled as Ellyn Norris, A.J. Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01496-SSS-PVC (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by:n Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Oscar Ramallo, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4000 Fax: (213) 243-4199 Email: oscar.ramallo@arnoldporter.com SARASOTA COUNTY FL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sullivan, et al., v. Sarasota County, Florida, Case No. 8:22-cv-01605 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an endorsed order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of case management deadlines and trial. The following deadlines are amended: -- Discovery deadline: December 15, 2023 -- Deadline for moving for class Feb. 15, 2024 Certification: -- Dispositive motions, Daubert, and Jan. 15, 2024 Markman motions: -- Meeting in person to prepare joint April 1, 2024 final pretrial statement: -- Joint final pretrial statement: April 8, 2024 -- All other motions including April 8, 2024 motions in limine: -- Final Pretrial Conference: April 15, 2024 -- Trial term: July 2024 The suit states violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sarasota is a county located in Southwest Florida.[CC] SCOTT SHAY: Bid to Consolidate Schaeffer and Singh Actions OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIRTHI PAL SINGH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCOTT A. SHAY, JOSEPH DEPAOLO, VITO SUSCA, MARK SIGONA, STEPHEN WYREMSKI, and ERIC HOWELL, Case No. 23-CV-2501-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James R. Cho entered an order: -- Granting AP7's motion to consolidate the Schaeffer and Singh Actions; and -- Appointing AP7 as lead plaintiff with Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz as lead counsel. As AP7 points out in its reply brief, the courts in all of these cases disqualified plaintiffs based on evidence that they shorted the securities at issue in the litigation. The same is not alleged in this case. Here, the Retirement Systems do not allege that AP7's loss chart reveals any short selling of Signature Bank's securities. Instead, they base their challenge on deposition testimony from AP7's CEO, Richard Grottheim, acknowledging that AP7's investment strategy includes occasional short selling. The Retirement Systems conclude from this testimony that AP7 short sells "across the board," but this inference is unfounded. No prior lead plaintiff decisions disqualify a presumptive plaintiff based on such tenuous reasoning, and this case will not be the first. The Defendants are former executives of Signature Bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Ni4CJ at no extra charge.[CC] SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: O'Meara Sues Over Securities' Inflated Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED O'MEARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC., JARED ISAACMAN, NANCY DISMAN, and BRADLEY HERRING, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-03206 (E.D. Pa., August 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Shift4's business, operations, and compliance policies in order to trade Shift4 securities at artificially inflated prices between November 10, 2021 and April 18, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Shift4 had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, Shift4 failed to properly account for customer acquisition costs, thereby artificially inflating its net cash provided by operating activities; (iii) accordingly, Shift4 would likely be forced to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; (iv) Shift4 employed accounting maneuvers in connection with, among other things, its mass strategic buyout program and sponsor bank merchant settlement account, that were designed to present an inaccurate picture of, inter alia, the company's performance, its underlying business quality, and its earnings power; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Shift4's reputation and business; and (vi) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Shift4's stock price fell $1.21 per share, or 2.67 percent, to close at $44.16 per share on October 24, 2022. Shift4's stock price further fell $5.95 per share, or 8.68 percent, to close at $62.59 per share on April 19, 2023, says the suit. Shift4 Payments, Inc. is an American payment processing company, with principal executive offices located at 2202 N. Irving Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Finestone, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com SPARC GROUP: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SPARC GROUP, LLC, Case No. HUD-L-001798-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04037-MEF-JSA to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SPARC Group LLC -- http://www.sparcgroup.com/-- is a joint venture between Simon Property Group, a preeminent retail real estate company, and Authentic Brands Group, a global leader in brand development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Reed Zakarin, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 501 New York, NY 10020 Phone: (646) 265-5703 Email: bzakarin@barclaydamon.com ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Dismissal of Certain Claims in Croce Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JENNIFER CROCE, Appellant v. ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, 2021-08508, Index No. 610886/20 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirms the amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granting those branches of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment and so much of the cause of action alleging breach of contract. In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carmen Victoria St. George, J.), dated Oct. 1, 2021. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the Defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment and so much of the cause of action alleging breach of contract as related to tuition, a "College Fee," and a "Technology Fee" paid by the Plaintiff. The Appellate Division affirms the amended order insofar as appealed from, with costs. In the spring of 2020, the Plaintiff was in the last semester of her senior year of undergraduate studies at the Defendant. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020, the college ceased all in-person operations and implemented online-only distance learning. The spring semester ended on May 5, 2020, and the Plaintiff graduated from the college that month. The Plaintiff then commenced the putative class action against the college, seeking recovery of tuition and fees paid to the college and asserting causes of action alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The college moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the unjust enrichment and conversion causes of action, and to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action, except for the portion thereof related to a "Student Activity Fee" and a "Parking Fee." The Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted those branches of the college's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the unjust enrichment cause of action and so much of the breach of contract cause of action as related to the tuition, a "College Fee" of $125, and a "Technology Fee" of $100 she paid. The Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the college's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss so much of the breach of contract cause of action as sought recovery of tuition paid by the Plaintiff. It says the relationship between a university and a student is contractual in nature. Although the rights and obligations of the parties as contained in the school's bulletins, circulars and regulations made available to the student, become a part of this contract, only specific promises set forth in a school's bulletins, circulars and handbooks, which are material to the student's relationship with the school, can establish the existence of an implied contract. The Appellate Division finds that the amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations of an implied contract to provide exclusively in-person learning during the spring 2020 semester which are unsupported by any specific promise that is material to the Plaintiff's relationship with the college. The referenced statements are too vague to constitute a specific promise to provide the Plaintiff with exclusively in-person learning. In addition, the Appellate Division finds that the amended complaint alleges that the college charged lower tuition per credit and imposed lower fees for online students than in-person students. While allegations of a pricing differential between an in-person and online education may provide "additional support" for an inference that the college promised the plaintiff an in-person education. The amended complaint also fails to articulate in more than conclusory fashion the way the Plaintiff's course of study was impacted by the suspension of in-person learning. Accordingly, even accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and according to the Plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the amended complaint fails to allege a sufficient basis to find that the college had promised to provide the plaintiff an exclusively in-person education. The Appellate Division further finds that the Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the college's motion which was to dismiss so much of the breach of contract cause of action as sought recovery of the "College Fee" and the "Technology Fee." The amended complaint is devoid of allegations as to what services were owed by the college in exchange for those fees. Clearly some services were provided, since the plaintiff earned her degree. Further, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the college's motion which was to dismiss the unjust enrichment cause of action. The elements of a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment are (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) at the Plaintiff's expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered. The amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations that the switch to online-only distance learning saved the college money. The Plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2023 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42b64mdw from Leagle.com. Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place, NY (Michael A. Tompkins -- mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com -- Jeffrey K. Brown -- jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com -- Brett R. Cohen -- jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com -- and Anthony Alesandro -- jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, New York, NY (Dianna D. McCarthy -- dmccarthy@kbrlaw.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent. STANDARD INSURANCE: VannEubanks Seeks to Certify Putative Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE SCHMIDT and JUDY A. VANNEUBANKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court for an order: a) Certifying the putative class in this litigation; b) Appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and c) Appointing Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, David S. Klevatt of Klevatt & Associates, LLC, and Joseph M. Vanek of Sperling & Slater, LLC, as lead class counsel. Pursuant to Section 1.B. of this Court's Standing Order, this Motion is made following a meet and confer between counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant Protective Life Insurance Company on August 1, 2023, during which the parties discussed the substance and potential resolution of the filed Motion by videoconference. Standard Insurance is an American insurance and financial company which is a subsidiary of StanCorp Financial Group. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L57jE2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - David S. Klevatt, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601-1604 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com SUPER MICRO: Settlement in Hessefort Class Suit Wins Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending July 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has given final approval to resolve the Hessefort class suit on May 5, 2023. On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00850). The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding recognition of revenue. The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the Company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint naming the Company's former Senior Vice President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director as an additional defendant. On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On April 22, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the further amended complaint, the hearing for which was calendared for September 23, 2020; however, the Court held a conference on September 15 to discuss how the Court could efficiently address the recent SEC settlement agreement. The parties stipulated to allow plaintiffs to further amend the complaint solely to add allegations relating to the SEC settlement. On October 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2020, defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice as against the Company's former head of Investor Relations, Perry Hayes. Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, but not the Section 20 claim, was likewise dismissed as to Wally Liaw, a founder, former director, and former SVP of International Sales. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Section 20 claims against the Company, Charles Liang, and Howard Hideshima, the Company's former CFO. On March 11, 2022, the Company, together with the individual defendants, agreed in principle with plaintiff's counsel to settle the action. On April 8, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, pursuant to which and subject to Court approval, plaintiff will dismiss with prejudice and release on behalf of a class of shareholders all claims against defendants, including the Company, in exchange for payment of $18,250,000, of which sum $2,000,000 will be funded by the Company. On May 25, 2022, the Court vacated the hearing on preliminary approval of the proposed settlement scheduled for June 2, 2022, stating that the unopposed motion was suitable for disposition without oral argument. On November 8, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval and calendared a hearing on March 2, 2023 for final approval, which the Court continued to May 4, 2023. Following the Court granting preliminary approval, settlement funds were transferred into an account controlled by the settlement's escrow agent to be held until the Court granted final approval. Following the May 4, 2023 hearing, the Court granted final approval in a subsequent order issued on May 5, 2023 which fully resolved the action. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based provider of accelerated compute platforms that are server and storage systems. TARGET CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Named Lead Counsel in Perez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Rafael E. Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, Brian C. Cornell, Michael J. Fiddelke, and A. Christina Hennington, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-769 (PJS/TNL) (D. Minn.), Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota appoints Gary Schaedel as the Lead Plaintiff and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as the Lead Counsel. The matter comes before the Court on several motions pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B) for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead plaintiff's selection of counsel in this putative securities class action filed by movants Terry and Diane Van Der Tuuk Living Trust, Gary Schaedel, Brian Howard, and John W. Zlatic and Chester Zoll ("Zlatic & Zoll"). The Trust, Howard, and Zlatic & Zoll subsequently filed notices of non-opposition to Schaedel's motion and the motions were taken under advisement on the papers, without a hearing. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the Court is required to appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. There is a rebuttal presumption that the "most adequate plaintiff" is the member who has (1) filed the complaint or moved for appointment as lead plaintiff; (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (3) "otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to court approval, the most adequate plaintiff selects and retains counsel to represent the class. As for the first two requirements, Judge Leung finds that Schaedel's motion is timely and unopposed. Schaedel alleges losses of $194,424.39 in connection with his Target stock during the class period. The Trust, Howard, and Zlatic & Zoll have each acknowledged that they do not appear to have the "largest financial interest" at stake. As to the third requirement, Schaedel is entitled to lead plaintiff status so long as he satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. At this stage, Schaedel need only make a preliminary showing that he has claims that are typical to the putative class and has the capacity to provide adequate representation for those class members. Based on the submissions, Judge Leung finds that Schaedel's claims are typical of the claims of the putative class alleged in the Complaint. He additionally finds that Schaedel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class. Accordingly, Schaedel to be the most adequate plaintiff and appoints him as lead plaintiff in the action. Schaedel has selected the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein to serve as lead counsel for the putative class. He has submitted the firm resume of Wolf Haldenstein demonstrating its extensive experience in securities and class-action litigation. Based on the evidence before the Court, Wolf Haldenstein is well qualified to represent the putative class. Accordingly, Judge Leung also approves Schadel's selection of Wolf Haldenstein as lead counsel. Having now appointed Schaedel as lead plaintiff and approved Wolf Haldenstein as lead counsel, the parties will promptly meet and confer in good faith about a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint or the designation of an operative complaint, and the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to that pleading. The parties will submit a joint stipulation with a proposed schedule no later than 14 days from the date of the Order. Based on the foregoing, Judge Leung denies without prejudice the Motion of the Terry and Diane Van Der Tuuk Living Trust for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel; grants the Motion of Gary Schaedel for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of His Selection of Counsel; denies without prejudice the Motion of Brian Howard for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Their Selection of Counsel; and denies without prejudice the Motion of John W. Zlatic and Chester Zoll for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Lead and Liaison Counsel. Gary Schaedel is appointed to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and Wolf Haldenstein as the Lead Counsel. Within 14 days from the date of the Order, the parties will have met and conferred in good faith about a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint or the designation of an operative complaint, and the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to that pleading and filed a joint stipulation with a proposed schedule. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect. Failure to comply with any provision of the Order or any other prior consistent Order will subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the party such counsel represents to all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xb8zemk from Leagle.com. TD BANK NA: Lafurge Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cathy Lafurge and Monica Orourke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 16-2023-CA-009283-XXXX-MA was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division–Camden County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03946-RMB-AMD. The Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action on behalf of themselves and all persons who are TD Bank accountholders and were charged Cashed or Deposited Item Returned Fees, or were charged Overdraft Fees when an attempted deposit was returned.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Renner K. Walker, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: rwalker@hazisfeld.com snathan@hausfelcl.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Ian J. Engdahl, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: iengdahl@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilrnan Street, Ste 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalieljllc.com THOMSON REUTERS: Court OK's Brooks Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS, et al., v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification -- To the extent that some class members may have had their personal information collected and disclosed via a specifically focused customer search and suffered a particularly intrusive privacy invasion thus warranting consideration of subclasses, the Court will discuss the issue at the next status conference. A status conference is scheduled for August 8, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. The Court also certifies the class for UCL injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) under the Plaintiff's hybrid certification approach. The Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz are activists and residents of Alameda County, California, whose name, photo, likeness, and other personal information Reuters has allegedly appropriated and sold without their consent. The Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on December 2, 2022. The Plaintiffs assert two causes of action: (1) unjust enrichment; and (2) a claim for injunctive relief for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The Plaintiffs here seek certification of the following proposed class: "All persons who, during the limitations period, both resided in the state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR without their consent." Thomson is a multinational media company incorporated in Ontario, Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44K0Sxj at no extra charge.[CC] TOTAL DISTRIBUTION: Teamsters Union Alleges Layoffs Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 355, a/w INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, and BRIAN BIELAWSKI on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated former employees of Defendants, v. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. (TDSI) and AUTO WAREHOUSING COMPANY (AWC), Case No. 1:23-cv-02261-GLR (D. Md., Aug. 18, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' advance written notice of employment termination, as required by the Maryland Economic Stabilization Act. On May 10, 2023, without advance warning, the Defendants provided notice that, effective immediately, it was initiating a mass layoff and/or reduction in operations whereby approximately 60 employees would be terminated and/or permanently laid off from their employment at the Annapolis Junction facility in Jessup, Maryland, including all 47 of its employees represented by Local 355. Although Bielawski and the Class Members were on the payroll of AWC, Defendants were a "single employer" under the Maryland WARN Act. As such, each Defendant is liable under the Maryland WARN Act for Defendants' failure to provide Local 355, Bielawski, and the Class Members at least 60 days' advance notice of termination or mass layoff prior to a reduction in operations, as required by the Maryland WARN Act, says the suit. The Defendants' violations of the Maryland WARN Act were not in good faith, and the Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing that the reduction in operations it ordered was not in violation of the notice requirements of Md. Code Labor & Empl. Section 11-305, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff Local 355 is an unincorporated labor organization representing employees of the Defendants in Maryland. TDSI offers vehicle-handling services through a network of automobile-distribution facilities, storage locations and facilities providing service to Eastern, Gulf and Southeastern ports. TDSI transloads customers' products from one transportation mode to another - rail car to truck, truck to rail car, or rail car to ship.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick A. Ciociola, Esq. ABATO, RUBENSTEIN AND ABATO, P.A. 809 Gleneagles Court, Suite 320 Baltimore, MD 21286 Telephone: (410) 321-0990 E-mail: pciociola@abatolaw.com TOUCHLAND LLC: Faces Elder Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHLAND, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-017427 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Aug. 23, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by making sales calls to Plaintiffs, and in doing so, transmitted to Plaintiffs' caller identification service a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff is a regular user of a cellular telephone number that allegedly receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Touchland LLC is registered as a Florida Limited Liability Company, which promotes it business throughout the country, including to Florida residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Memo --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIET MURPHY, et al., v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff seeks leave to file memorandum in support of motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel and exhibits under seal. The Plaintiffs show the Court the following: 1. Concurrent with this Motion, Plaintiffs are filing their Motion for Class Certification together with Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support and Declaration of Kimberly A. Justice in Support thereof. 2. The Plaintiffs' Memorandum refers to numerous exhibits to the Justice Declaration, including documents and deposition testimony that have been designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by Defendants in discovery pursuant to the Court's Protective Order. 3. The Protective Order thus requires Plaintiffs to file those Exhibits and references to those Exhibits in the Memorandum under seal, for which Plaintiffs seek leave via this Motion. 4. Accordingly, pursuant to the Protective Order, all pages (and corresponding references in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support) of Justice Declaration Exhibit Nos. Q, R, S, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, KK, LL, NN, OO, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, and WW have been redacted and certain pages of Justice Declaration Exhibit Nos. N and O have been redacted. Further pursuant to the Protective Order, and the Eastern District Local Rules, Plaintiffs are filing under seal this Motion and, as exhibits to this Motion, both (i) unredacted versions of the Justice Declaration Exhibits Nos. N, O, Q-V, X-CC, and KK-LL, and NN-WW, and (ii) an unredacted version of Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel . 5. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion for Leave and order that Justice Declaration Exhibit Nos. N, O, Q-V, X-CC, KK-LL, and NN-WW and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacture. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pfce7L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler Austin P. Smith STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com austin@swclaw.com - and – Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and – David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com - and – Todd A. Walburg, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 Facsimile: (510) 463-0291 E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. LeGrand, Esq. Ashbey N. Morgan, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201-6912 Telephone: (214) 698-3405 Facsimile: (214) 571-2960 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-2525 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: alegrand@gibsondunn.com anmorgan@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Vincent Galvin, Esq. Mark V. Berry, Esq. Angela L. Angotti, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 E-mail: vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com mark.berry@bowmanandbrooke.com angela.angotti@bowmanandbrooke.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIET MURPHY, et al., v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Class and Sub-Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 1. Nationwide Class, represented by Juliet Murphy, Penni Lavoot, Ranay Flowers, Paola Guevara, Lee Krukowski, Pamela Woodman, Kris Huchteman, Melissa Willis, James Charles, Angela Charles, Maria Mora, Nicole Sylva, and Jennifer Cardelli, certified for claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle." 2. Nationwide Sub-Class, represented by Paola Guevara, Lee Krukowski, Pamela Woodman, Kris Huchteman, Melissa Willis, James Charles, Angela Charles, Maria Mora, Nicole Sylva and Jennifer Cardelli, certified for claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2301, et seq.: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that experienced a thermal event in the battery area of the engine compartment. 3. Texas Sub-Class, represented by Ranay Flowers, Melissa Willis, and Nicole Sylva, certified for claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Bus. & Com. Code section 17.41 et seq., breach of implied warranty, section 2.314, and fraudulent concealment: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of Texas or who purchased or leased in the State of Texas;" 4. California Sub-Class, represented by Penni Lavoot, certified for claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et. seq., California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500, et. seq., breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, and for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 1792, 1791.1, et seq.: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of California or who purchased or leased in the State of California;" 5. Florida Sub-Class, represented by James Charles, Angela Charles, and Paola Guevara, certified for claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. section 501.201 et seq., and breach of implied warranty, sections 672.314 and 680.12: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of Florida or who purchased or leased in the State of Florida;" 6. Illinois Sub-Class, represented by Lee Krukowski and Jennifer Cardelli, certified for claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. section 505/1 et seq., and breach of implied warranty, § 5/2- 314: All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of Illinois or who purchased or leased in the State of Illinois; 7. Michigan Sub-Class, represented by Juliet Murphy, certified for claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws section 445.903 et seq., and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, section 440.2314: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of Michigan or who purchased or leased in the State of Michigan;" 8. Missouri Sub-Class, represented by Kris Huchteman, certified for claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, MO. Rev. Stat. sections 407.010, et seq., section 400.2-313 and breach of implied warranty, § 400.2-314(2)(c)): "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of Missouri or who purchased or leased in the State of Missouri;" 9. New Hampshire Sub-Class, represented by Pamela Woodman, certified for claims under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 358-A:1 et seq. and breach of implied warranty, section 382-A:2-314 and 382-A:2A-212: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of New Hampshire or who purchased or leased in the State of New Hampshire; and 10. New Jersey Sub-Class, represented by Maria Mora, certified for claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-1 et seq. and breach of implied warranty, sections 12A:2-314: "All current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle residing in the state of New Jersey or who purchased or leased in the State of New Jersey." The Class Vehicles are Toyota Model Year ("MY") 2013 - 2018 RAV4 vehicles with gasoline engines (excluding hybrid models). The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Plaintiffs Juliet Murphy, Penni Lavoot, Ranay Flowers, Paola Guevara, James Charles, Angela Charles, Lee Krukowski, Jennifer Cardelli, Pamela Woodman, Kris Huchteman, Melissa Willis, and Nicole Sylva as Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs likewise move for the appointment of Kimberly A. Justice of Freed Kanner London & Millen as Lead Class Counsel, David C. Wright of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP and Todd A. Walburg of Bailey & Glasser LLP as Members of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee, and Bruce W. Steckler of Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC as Liaison Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YZXdtC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and – Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and – David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com - and – Todd A. Walburg, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 Facsimile: (510) 463-0291 E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. LeGrand, Esq. Ashbey N. Morgan, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201-6912 Telephone: (214) 698-3405 Facsimile: (214) 571-2960 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-2525 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: alegrand@gibsondunn.com anmorgan@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Vincent Galvin, Esq. Mark V. Berry, Esq. Angela L. Angotti, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 E-mail: vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com mark.berry@bowmanandbrooke.com angela.angotti@bowmanandbrooke.com TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the beef antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. ("Tyson Fresh Meats"), as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Other similar lawsuits were filed by cattle ranchers in other district courts which were then transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and consolidated and styled as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. On February 18, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaints, and on September 14, 2021, the court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time because the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations and because the classes have not yet been defined or certified by the court. TYSON FOODS, INC. produces, distributes, and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods, and related allied products. The Company's products are marketed and sold to national and regional grocery retailers, regional grocery wholesalers, meat distributors, warehouse club stores, military commissaries, and industrial food processing companies. [BN] TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the pork antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Beginning June 18, 2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation (the "Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation"). The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of federal antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The Company has not recorded any liability for this matter as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable because the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations. TYSON FOODS, INC. produces, distributes, and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods, and related allied products. The Company's products are marketed and sold to national and regional grocery retailers, regional grocery wholesalers, meat distributors, warehouse club stores, military commissaries, and industrial food processing companies. [BN] UNION SECURITY: 5th Amended Sched Order Entered in Lewis-Abdulhaadi ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a fifth amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Parties will have thirty days following a decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification to complete fact discovery. 2. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before forty-five days following a decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Any oppositions to summary judgment shall be filed no later than thirty days later and Reply Briefs shall be filed no later than thirty days thereafter. 3. If the parties do not plan on filing summary judgment and/or Daubert motions, they shall so report to the Court (Chambers, Room 10614) on or before forty-five days following a decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. 4. For all filings submitted and conferences held pursuant to this scheduling order, and for all referred pretrial and trial proceedings, counsel shall follow Judge Beetlestone's Policies and Procedures, a copy of which can be found online at www.paed.uscourts.gov. Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qTgKzx at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Everett v. IRS Director Dismissed W/o Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismisses the case, DEYON N. EVERETT, Plaintiff v. DIRECTOR OF I.R.S., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-03442-PJH (N.D. Cal.), without leave to amend. The Plaintiff, a Florida state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil action against a governmental entity. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff seeks court intervention in obtaining his economic impact payment ("EIP") pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The "CARES Act"), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). In Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F.Supp.3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Scholl II), the Court summarized the underlying issue that is central to the Plaintiff's complaint. The CARES Act, codified in part at section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 6428, establishes a tax credit for eligible individuals in the amount of $1,200 ($2,400 if filing a joint return), plus $500 multiplied by the number of qualifying children. The EIP is an advance refund of the subsection (a) tax credit and subsection (f) describes the mechanism for implementing the advance refund. Paragraph (3) of subsection (f) requires the IRS to refund or credit any overpayment attributable to this section as rapidly as possible. Additionally, Congress provided that no refund or credit will be made or allowed under this subsection after Dec. 31, 2020. Three days after the President signed the CARES Act, the IRS issued a news release explaining that the agency would calculate and automatically issue an EIP to eligible individuals. The IRS established an online portal for individuals who are not typically required to file federal income tax returns (e.g., because an individual's income is less than $12,200), which allows those non-filers to enter their information to receive an EIP. Individuals who use the non-filer online portal have until Oct. 15, 2020 to register in order to receive the EIP by the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline imposed by the CARES Act. In Scholl v. Mnuchin, 489 F.Supp.3d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Scholl I), the Court preliminarily certified the following class: All United States citizens and legal permanent residents who: (a) are or were incarcerated (i.e., confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility pursuant to their conviction of a criminal offense) in the United States, or have been held to have violated a condition of parole or probation imposed under federal or state law, at any time from March 27, 2020 to the present; (b) filed a tax return in 2018 or 2019, or were exempt from a filing obligation because they earned an income below $12,000 (or $24,400 if filing jointly) in the respective tax year; (c) were not claimed as a dependent on another person's tax return; and (d) filed their taxes with a valid Social Security Number, and, if they claimed qualifying children or filed jointly with another person, those individuals also held a valid Social Security Number. In Scholl II, the court granted final certification of this class and entered the following declaratory relief: "The court finds and declares that title 26 U.S.C. Section 6428 does not authorize defendants to withhold advance refunds or credits from class members solely because they are or were incarcerated. The court further finds and declares that defendants' policy that persons who are or were incarcerated at any time in 2020 were ineligible for advance refunds under the Act is both arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law." A permanent injunction was entered, and defendants were to reconsider EIPs that were denied solely due to an individual's incarcerated status. The Plaintiff is incarcerated and part of the Scholl class. He seeks the Court to compel the IRS to stop denying EIPs due to individuals being incarcerated and to compel the IRS to provide his EIPs. To the extent the Plaintiff argues that his EIP was denied due to his incarcerated status, Judge Hamilton finds that he is already a member of the Scholl class; therefore, he is not entitled to separate individual relief. An individual suit for injunctive and equitable relief may be dismissed when it duplicates an existing class action's allegations and prayer for relief. Nor is the Plaintiff entitled to relief to the extent he seeks the court to compel the IRS to provide his EIPs pursuant to Scholl or the CARES Act. The court was clear that it took no position on whether individual incarcerated plaintiffs were owed the EIP, which is the relief sought in the instant case. That responsibility fell to the IRS to make an individual determination. More importantly, funds cannot now be distributed pursuant to the CARES Act. As noted, the CARES Act imposed a deadline of Dec. 31, 2020, for EIPs to be made or allowed. That deadline has passed, and no more funds may be issued. The Plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he seeks. For all these reasons, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies noted. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/562z5c5k from Leagle.com. UNITED TAPE: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Tapia-Rendon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARIA TAPIA-RENDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED TAPE & FINISHING CO., INC. and EASYWORKFORCE SOFTWARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21 C 3400 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify both a class and a subclass under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Tapia-Rendon has sued her former employer, United Tape and EasyWorkforce Software, LLC (EWF), which sold biometric timeclocks and accompanying software to United Tape, for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1-99. Tapia-Rendon has moved to certify both a class and a subclass under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). EWF develops and sells workplace software and equipment, including biometric timeclocks and enrollment devices such as the EC10, EC20, EC200, EC500, EC700, Xenio10, Xenio20, Xenio200, Xenio500, Xenio700, TL200, TL250, and TL500. These devices allow employers to track employees for security and/or timekeeping purposes as they enter or exit the workplace. EWF has sold its timeclock and enrollment devices to hundreds of customers throughout Illinois. When an employee enrolls via one of EWF's devices, the device images the employee's finger with a scanner and generates a unique identifier for that person in the form of a mathematical representation of the fingerprint -- a "digital template." Tapia-Rendon alleges that EWF's devices exclusively work by "creating a mathematical representation of the minutiae points in a fingerprint, and then using that representation as a comparator whenever the employee uses her fingerprint to clock in or out." EWF's CEO, Sino Jos, testified during his deposition that the image captured is not necessarily inclusive of a fingerprint but is rather "an image of the finger." Jos also testified, however, that "fingerprint" is a description that EWF uses externally to describe what is imaged by its products because "it's a common lingo." Tapia-Rendon alleges that, for its devices that utilize cloud-based software, EWF stores the biometric data collected -- including the digital templates -- on servers leased from third parties. EWF admits only that the digital templates may be stored on third-party servers leased by EWF or on EWF's customers' own servers. Jos testified during his deposition that the information collected from EWF's timeclocks utilizing cloud-based software is stored on third-party servers leased by EWF, but that the image captured of an employee's fingerprint is not stored on the cloud-based servers. Jos further testified that none of the data collected from the timeclocks is encrypted when stored on the cloud. United Tape is a manufacturing company for which Tapia-Rendon was contracted to work on an hourly basis. In December 2020, EWF sold United Tape one of its timeclock devices -- a TL250 Smart Fingerprint Terminal -- and also licensed the accompanying software to EWF. As an employee of United Tape, Tapia-Rendon was required to enroll via the EWF timeclock that United Tape had purchased from EWF and then use the timeclock to scan in and out of work thereafter. This involved an initial imaging of her finger that was then used to create a unique identifying digital template for her. Later this unique identifying digital template would be compared against the image taken of her finger each time she scanned in and out of work. According to records EWF produced in discovery, starting on Jan. 7, 2021, Tapia-Rendon scanned in and out of work at United Tape a total of fourteen times. EWF admits that it did not inform Tapia-Rendon that her information would be collected or stored, for what purpose it would be collected or stored, or the length of time that her information would be collected or stored. Tapia-Rendon alleges that EWF also did not encrypt the biometric data it collected from her that it stored on the servers leased from third parties. Tapia-Rendon seeks to certify the following classes: The Class: All individuals who used any cloud-based EWF biometric device in Illinois on or after June 24, 2016. The Subclass: All Class members who used a cloud-based EWF biometric device in Illinois on or before April 30, 2022. Tapia-Rendon alleges that, throughout the relevant class periods, EWF sold in Illinois fourteen timeclocks and enrollment devices equipped with its cloud-based software that all functioned in the same manner. She further alleges that because EWF did not obtain prior consent from users of its devices, the same violations of the BIPA that she experienced were also experienced by at least 2,620 people in Illinois who unknowingly had their data collected and stored by EWF devices. Those individuals scanned in and out of the timeclocks in question approximately 2,439,412 times during the class periods. By EWF's estimate, because the BIPA allows for liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each reckless or intentional violation -- and because Tapia-Rendon alleges three separate violations of BIPA per scan -- Tapia-Rendon could seek as much as $3,000 for each negligent scan and $15,000 for each reckless or intentional scan. The parties agree that Tapia-Rendon has not alleged any actual damages suffered by her or any class member. In order for the case to proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must show that their proposed classes satisfy all the requirements of Rule 23, which sets out the criteria for class certification. First, under Rule 23(a), a putative class must satisfy four requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, the proposed class must fall within one of the three categories in Rule 23(b). Rule 23(b)(3) requires finding that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Judge Kennelly opines that Tapia-Rendon has satisfied all four requirements of 23(a). He says (i) Tapia-Rendon and the class members possess the same interest in vindicating their statutory rights under the BIPA such that she adequately represents the class; (ii) EWF does not dispute, that class counsel have demonstrated their adequacy; the putative classes share common questions; and (iv) Tapia-Rendon's claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large. Judge Kennelly further opines that the case is well-suited for class treatment, especially because the claims involve only statutory damages that are likely to be awarded on a common basis. The questions of law and fact underlying the class members' claims are also essentially identical and will be premised on common proof. For the reasons he stated, Judge Kennelly grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He certifies the following class under Rule 23(b)(3): The Class: All individuals who used any cloud-based EWF biometric device in Illinois on or after June 24, 2016. The Subclass: All Class members who used a cloud-based EWF biometric device in Illinois on or before April 30, 2022. Judge Kennelly also appoints the following attorneys as class counsel: Thomas R. Kayes of The Civil Rights Group, LLC and J. Dominick Larry of Nick Larry Law, LLC. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34pf9nyw from Leagle.com. UNITED WATER: Knott Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, et al., v. UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class defined as: "All persons who receive their water from United Water System, Inc. and/or who have received their water from United Water System, Inc. ten years prior to the filing of the original Petition in this matter through the present, who have sustained damages, losses, and contractual claims as a result of the water provided by United Water System, Inc." The Plaintiffs request that a hearing be set for Class Certification which will accommodate all prehearing deadlines established by said order. The Plaintiffs further request the right to submit prehearing briefing in support of this motion at the close of pre-hearing discovery, or on August 1, 2024. The plaintiffs request that, if certified as a class action, notice of the class certification be disseminated to class members through a Court approved program of publication in such format as the Court may deem appropriate and necessary to satisfy the due process requirements of law. The Plaintiffs include MICHAEL CARRUTH, KAREN CARRUTH, CHRISTINA SONNIER, AARON KNOTT, and CHRISTINE OLIVIER. United Water is a non-profit water treatment and distribution corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eii6qv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon J. Schoeffler, Esq. GORDON J. SCHOEFFLER LAW OFFICE 730 Jefferson St. (70501) Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 234-5505 Facsimile: (337) 261-0799 E-mail: gordon@gjslawoffice.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. Adam R. Credeur, Esq. Natalie M. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 West University Avenue (70506) Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com adam@kwdejean.com natalie@kwdejean.com - and - Jacques Pierre Soileau, Esq. SOILEAU & CO. 405 W. Main St., Ste. 200 Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 769-3312 Facsimile: (337) 680-4853 E-mail: jacquotsoileau@gmail.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., HANS VESTBERG, and MATTHEW ELLIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-05218 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2023) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Verizon securities between October 30, 2018 and July 26, 2023, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was responsible for an extensive network of lead cables that had been previously laid in many areas around the country, causing harm and posing the risk of further harm to the environment, Company employees, and surrounding communities, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants allegedly omitted the truth and instead materially misrepresented Verizon's efforts to upgrade its network, mitigate environmental harms, protect employees, and safeguard the communities in which it operated. The Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew or recklessly disregarded that the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated, or acquiesced in, the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the securities laws, the suit asserts. As a result, the market price of the Company's securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the falsity of the Defendants' statements, the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied on the statements described above and/or the integrity of the market price of the Company's securities during the Class Period in purchasing the Company's securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements, says the suit. Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that the market price of the Company's securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by the Defendants' misleading statements and by the material adverse information which the Defendants did not disclose, they would not have purchased the Company's securities at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all. As a result of the wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial. Between July 7, 2023 (the last trading day before The Wall Street Journal exposé on lead cables was first published) and the close of trading on July 17, 2023, the price of Verizon shares fell 12.3%. On July 26, 2023, The Wall Street Journal released an article entitled "Justice Department and EPA Probe Telecom Companies Over Lead Cables." On this news, the price of Verizon stock declined by $0.79 per share, or 2.3%, to close at $33.55 per share on July 27, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Verizon is a telecommunications company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence D. Levit, Esq. Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. Mitchell M.Z. Twerksy, Esq. Atara Twersky, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com jfruchter@aftlaw.com atwersky@aftlaw.com llevit@aftlaw.com - and - Michael Vanoverbeke, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com VITAL RECORDS: Court Approves Roe Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Helen Roe, a minor, by and through her parent and next friend Megan Roe; James Poe, a minor, by and through his parent and next friend Laura Poe; and Carl Voe, a minor, by and through his parent and next friend Rachel Voe, v. Don Herrington, in his official capacity as Interim State Registrar of Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Case No. 4:20-cv-00484-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge James A. Soto entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Court notes that two intertwined discovery motions were very recently filed; upon review of the briefs and pertinent record and related authority, the Defendant's motion to extend remaining deadlines is granted and Plaintiffs' motion to quash or for a protective order is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KYP6Ia at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Sept. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order a modified scheduling order as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Motion for Class Certification Sept. 29, 2023 Feb. 13, 2024 Opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 27, 2023 Mar. 12, 2024 Certification Reply ISO Motion for Class Nov. 17, 2023 Apr. 2, 2024 Certification Hearing on Class Certification Dec. 12, 2023 April 30, 2024 ADR Completion Deadline Feb. 17, 2024 June 29, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-off Apr. 22, 2024 Sept. 2, 2024 Expert Reports (Opening) Mar. 11, 2024 July 22, 2024 Expert Reports (Rebuttal) April 1, 2024 Aug. 12, 2024 Fact Discovery Cut-Off Mar. 11, 2024 July 22, 2024 Dispositive Motions May 21, 2024 Oct. 1, 2024 (Last day to file) Dispositive Motions June 25, 2024 Nov. 5, 2024 (Last day to be heard) Final Pretrial Conference July 25, 202 Jan. 9, 2025 Trial Date Aug. 26, 2024 Jan. 27, 2025 Walgreen operates a drugstore chain in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qVwRwj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard Hirsch, Esq. Patrick Carey, Esq. Mary Haley Ousley, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com pcarey@lexlawgroup.com mhousley@lexlawgroup.com - and - Gideon Kracov, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV 801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629-2071 Facsimile: (213) 623-7755 E-mail: gk@gideonlaw.net WEST VIRGINIA: Court Tosses Rose Bid to Seal Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, and EDWARD L. HARMON, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAEL FRANCIS and LARRY WARDEN, both individually and as employees of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motions to Seal. The Court further orders the subject exhibits remain provisionally sealed in the event any party desires to make the necessary showing to support a sealing order. The Court directs any revised sealing requests be made on or before August 18, 2023. In the event such a showing is not made by that date or otherwise deemed inadequate, the exhibits will be ordered unsealed. The Defendants include THE RALEIGH COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Raleigh County Commission, THE FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Fayette County Commission, THE GREENBRIER COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Greenbrier County Commission, THE MERCER COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Mercer County Commission, THE MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Monroe County Commission, THE SUMMERS COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Summers County Commission, THE WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Wyoming County Commission, PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., John/Jane Doe PrimeCare Employees, JOHN/JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, BETSY JIVIDEN, individually as an employee of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. John/Jane Doe Wexford Employees, BRAD DOUGLAS, individually and in his official capacity as the acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, JEFF S. SANDY, individually and in his official capacity as the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Division Department of Homeland Security, WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, III individually and in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, DAVID YOUNG, individually and in his official capacity as the superintendent of Southern Regional Jail. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjeACQ at no extra charge.[CC] WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Bennett ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANI BENNETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. entered an order granting conditional class certification and preliminary approval of proposed settlement and form and plan of notice. -- The Court provisionally certifies the following Class for settlement purposes only: "All current and former non-exempt marketing employees of Defendant in California who worked at any time from October 1, 2019, through September 12, 2023." -- The Court preliminarily finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Class meets all the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes only. -- The Court appoints Blanchard, Krasner & French; the Law Office of David A. Huch; and Matcha Law as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Brittani Bennett as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45saiyx at no extra charge.[CC] ZYMERGEN INC: Wang Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BIAO WANG, v. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-06028-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order: -- Granting the unopposed motion to certify the class; -- Appoint the class representative; and -- Appointing class counsel. Zymergen is an American biotechnology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EegfTG at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***