/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230925.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 192 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Kelly-Leppert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Landavazo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Merkling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Osborn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Secure Info from Data Breach, Oneil Says AL-BORO SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Shiwpaul Suit Claims ALBERTA: Appellate Court Certifies Class Suit Over Priest Assault ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mazza Sues Over Patches' Misleading Labels AT HOME GROUP: Faces Talib Class Suit Over Lower Thread Counts ATLAS FIELD: Black Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Tossed BANK OF AMERICA: $1.5M Deal in Labor Class Suit Got Prelim. OK BARILLA AMERICA: Plaintiffs in Sinatro Seek to Seal Unredacted Docs BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification BIOVENTUS INC: Ciarciello Securities Suit Over Rebates Ongoing BP ENERGY: Liable to Excessive Natural Gas Price, Mehl Suit Claims BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Robertson Allowed to Upload Media Files BRITAX CHILD: Class Settlement in Coleman Wins Initial Nod BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Fraser Seeks to Certify Class Action BURTON CORPORATION: Faces Morgan Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach CANO HEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Gonzalez Class Suit in Florida CARL BAXMEYER: Court Tosses Nowak Class Suit with Prejudice CERES CLASSIC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Antitrust Suit CERES TACTICAL: Viacom Dismissal in Securities Suit Under Appeal COACHELLA VALLEY: Wu Files Bid for Class Certification COBHAM ADVANCED: Must Oppose Wightman Class Cert Bid by Oct. 16 CONAGRA BRANDS: Sells Contaminated Frozen Food, O'Sullivan Says DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Clarification of Conditional Cert Order DOLAR SHOP: Lin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Certification ENTERGY CORP: ATL Directed to Supplement Initial Disclosures ESA MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 19, 2024 FORESTERS LIFE: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 30 FUNKO INC: Filing of Amended Complaint Due Oct. 19 FUTRAN SOLUTIONS: Faces McCoy FLSA Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. GANNETT CO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 30, 2024 GANNETT CO: Sabbag Has Until May 24, 2024 to File Class Cert Bid HERTZ CORPORATION: Retherford Seeks Operations Managers' Unpaid OT HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Pump Recall I-HEALTH INC: Faces Warren Class Suit Over False Advertisement INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Artificially Raised Stock Price, Suit Says ITS JUST: Court Tosses Vrugtman Bid for Class Certification JOHN HANCOCK: Plaintiff Can File Renewed Class Cert Bid Under Seal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pack Sues Over Phenylephrine Products' False Ads JONESBORO, AK: Court Tosses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement KELLOGG COMPANY: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bids KSE SPORTSMAN: Class Settlement in Pratt Suit Gets Initial Nod LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Zagorski Wage-and-Hour Suit in California M&T BANK: Court OK's Jaroslawicz Bid for Class Certification MULTITECH INDUSTRIES: Unlawfully Collects Biometrics, Martinez Says NCEP LLC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Keating Suit NEW YORK, NY: UPOA Action Referred to Magistrate Judge PACWEST BANCORP: Faces Tan Suit Over 66% Drop of Securities Price PROCTER & GAMBLE: Potgieter Sues Over Detergent's Misleading Ads PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Libertella Claims PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Tosses Assaf Bid for Class Certification PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Nov. 2 PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines PROSPECTS DM: Myers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls PROVIDENCE, RI: Washington Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene QUONTIC BANK: Sapan Must File Class Cert Bid by April 29, 2024 RAIN ONCOLOGY: Continues to Defend Thant Securities Class Suit RIDGWAY LLC: Hourly-Paid Employees Win Class Status in Ruid Suit ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to Nov. 17 ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in S.D. Cal. SALVATION ARMY: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Junks Monzon FLSA Class Suit SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Amended Complaint Over Astrals NFT Project Filed SHATTUCK LABS: Oct. 30 Final OK Hearing on Consolidated Suit Set SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Ciccio Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Whipple Claims SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Germond Class Suit STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss Brown Class Suit Nixed STATE FARM: Class Cert Hearing Modified to March 27, 2024 STATE FARM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Anderson Suit STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification of Policyholders STATE FARM: Seeks Leave to Supplement Record in Velazquez Suit TAMKO BUILDING: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Zeman Suit TWO JINN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4 UNIT CORPORATION: Poarch Sues Over Breach of Warrant Agreement UNITED STATES: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule in Lado Class Suit VISION SERVICE: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Denied w/o Prejudice WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to June 28, 2024 WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Suit Seeks to Certify Class WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Seeks Sept. 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. WASHINGTON, DC: Alexander Seeks to Amend Final Approval Order WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 16, 2024 WEST VIRGINIA: Rosel Bid for Leave to File Outside of Time OK'd WEST VIRGINIA: West Va. Parents Files Appeal in Civil Rights Suit WESTERN DIGITAL: Solid-State Drives "Defective," Jackson Alleges WOODLAND ENTERPRISES: Fails to Reimburse Drivers, Loynd Alleges WOW 1ST: Loynd Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Business Expenses WOW RESTAURANT: Seeks to Decertify Putative Class in Chen Suit XOOM ENERGY: Small Commercial Customers Get Class Status in Merkin YARDI SYSTEMS: Robledo Must Oppose Summary Judgment Bid by Nov. 17 ********* 3M COMPANY: Kelly-Leppert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Consuelo Kelly-Leppert, as Surviving spouse of Michael Kelly, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04108-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Consuelo Kelly-Leppert is the Surviving Spouse of, Michael Kelly, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Decedent's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer; and liver cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Landavazo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Landavazo, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04123-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Merkling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Merkling, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04124-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer; and hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Osborn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ William Osborn, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04125-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Patterson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04126-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Secure Info from Data Breach, Oneil Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEANNA ONEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., and CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC D/B/A ADVANCE AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-04573-DCC (D.S.C., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within their network systems following a data breach on no later than February 7, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. is a payday loan company headquartered at 135 North Church Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC is a payday loan company headquartered at 135 North Church Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 825 Low Country Blvd., Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com AL-BORO SECURITY: Underpays Security Officers, Shiwpaul Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- RADICA SHIWPAUL and XZAVIER SHIWPAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AL-BORO SECURITY, INC. D/B/A ALBORO NATIONAL SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08001 (S.D.N.Y., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to timely pay wages and failure to pay overtime wages. Plaintiffs Radica and Xzavier Shiwpaul worked as security officers throughout New York City for the Defendant from late 2016 to July 25, 2023, and from June 2018 to January 7, 2022, respectively. Al-Boro Security, Inc., doing business as Alboro National Security, is a security and investigative services company, headquartered in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Bayron Flores-Tapia, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com bayron@lipskylowe.com ALBERTA: Appellate Court Certifies Class Suit Over Priest Assault ----------------------------------------------------------------- Madeleine Cummings of CBC News reports that a previously rejected class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of men who allege they were assaulted by an Anglican priest will go ahead after all. More than dozen men had said Rev. Gordon Dominey assaulted them when they were inmates at the Edmonton Youth Development Centre in the 1980s. The youth jail no longer exists. In earlier proceedings, some complainants testified that the priest groped them in the jail's swimming pool. Others said he assaulted them during counselling sessions and excursions. Dominey was set to go to trial in 2020 on 33 charges related to alleged historical sexual offences but he died in 2019. He was 67. Judge rejects class-action lawsuit attempt by alleged sexual abuse victims of Alberta priest Anglican priest accused of multiple sex offences dies in hospital The men applied for a class-action lawsuit against the province and the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton for failing to provide a safe environment, free from abuse. Court of King's Bench Justice John Henderson denied their application last year, but in an Edmonton courtroom on September 8, 2023, three Court of Appeal of Alberta judges overturned Henderson's decision, certifying the class action. Justices Frans Slatter said he and Justices Jolaine Antonio and Dawn Pentelechuk had a full discussion and all agreed to allow the appeal. A written decision is forthcoming. The representative plaintiff, whose name is protected by a court-ordered publication ban, told CBC News he is "ecstatically happy" with the decision. "I would just like to see closure and justice done," he said. In court on September 8, 2023, lawyers for the province and the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton argued that Henderson had made the right decision, saying individual trials would be preferable to a class action. "Class proceedings have tremendous economy, but the individual may not get as much scrutiny," said Peter Gibson, the lawyer representing the Synod of the Diocese of Edmonton. Avnish Nanda, the lawyer representing the men, said the class-action route is better for his clients because a lot of vulnerable and marginalized people can't afford to start and sustain lawsuits. In a class action, he said, the representative plaintiff does a lot of the legwork for others. The lawyer said he expected winning the appeal, but the decision came much quicker than he anticipated. "In this case, I think the errors were so clear that they were able to come to a determination right away," Nanda said. CBC News asked Alberta's justice ministry and the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton to comment on the outcome. A spokesperson said the diocese is not able to comment on cases before the courts. A spokesperson for the justice ministry said the government is reviewing the decision but is not able to comment further. If neither defendant appeals the decision, there will be a common issues trial, where Justice Henderson will determine the issues that are shared among all of the class members. [GN] ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mazza Sues Over Patches' Misleading Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY MAZZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02470-JRR (D. Md., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act, breach of express warranty, and fraud. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of adhesive lidocaine patches under the Signature Care brand. The Defendants' representations of the patches as "Stay-put," "Maximum Strength," and "Desensitize[s] Aggravated Nerves" are misleading because the patches cannot stay to a person's skin for the industry-recognized clinically significant period, estimated at not less than eight hours, and cannot deliver the amount of lidocaine similar to that with prescription. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, the suit says. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a grocery store company headquartered in Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com AT HOME GROUP: Faces Talib Class Suit Over Lower Thread Counts -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action claims that At Home-brand luxury sheet sets have a lower thread count than advertised. The 30-page lawsuit alleges the home decor retailer has misrepresented that its luxury sheet sets have a thread count of 1,000, in an apparent "unlawful scheme" to both make its products seem more attractive to consumers and boost sales. However, regulatory testing has revealed that At Home's queen and king luxury sheet sets—which reportedly sell for $54.99 and $59.99, respectively—have a thread count "far less" than 1,000, the case alleges. The complaint argues that consumers would not have paid as much for the sheets, or would not have bought them at all, had they known the products' actual thread count at the time of purchase. "Consumers regularly and commonly rely on the representations made on a product's labeling and packaging when determining whether or not to purchase that product," the filing says. "When purchasing sheet sets, consumers use the product’s thread count as a primary indicator of their quality, durability, and softness and pay higher prices for those with higher thread counts." The lawsuit against defendants At Home Group Inc., At Home Stores LLC, and At Home Procurement, Inc. explains that the textile industry uses laboratory testing standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials-International (ASTM) to count the number of threads a fabric has. According to this "common and accepted" methodology, a fabric's final thread count can be determined by tallying the sum of how many threads run vertically and horizontally, the case relays. When counting multi-ply yarn, the testing standards state that each yarn should be counted separately "as a single unit, regardless of whether it is comprised of single or plied components," the complaint says. For example, a 2005 opinion letter published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says a "non-deceptive" way a company could disclose both the thread count and the yarn ply of a product would be to state, "300 thread count, 2 ply yarn," the filing relays. "A representation of '600 thread count' for this same product would likely mislead consumers about the quality of the product being purchased," the letter reads. When measured in accordance with the ASTM standard, At Home's luxury sheet sets are shown to have a thread count that is "substantially" lower than what is represented on the products' packaging, the case claims. The filing alleges the defendants determined this inflated thread count by multiplying the actual count by the number of plies within the yarn. "In sum, At Home's representations regarding the thread counts of its Luxury Sheets were deceptive and misleading according to both the industry standard and the FTC's guidelines for accurately describing thread counts," the complaint states. "Further, At Home knew or had reason to know that the thread count represented on the Luxury Sheets was false and deceptive because the prices for the Luxury Sheets are lower than those for authentic bed sheets of the same or substantially similar blends with the advertised thread counts." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased luxury sheets from the defendants in an At Home store located domestically. [GN] ATLAS FIELD: Black Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY BLACK, v. ATLAS FIELD SERVICES, LLC, and CRAIG TAYLOR Case No. 3:23-cv-00171-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying motion for leave to file amended complaint. The Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint such that he may file an entirely new complaint, removing all prior claims and adding a single new claim. The Defendants do not oppose. The action was removed by defendants in January 2023. The removed complaint largely mirrors that of a related action already before the undersigned, which was filed in July 2020 and consisted of different plaintiffs -- represented by same counsel -- against the same defendants, also represented by same counsel. Atlas is a full-service Health, Safety & Environment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45JSUFw at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: $1.5M Deal in Labor Class Suit Got Prelim. OK -------------------------------------------------------------- John Woolley of Bloomberg Law reports that a California federal magistrate judge preliminarily approved Bank of America's $1.5 million settlement with current and former workers who allege they weren't paid for off-the-clock work, provided breaks, or reimbursed for their expenses. Bank of America and employees in two lawsuits asked the US District Court for the Northern District of California in June to preliminarily approve a settlement agreement that would compensate approximately 12,000 class members. US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler signed an order granting their request on Sept. 7. Of the $1.5 million allocated for the gross settlement fund, approximately $560,000 will be recovered by the class. [GN] BARILLA AMERICA: Plaintiffs in Sinatro Seek to Seal Unredacted Docs ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO and JESSICA PROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs request the Court seal the unredacted documents filed in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 24, 2023, the Court entered the stipulated protective order governing the confidentiality of information and documents in the action. Barilla is an Italian family-owned food company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48fqDbD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO and JESSICA PROST, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as follows: 1. That the case is certified to proceed to the merits as a class action on behalf of the following Class: "All persons or entities who, during the Class Period, purchased one or more of the Products in California for purposes other than resale;" Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns, successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer presiding over this matter and person within the third degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer. 2. That Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost are appointed as Class Representatives. 3. That Ryan J. Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce, and Kelsey J. Elling of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. are appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Barilla is Family-owned Pasta company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZmFTza at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com BIOVENTUS INC: Ciarciello Securities Suit Over Rebates Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Bioventus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a shareholder litigation filed on January 12, 2023 where the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina captioned "Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc.," No. 1:23–CV–00032-CCE-JEP. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended and consolidated complaint. In response to the company's motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The court's scheduling order was due on August 14, 2023. Bioventus Inc. functions as a holding company with no direct operations, material assets or liabilities other than the equity interest in BV LLC, a limited liability company that operates as a partnership. BP ENERGY: Liable to Excessive Natural Gas Price, Mehl Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RUSS MEHL, EDMUND GROSS, TRUDY BOYER, STEVE ANDERSON, and GREGORY STEADMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BP ENERGY COMPANY, SOUTHWEST ENERGY L.P., MACQUARIE ENERGY LLC, ENERGY TRANSFER, L.P., TENASKA, INC., D/B/A TENASKA MARKETING VENTURES, MIECO, LLC, and ROCKPOINT GAS STORAGE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01192-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants overcharged the price of natural gas before Winter Storm Uri hit the State of Kansas in February 2021. Further, as the price for natural gas skyrocketed, the Defendants began to make force-majeure declarations in their existing agreements with distributors to deliver the natural gas to other distributors at the higher spot price. As a result, the supply of gas throughout Winter Storm Uri did not significantly change, nor did the Southern Start Central Gas Pipeline ever reach a point where it could not deliver the volume of natural gas that had been nominated by its customer-users or distributors. The Plaintiffs accordingly bring these claims to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged unconscionable practices. BP Energy Co. is an energy company, with its principal place of business in Texas. Southwest Energy L.P. is a natural gas producer, with its principal place of business in Texas. Macquarie Energy LLC is a natural gas producer, with its principal place of business in Texas. Energy Transfer, LP is a natural gas producer, with its principal place of business in Texas. Tenaska, Inc., doing business as Tenaska Marketing Ventures, is a natural gas producer, with its principal place of business in Nebraska. MIECO, LLC is a natural gas producer, with its principal place of business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay F. Fowler, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 291-9541 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jfowler@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com - and - Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. Lee M. Smithyman, Esq. James P. Zakoura, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP 7500 College Blvd., Suite 1400 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 484-4627 Facsimile: (913) 498-2101 E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com lsmithyman@foulston.com jzakoura@foulston.com BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Robertson Allowed to Upload Media Files ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROBERTSON et al., v. BREAKTHROUGH TOWING, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10266-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to upload files via Media upload file function. 1. The Plaintiffs must indicate a timestamp citation for each instance where the exhibit is referenced in the paper pursuant to R6. 2. All audible portions of the media file shall be transcribed and submitted in written form as an exhibit e-filed in the usual manner. 3. Because of storage limitations, Plaintiffs are directed to limit the size of the media file to the minimum necessary to support its position and to not file any media files duplicative of those already filed. Breakthrough is in the Towing Service, Automotive business. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZfUhJG at no extra charge.[CC] BRITAX CHILD: Class Settlement in Coleman Wins Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Coleman, Keli Swann, and Heather Brooke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Britax Child Safety, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement but is subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all terms and definitions used in this Order have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The court preliminarily approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate such that notice of the Settlement should be given to the Settlement Class. 3. The Settlement was the result of the Parties' good-faith negotiations and was entered into by experienced counsel and only after extensive arm's-length negotiations with the aid of an experienced mediator and without collusion. The court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class defined as follows, for the purpose of this settlement only pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), FRCP: "All natural persons who purchased, not for resale, any Booster Seat in the United States from March 12, 2015, to the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Britax; (ii) Britax's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, investors, and employees; (iii) any entity in which Britax has a controlling interest; and (iv) the judge presiding over this Action, their staff, and the members of the judge's immediate family. Booster Seat is defined as any of the following Britax belt-positioning booster seats sold in the United States between March 12, 2015, and the date of entry of this Order: Highpoint, Midpoint, Parkway SG, Parkway SGL, and Skyline. The court appoints Jonathan Cohen and Martha Geer of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The court appoints Tiffany Coleman, Keli Swann, and Heather Brooke as adequate representatives of the Settlement Class. The court appoints Angeion Group, LLC as the Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the Notice Plan, establish and operate a Settlement Website, and administer the Claims process, including the determination of Valid Claims, distribution of the class benefit to Valid Claimants according to the criteria set forth in the Settlement, and performance of any other duties of the Settlement Administrator provided for in the Settlement. Britax is the leader in child passenger safety technology and manufacturer of premium car seats. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sQOHBu at no extra charge.[CC] BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Fraser Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN TIMOTHY FRASER, ET AL., v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enforces federal criminal laws regulating the firearms and explosives industries. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sTpypI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elliott M. Harding, Esq. HARDING COUNSEL, PLLC 1260 Clifden Greene, Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 962-8465 E-mail: Elliott@HardingCounsel.com BURTON CORPORATION: Faces Morgan Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Burton Snowboards faces a proposed class action after the company was targeted by cybercriminals during a 2023 data breach. The 49-page case relays that between February 11 and March 9 of this year, an unauthorized actor infiltrated Burton's computer systems and accessed personal information belonging to over 5,000 people, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state-issued identification numbers, passport numbers and financial account information. The complaint contends that the incident has affected current, former and prospective employees of Burton, as well as current, former and prospective employees of The Chill Foundation, a Vermont nonprofit corporation owned by the snowboard company. According to the lawsuit, the cyberattack stemmed from Burton's failure to employ reasonable cybersecurity measures to adequately secure the sensitive information stored in its network. Contrary to the defendant's privacy policies, which explicitly state that it has "implemented commercially reasonable precautions to protect the information we collect … in accordance with industry practice and applicable laws," Burton had "no effective means" to detect and prevent attempted data breaches, the case alleges. The complaint stresses that data breach victims must now deal with a substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraud, especially in light of the "strong probability that entire batches of stolen information have been dumped on the black market." As a result of Burton's negligence, affected individuals must vigilantly monitor their accounts for years to come, the case contends. The lawsuit says that Burton, which manufactures snowboards and other recreational equipment, accessories and apparel, posted a now-deleted online notice on February 14 stating that a "cyber incident" had impacted some of its operations, and that it was able to process orders. Then, on March 27, the company began sending affected individuals direct notice of the data breach, the case says. Per the suit, the letter attempted to minimize the harm caused by the incident and omitted details about how the cyberattack occurred, how long class members' data was accessible to unauthorized parties and how many individuals were impacted. Although Burton's March 27 report to the Maine Attorney General stated that only 737 people had been affected by the data breach, a supplemental report filed on May 26 revealed that 5,282 individuals had been involved, the filing relays. It wasn't until late May that Burton sent out additional notices informing most data breach victims that their information had been exposed, the complaint says. "Defendant materially breached the contracts it had entered with Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to safeguard such information and failing to notify them promptly of [the] Data Breach that compromised such information," the suit reads. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose personally identifiable information was compromised as a result of the data breach announced by the Burton Corporation beginning on February 11, 2023. [GN] CANO HEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Gonzalez Class Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cano Health 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 Gonzalez class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On March 18, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, certain current officers and certain former officers of Jaws, captioned Alberto Gonzalez v. Cano Health, Inc. f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp., et al. (No. 1:22-cv-20827). An amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 7, 2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company regarding compliance with GAAP and the timing of its revenue recognition from Medicare Advantage contracts in 2021. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, certification of a class action and unspecified compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. Cano Health (NYSE: CANO) -- canohealth.com -- is a high-touch, technology-powered healthcare company delivering personalized, value-based primary care to more than 250,000 members. CARL BAXMEYER: Court Tosses Nowak Class Suit with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nowak v. Carl Baxmeyer, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00589 (N.D. Ind., Filed June 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty an entered an order: -- Dismissing the case with prejudice, and -- Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[CC] CERES CLASSIC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Classic LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2023, that the Company reached a deal in principle on May 20, 2023 to settle the antitrust class suit. In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was referred by the District Court to a magistrate judge who, on June 30, 2022, issued a report and recommendation that the District Court certify a class. The motion for class certification and the parties' objections to the report and recommendation are pending before the District Court. On May 20, 2023, the Firm reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. Ceres Classic L.P. (the "Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products CERES TACTICAL: Viacom Dismissal in Securities Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Tactical Systematic LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2023, that the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal related to the dismissal of Viacom along with individual Viacom defendants. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of NY a purported class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws against ViacomCBS ("Viacom"), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including the Company, of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1,700 Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1,000 offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Offerings"). The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including the Company, had prime brokerage relationships and served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP, ("Archegos"), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint, which seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos's concentrated Viacom positions at the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including the Company, had intended to unwind Archegos's Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying the motions to dismiss as to the Company and the other underwriters, but granted the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15,2023, the underwriters, including the Firm, filed their Notices of Appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. Ceres Tactical Systematic L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on December 3, 2002 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures, option, swap and forward contracts. The sectors traded include currencies, energy, grains, indices, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, livestock, metals and softs. COACHELLA VALLEY: Wu Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUN WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUIXUE SHI, aka SERENA SHI, an individual, COACHELLA VALLEY HOTEL, LLC a California limited liability company, HYDE MORGAN DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for an order certifying the claims for relief to proceed to trial as a class action and appointing Plaintiff Jun Wu to serve as a Class Representative of the following class: "All persons who invested money towards the purchase of a condominium unit in the "Palm Springs Luxury Hotel Investment Project" by way of a Resort Condominium Purchase and Sale Agreement." Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members, directors, officers, and/or employees; and the Court and its staff. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint Andre Y. Bates of DeHeng Law Office PC to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) and to direct notice to members of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(c). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Xjw4y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Y. Bates, Esq. Yi Yao, Esq. DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (925) 399-5856 Facsimile: (925) 397-1976 E-mail: aybates@dehengsv.com yyao@dehengsv.com COBHAM ADVANCED: Must Oppose Wightman Class Cert Bid by Oct. 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Parties file a joint motion to modify class certification briefing schedule and expert disclosure deadlines. On Aug. 14, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification, which is noticed for a hearing on October 12, 2023. On August 15, 2023, the Court issued a Minute Order setting the Defendant's Deadline to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification for September 14, 2023, and Plaintiff's Optional Reply for September 28, 2023. On August 22, 2023, the Parties attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference with United States Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher, at the conclusion of which Judge Butcher communicated a settlement proposal to both sides and permitted the Parties until close of business on Wednesday, August 30, 2023, to respond to the Proposal. The Parties propose the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be modified, as follows: Event New Proposed Deadline/Date Defendant's Deadline to file Opposition Oct. 16, 2023 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Plaintiff's Optional Reply Oct. 30, 2023 Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion Nov. 16, 2023 for Class Certification Cobham is a provider of mission critical electronic solutions for the United States aerospace and defense industry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PnYfvm 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. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218CO Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon Yonemitsu, Esq. Noah J. Woods, Esq. Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: jyonemitsu@littler.com nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Sells Contaminated Frozen Food, O'Sullivan Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL O'SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-08009 (S.D.N.Y., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and misleading business practices of marketing and selling its Banquet Brand Frozen Chicken Strips Entree. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the product despite the presence of dangerous plastic within the food. The Defendant acknowledged the presence of contamination and potential hazards associated with its product by issuing a nationwide recall on September 2, 2023. However, the recall is inadequate as the Plaintiff and Class members who purchased the product did not get the benefit of the bargain, the suit says. Conagra Brands, Inc. is a frozen food manufacturer with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Clarification of Conditional Cert Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Nagel, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. DFL Pizza, LLC, Jay Feavel, Charles S. Dolan, John Doe Corp. 1-10, John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for clarification regarding the scope of the collective class that was conditionally certified by the Court. The Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants' counsel regarding this request for clarification, who has indicated they intend to oppose the Motion. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an Order on two related motions. First, the Court granted a motion to dismiss as it relates to three of the Defendant entities, Tri-City Pizza, Inc., Minutemen Pizza, Ltd., and Pinnacle Pizza, Inc. Second, the Court denied the motion to dismiss individual defendants Jay Feavel and Charles S. Dolan. Third, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to conditionally certify the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48giAvh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com DOLAR SHOP: Lin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN LIN, JIANQUN ZHANG, DI PAN, BO LIU, and JIALIANG PAN, v. THE DOLAR SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Dolar Shop, SHANGHAI SHENZHUANG THE DOLAR SHOP CATERING MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., YU ZHANG a/k/a Yu Cheung a/k/a Suzie Cheung, TZU CHEUNG a/k/a Tzu Yen Cheung a/k/a Ken Cheung, QIN BO LIANG a/k/a Alvin Liang, ZHONG BAO YUAN, QIN CHUN GAO, YING NAN QI a/k/a Frank Qi, XIN FENG WANG a/k/a Ruby Wang, and XIANG CHAO LIU, Case No. 1:16-cv-02474-RPK-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) Appointing Plaintiffs DI PAN, JIALIANG PAN, JIANQUN ZHANG, BIZHU YE, YUWEI ZHOU, DAI YANG, DONG BIN LI, MEI FANG YAO, SHAN ZHI SUN, and HAI HONG HAN, as class representatives; (3) Appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy, Aaron B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy as class counsel; (4) Permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a notice of class action by direct mail to class members and by publication; and (5) Granting such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Loc3Vr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com ENTERGY CORP: ATL Directed to Supplement Initial Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASSOCIATED TERMINALS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. ENTERGY CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-03118-ILRL-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Donna Phillips Currault entered an order granting Entergy's motion to compel. -- Associated Terminals must supplement its initial disclosures with categorized computations of damages and any supporting documentation in its possession, custody, or control within 14 days of the Order. -- The Court will not authorize the unregulated sharing of information marked as confidential by Entergy in this case with "counsel, staff, and experts" in an entirely separate state court action. Entergy is a Fortune 500 integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations in the Deep South of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjxmIX at no extra charge.[CC] ESA MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 19, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATREASS BRITTIAN, v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00663-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Keesler entered an order granting the "Joint Motion To Amend The Case Management Plan." The case management deadlines are revised as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Class Certification Oct. 30, 2023 Expert Report: -- The Defendants' Class Certification Nov. 29, 2023 Expert Report: -- Class Certification Motion: Jan. 19, 2024 -- Opposition to Class Certification March 4, 2024 Motion: -- The Plaintiff's Additional Expert May 15, 2024 Report: -- The Defendants' Additional June 12, 2024 Expert Report: -- Discovery Completion: July 24, 2024 -- Mediation Report: Aug. 7, 2024 -- Dispositive Motions: Aug. 21, 2024 ESA is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes the operation of nonclassifiable establishments. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44SUyU5 at no extra charge.[CC] FORESTERS LIFE: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGDA VELEZ, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08932-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting stipulation to continue hearing and set briefing schedule: -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to October 30, 2023. -- FLIAC shall file its opposition on or before September 25, 2023. -- The Plaintiff shall file her reply on or before October 16, 2023. Foresters offers a range of insurance and annuity products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48gnZm6 at no extra charge.[CC] FUNKO INC: Filing of Amended Complaint Due Oct. 19 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN STUDEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FUNKO, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting stipulation to set case deadlines as follows: Event Date Amended Complaint Oct. 19, 2023 Motion(s) to Dismiss Dec. 15, 2023 Opposition to Motion(s) to Dismiss Feb. 9, 2024 Reply in Support of Motion(s) to Dismiss March 22, 2024 Parties to confer and propose a schedule Within 10 days of the for remaining applicable pretrial dates, Court's issuing an including any filing of a motion for order adjudicating the class certification Motion(s) to Dismiss Funko is an American company that manufactures licensed and limited pop culture collectibles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EzLMzA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com jfarris@kellerrohrback.com - and - Hillary B. Stakem, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: hstakem@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas J. Giblin, Esq. Alexis Kellert Godfrey, Esq. Kevin McDonough, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: alexis.godfrey@lw.com kevin.mcdonough@lw.com thomas.giblin@lw.com - and - Lianna M. Bash, Esq. David Ian Freeburg, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 839-4800 E-mail: lianna.bash@us.dlapiper.com david.freeburg@us.dlapiper.com FUTRAN SOLUTIONS: Faces McCoy FLSA Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHY McCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTRAN SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-20316 (D.N.J., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages and failure to maintain required records in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a remote customer service representative (CSR) in Jacksonville, Florida from approximately November 1, 2021, to June 9, 2023. Futran Solutions Inc. is a provider of digital technology solutions, with its principal office in Edison, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com GANNETT CO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 30, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN ZOULEK, v. GANNETT CO INC and A MARKETING RESOURCE LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01464-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows 1. The parties' initial disclosures as Aug. 28, 2023 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be provided on or before: 2. Amendments to the pleadings may be Sept. 29, 2023 filed without leave of Court on or before: 3. All fact discovery must be May 16, 2024 completed no later than: 4. Primary expert witness disclosures May 16, 2024 are due on or before: 5. All expert discovery must be July 11, 2024 completed no later than: 6. Any motion for class certification Jan. 30, 2024 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 must be filed no later than: Gannett is an American mass media holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZiEGJc at no extra charge.[CC] GANNETT CO: Sabbag Has Until May 24, 2024 to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY SABBAG, v. GANNETT CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-10685-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Shalina D. Kumar entered a Modified Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Phase I) as follows: Deadline for identification of all Apr. 26, 2024 witnesses, including experts: Reports Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. May 24, 2024 P. 26(a)(2)(B) or Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(2)(C) by Plaintiff experts are due: Reports Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. June 28, 2024 P. 26(a)(2)(B) or Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(2)(C) by Defendant experts are due: Rebuttal reports are due: July 26, 2024 Deadline for completing discovery: April 26, 2024 Deadline to file Class Certification May 24, 2024 Motion: Opposition to Class Certification June 28, 2024 Motion Due: Reply in Support of Class July 26, 2024 Certification Motion Due: Gannett is an American mass media holding company A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZeEElI at no extra charge.[CC] HERTZ CORPORATION: Retherford Seeks Operations Managers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDY RETHERFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00719 (M.D. Fla., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as an operations manager at the Defendant's Fort Myers, Florida airport location from approximately June 2021 to December 2021. The Hertz Corporation is an operator of vehicle rental business, headquartered in Estero, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Pump Recall ---------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Hyundai oil pump recall caused a vehicle owner to file a class action lawsuit which alleges the oil pump recall won't fix the vehicles. In August 2023, Hyundai announced a recall of 52,000 of these vehicles in the U.S. 2023-2024 Hyundai Palisade 2023 Hyundai Tucson 2023 Hyundai Sonata 2023 Hyundai Elantra 2023 Hyundai Kona Hyundai says 1% or less of the vehicles may be affected by faulty oil pumps. In addition, out of 52,000 vehicles, Hyundai is aware of four "thermal" incidents. The automaker says an owner may continue to drive their vehicle, but the vehicle should be parked outside until repaired. South Carolina plaintiff John Franz purchased a 2023 Hyundai Tucson in April 2023, a vehicle which currently has about 3,100 miles on the odometer. The plaintiff says he learned about the oil pump recall on "social media" and has never been informed of any recall by Hyundai. This makes sense because federal safety regulators authorized a September 25, 2023, date for Hyundai to notify vehicle owners. Even though his vehicle has not been repaired, the plaintiff says the repairs/replacements won't fix anything. And even though Hyundai is replacing the oil pump components for free with updated parts, the plaintiff says there is no guarantee the replacement oil pump components won't fail. According to the plaintiff, "any fixes to this vehicle are no more than temporary solutions to a faulty vehicle." Although the plaintiff filed the Hyundai oil pump class action lawsuit for more than $5 million, the plaintiff doesn't allege his oil pump had any problems. But the plaintiff contends his vehicle will now be worth less even if the recall repairs fix the alleged problem. According to Hyundai: "[T]he electric oil pump controller used in the vehicle's Idle Stop & Go ("ISG") system was produced with printed circuit boards containing damaged capacitors due to improper manufacturing by the Tier 2 supplier of the controller. The damaged capacitors could create abnormal electrical activity that may generate heat and damage the controller PCB in addition to its wire harness and connector." Though Hyundai explained to the government the root cause of the oil pump problem, the plaintiff argues the recall "is no more than a repeatedly ineffective waste of time, because there is no true fix for the Oil Pump Defect." According to the plaintiff: "Unless Defendant issues a more comprehensive recall to fix the root cause of the Oil Pump Defect, it is foreseeable, and should be expected, that the Class Vehicles' oil circulation systems will fail once again." The plaintiff also filed the lawsuit because of the time it will take Hyundai to replace the oil pump components. "Transitioning back to the repair itself, repairing the oil pump will take a minimum of four hours, and may take up to eight hours. This means that it will take Defendant a minimum of 364,000 hours, and up to 712,800 hours, to repair all recalled vehicles. This amounts to a range of 41 to 83 years." -- Hyundai lawsuit And the plaintiff says he will also be burdened by a "repair-related commute [that] is roughly a 45-minute drive via I-85." But then the plaintiff asserts he will get hit with a towing bill. "In addition to the sheer amount of time spent in repairing his vehicle, Plaintiff faces another major expense: the price of towing his vehicle. The average cost of towing, per mile, is $4.75 per mile. Given Plaintiff's roughly 35-mile commute, Plaintiff will have to pay $166.75 to have his Class Vehicle safely transported from his home in Gaffney, S.C. to Spartanburg, S.C. for repairs." In documents filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Hyundai says owners will be reimbursed for recall-related expenses, and concerned customers may request a rental vehicle. "A Service Rental Vehicle (SRC) should be provided to customers who do not feel safe operating their vehicle until a remedy is available." -- Hyundai The Hyundai lawsuit goes on: "Given the additional time it takes for a tow truck to arrive, roughly thirty minutes, Plaintiff will spend one-and one-half hours solely on transporting his vehicle -- unless, of course, one is to assume that Plaintiff drives his combustible and (given the other flammable elements contained in cars) explosive Class Vehicle to the dealership." And according to the Hyundai oil pump lawsuit: "In all, Defendant's Recall amounts to tens of thousands of hours and dollars needlessly taken from Plaintiff and other Class Vehicle owners." The Hyundai oil pump class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division): John Franz v. Hyundai Motor America. The plaintiff is represented by Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo. [GN] I-HEALTH INC: Faces Warren Class Suit Over False Advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges I-Health, Inc. has deceptively touted its Culturelle Probiotics Ultimate Balance for Antibiotics supplements as able to treat or prevent infections caused by antibiotics. The 21-page lawsuit alleges I-Health's claim that the Culturelle supplements "rebuild[] bacterial balance lost to antibiotic use" amounts to an "illegal implied disease claim" given that the products have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide these purported benefits. As a result, the complaint argues, the Culturelle supplements at issue are misbranded and, therefore, "illegal to sell and worthless." The filing stresses that a company must obtain approval from the FDA in order to make "disease claims" about a dietary supplement. Pursuant to FDA regulations, a "disease claim" is essentially any label statement that explicitly or implicitly implies that the product can be used as a drug to "treat, cure, mitigate, or prevent a disease." The complaint contends that the company's misleading advertising of the Culturelle supplements -- sold in capsule form for adults and as chewables for children -- is “reasonably likely to deceive the public” and could lead to "substantial societal harm." "These claims mislead consumers into believing they can use the Products to self-diagnose and treat without the supervision of a licensed practitioner," the filing alleges. The plaintiffs, two California residents, say they paid a premium price for the Culturelle supplements based on I-Health's claims that the product could mitigate and prevent diseases. Per the case, the plaintiffs would not have purchased the supplements had they known the FDA has not approved them as effective for their intended use. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Culturelle Probiotics Ultimate Balance for Antibiotics supplements for personal use and not for resale. [GN] INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Artificially Raised Stock Price, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEMBROKE PINES FIREFIGHTERS & POLICE OFFICERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDINGS CORPORATION, CARRIE ANDERSON, PETER ARDUINI, GLENN COLEMAN, JAN DE WITTE, ROBERT T. DAVIS, JR., STEVE LEONARD, and JEFFREY MOSEBROOK, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-20321 (D.N.J., September 12, 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 Integra's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Integra common stock at artificially inflated prices between March 11, 2019, and May 22, 2023. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, Integra repeatedly touted that it was on track to grow the addressable market of SurgiMend, Integra's principal wound care product, by obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in post-mastectomy reconstruction. These misrepresentations caused the price of Integra common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The truth began to emerge on April 26, 2023, when, before the market opened, the Company revealed that it had paused production at the Boston Facility. Integra explained that it had determined that the Boston Facility deviated from good manufacturing practices in testing for bacterial endotoxin and allowed the release of products with unsafe levels of endotoxins. These disclosures caused the price of Integra stock to decline by an additional $10.24 per share, or 20 percent, damaging investors, the suit alleges. Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund is a public pension fund based in Pembroke Pines, Florida. Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation is a company that develops regenerative tissue technologies and neurological solutions, with its headquarters at 1100 Campus Road, Princeton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com ITS JUST: Court Tosses Vrugtman Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosanne Vrugtman, et al. v. Its Just Lunch International LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-02352-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: (1) Denying the Plaintiffs' application to seal; (2) Denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (3) Granting the Defendants' application to seal; (4) Granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; (5) Granting the Defendants' application to seal; and (6) Vacating the September 11, 2023 hearing. On November 11, 2020, Vrugtman and Gillingwater filed a class action complaint against IJL International. On March 15, 2021, Vrugtman and Gillingwater filed a First Amended Complaint. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' suit is that Defendants did not provide personalized matchmaking services to any of its customers because Defendants are structurally designed to be unable to provide such services. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: California Subclass: "All California citizens who joined IJL US on or after September 12, 2019." Virginia Subclass: "All Virginia citizens who joined IJL US on or after September 12, 2019." The Plaintiffs assert that the proposed classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). It's Just is a specialized dating service for busy professionals. JOHN HANCOCK: Plaintiff Can File Renewed Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an granting the Plaintiff's application to file under seal the Plaintiff’' renewed motion for class certification and certain supporting documents order. John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LfTdj2 at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pack Sues Over Phenylephrine Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH LEVI PACK and MIN JI JUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; RECKITT BENCKISER LLC; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC.; WALMART INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; WALGREEN CO.; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION; AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-at-00924 (E.D. Cal., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, strict liability-defective design, and unfair business practices. The case arises from the Defendants' marketing, distribution and sale of products containing phenylephrine for the treatment of congestion and other associated cold and flu symptoms. For years, the Defendants have advertised and marketed the phenylephrine products to unsuspecting consumers despite knowing that phenylephrine is ineffective for the treatment of nasal congestion and the other cold and flu symptoms for which the Defendants promote its use. On or about September 12, 2023, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration, after careful study and consideration, announced publicly that phenylephrine is ineffective as a treatment for such symptoms. As a proximate result of the Defendants' deceptive, fraudulent, unlawful, and/or unfair conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in the amount of the purchase price of the phenylephrine products, says the suit. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, with headquarters in New Jersey. GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline PLC, with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, with headquarters in New Jersey. Bayer Healthcare LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, with headquarters in New Jersey. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi S.A., with headquarters in New Jersey. The Procter & Gamble Company is a multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is an American consumer goods company, with headquarters in New Jersey. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is an American retail corporation headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store chain, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. Albertsons Companies Inc. is a grocery store company headquartered in Idaho. Rite Aid Corporation is an American drugstore chain based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (619) 333-7479 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com JONESBORO, AK: Court Tosses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA TRULLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00137-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order denying without prejudice Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and notice to the settlement class. -- The Court denies the motion without prejudice, subject to the Parties' refiling the motion and addressing the issues the Court identifies below. -- The Plaintiff Laura Trullinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this lawsuit alleging that defendant City of Jonesboro, Arkansas (City), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for failing to pay her adequately for overtime work. Ms. Trullinger's complaint requested that the Court certify a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and certify a class action for alleged AMWA violations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Specifically, the parties request a Court order: (1) Certifying a class action under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for purposes of settlement including appointment of Chris Burks and Brandon Haubert of the WH Law PLLC law firm, as Class counsel; (2) Granting preliminary approval of the settlement; (3) Approving the Parties’ proposed forms and methods of giving class members notice of the proposed settlement; (4) Directing that notice be given to class members in the proposed forms and manner; and (5) Setting a hearing on or about April 6, 2023, on whether the Court should grant final approval of the settlement, enter judgment, and award attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff and Class Counsel. Jonesboro is a city located on Crowley's Ridge in the northeastern corner of the U.S. State of Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZjpN9Q at no extra charge.[CC] KELLOGG COMPANY: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bids --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANA LOZANO, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03481-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), 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. 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. 3. Unnecessary Sections The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The court is also familiar with the general standard for class certification, so that need not be argued. 4. Evidentiary Objections All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the relevant section(s) of the joint brief. Kellogg Company is an American multinational food manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PgcMca at no extra charge.[CC] KSE SPORTSMAN: Class Settlement in Pratt Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PRATT and LARRY JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KSE SPORTSMAN MEDIA, INC., d/b/a OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11404-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order: (1) Granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of Settlement; (2) Certifying settlement class; (3) Appointing class representatives; (4) Appoinitng class counsel; (5) Approving notice plan; (6) Appointing settlement administrator; (7) Directing publication of notice; and (8) Setting scheduling Order. The Class definition exclude (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. The following schedule is adopted: Notice Program Commences on or before: Sept. 22, 2023 Deadline to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Oct. 17, 2023 Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards: Postmark Deadline for Exclusion, Opt-Out, Nov. 17, 2023 and Objections: Deadline for Defendant to File a Response Nov. 17, 2023 to Class Counsel's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards Deadline for Class Counsel to File a Reply Nov. 17, 2023 to Defendant's Response to Class Counsel's Motion for Final Approval, Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Dec. 15, 2023 File or Cause to be Filed, if Necessary, a Supplemental Declaration with this Court: Deadline for the Parties to File any Dec. 15, 2023 Response to Objections Final Settlement Approval Hearing: Jan. 4, 2024 KSE Sportsman provides advertising services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44MyJFB at no extra charge.[CC] LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Zagorski Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE GOMEZ ZAGORSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC; LD HOLDINGS GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV04252 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Junior Account Manager on or about October 18, 2020, until on or about July 8, 2022. LoanDepot.com, LLC is a mortgage company headquartered in California. LD Holdings Group LLC is a financial services company headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Raffi Tapanian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com raffi@hbklawyers.com M&T BANK: Court OK's Jaroslawicz Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JAROSLAWICZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M&T BANK CORPORATION, HUDSON CITY BANCORP INC., ROBERT G. WILMERS, RENE F. JONES, MARK J. CZARNECKI, BRENT D. BAIRD, ANGELA C. BONTEMPO, ROBERT T. BRADY, T. JEFFERSON CUNNINGHAM III, GARY N. GEISEL, JOHN D. HAWKE, JR., PATRICK W.E. HODGSON, RICHARD G. KING, JORGE G. PEREIRA, MELINDA R. RICH, ROBERT E. SADLER, JR., HERBERT L. WASHINGTON, DENIS J. SALAMONE, MICHAEL W. AZZARA, VICTORIA H. BRUNI, DONALD O. QUEST, JOSEPH G. SPONHOLZ, CORNELIUS E. GOLDING, WILLIAM G. BARDEL, and SCOTT A. BELAIR, Case No. 1:15-cv-00897-EJW (D. Del.), the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to exclude and granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to satisfaction of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for traditional shareholders of Hudson City. -- The Plaintiffs' motion is denied in part with prejudice as to the inclusion of merger arbitrageurs in the class, as described by the Defendants, and denied in part without prejudice as to Plaintiffs' proposed class definition and as to certification of the class. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23 the Court hereby Orders that Mr. and Mrs. Belina, and Mr. Krublit, are appointed as class representatives; that Mr. Coren and Coren & Ress, P.C. be and hereby are appointed as Lead Counsel for the Class; and that Mr. Murphy and Murphy & Landon, P.A. be and hereby are appointed as Delaware Counsel for the Class. The Court further entered an order the following class definition: "All persons or entities who were Hudson City shareholders and were entitled to vote on the Merger pursuant to the Joint Proxy dated February 22, 2013." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the defendants; (ii) members of the family of any defendant; (iii) any firm, trust corporation, officer, or other entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; (iv) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party. The Court finds that for purposes of class certification theDeRosa Event Study portion of the Keath/DeRosa Report satisfies the Daubert standard. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden in their Motion for Class Certification regarding the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the putative class and proposed class representatives and class counsel, except that the class representatives are atypical of and inadequate to represent merger arbitrageurs, and merger arbitrageurs must therefore be excluded from the class. M&T is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LnselU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Esq. Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq. MURPHY, SPADARO & LANDON, Wilmington, DE - and - Steven M. Coren, Esq. Benjamin M. Mather, Esq. Matthew R. Williams, Esq. KAUFFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C. Philadelphia, PA. The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. Anne M. Steadman, Esq. Justin M. Forcier, Esq. REED SMITH LLP Wilmington, DE - and - Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Janet A. Gochman, Esq. Tyler A. Anger, Esq. Katherine A. Hardiman SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT New York, NY. - and - Kevin R. Shannon, Esq. Jonathan A. Choa, Esq. Daniel Rusk, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Wilmington, DE - and - Tracy Richelle High, Esq. Scott A. Foltz, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP New York, NY MULTITECH INDUSTRIES: Unlawfully Collects Biometrics, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTITECH INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000960 (Ill. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by failing to: (a) properly inform the Plaintiff and Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used; (b) provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying their fingerprints; (c) receive a written release from them to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain handprints; and (d) obtain consent from before disclosure and dissemination. The Plaintiff and Class members seek liquidated damages under BIPA as compensation for the injuries the Defendant has caused. MultiTech Industries LLC is a manufacturing company located in Carol Stream, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 115 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com NCEP LLC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Keating Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keating v. NCEP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01239-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. NCEP is a debt buyer affiliated with Credigy Solutions, Inc. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3raRF3e at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: UPOA Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00218-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring the United Probation action to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation) Particular Motion: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LjjFs4 at no extra charge.[CC] PACWEST BANCORP: Faces Tan Suit Over 66% Drop of Securities Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACWEST BANCORP, MATTHEW P. WAGNER, PAUL W. TAYLOR, BART R. OLSON, and KEVIN LEWIS THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01685 (C.D. Cal., September 11, 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 PacWest's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade PacWest securities at artificially inflated prices between February 28, 2022, and May 3, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) PacWest had understated the impact of interest rate hikes on Pacific Western Bank (PWB), a smaller bank with excessive concentration in specific industries; (ii) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability and/or sustainability of its deposit base; (iii) as a result, PacWest was exceptionally vulnerable to excessive deposit flows and/or a liquidity crisis; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, PacWest's stock price fell $2.84 per share, or 44.17 percent, to close at $3.59 per share on May 4, 2023. Moreover, PacWest's stock price fell $1.38 per share, or 22.77 percent, to close at $4.68 per share on May 11, 2023. PacWest Bancorp is a bank holding company, with principal executive offices located at 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700, Beverly Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Potgieter Sues Over Detergent's Misleading Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA POTGIETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61746-AHS (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false and misleading advertising, breach of express warranty, and fraud. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of detergent under the Tide brand. The Defendant marketed the product as sufficient for 64 loads of laundry. However, at the back label, it shows that the amount of detergent is only sufficient for approximately 64 loads as measured just below Bar 1 on cap. This shows "just below Bar 1" corresponds to "Medium Loads," even though this is the smallest size listed, less than "large" (Bar 3) and "full" (Bar 5). Consumers understand "loads" in the context of laundry to refer to full units, in the same way as other metric and imperial units of measurement, such as meters, liters, grams, feet, ounces and pounds. The Plaintiff did not receive enough detergent to wash 64 full size loads of laundry, which is what she expected. As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, the suit alleges. The Procter & Gamble Company is a multinational consumer goods corporation, with a principal place of business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. P300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Libertella Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL LIBERTELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GAS MANAGEMENT INC. and JOSEPH RINALDI JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06795 (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to timely pay wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid technician or installer from in or about April 2018 until in or about November 2022. Professional Medical Gas Management Inc. is a construction and maintenance company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Tosses Assaf Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD M. ASSAF, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-06209-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order denying the motion for class certification. -- Progressive's motions to exclude Toglia's and Siskin's Expert Testimony are denied as moot. -- Assaf's motion to compel compliance is denied. The Motions to Strike, are denied as moot. The Court concludes that any commonality between Assaf's claim and the class's claims do not predominate over the individualized inquiries. The answers are not necessarily the same. Progressive is entitled to assert as a defense to Assaf's individual claim that, based on the evidence related to his claim, he did not suffer a covered diminished value loss. It is entitled to explore and potentially assert that defense as to each defined class member's DV claim. The Court concludes that the class claims do not present common factual or legal questions and answers. Assaf's claims are not typical of the class, and any common questions do not predominate. A class action in this matter is not superior to individualized resolution, despite the fact that such resolution is not efficient. The case is a putative class action alleging that Progressive fails to pay for the diminished value ("DV") of its insureds' vehicles under their Progressive policies' underinsured motorist coverage. Specifically, Assaf asserts that Progressive's policies promise to "pay for damages that an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle because of property damage sustained by an insured person [and] caused by an accident." Progressive operates as an insurance company. The Company underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48jwe0E at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Nov. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroeger v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104 (S.D. Iowa, Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Helen C. Adams entered an order granting motion to extend deadlines and continue class certification hearing. -- The Defendant's Expert Witness Sept. 22, 2023 Disclosures due by: -- The Defendant's opposition to Sept. 22, 2023 motion for class certification due by: -- The Plaintiff's reply in support Nov. 6, 2023 of class certification due by: -- Expert Discovery Deadline Oct. 30, 2023 Discovery Deadline: -- The class certification hearing set for: Nov. 2, 2023, is continued until further order of the Court. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services.[CC] PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY KROEGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104-SHL-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulated motion to extend deadlines and continue class certification hearing. On July 6, 2022, the Court entered a scheduling order in this case. Because Defendant's opposition to class certification relies, in part, on the Defendant's expert report, the parties have also agreed and ask that Defendant's deadline to file its response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification be amended to September 22, 2023. The parties agree that the deadline for Plaintiff's reply should also be extended by two weeks, to November 6, 2023. The parties agree that the Expert Discovery Cut-off, presently September 13, 2023, should be extended to October 30, 2023, to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to depose Defendant's experts. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rkveZj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W 7th St Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com - and - Michael W. Thrall, Esq. NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C. 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 283-3189 E-mail: mwt@nyemaster.com PROSPECTS DM: Myers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD W. MYERS and JASON FERNANDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPECTS DM INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01761-DAR (N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in cold calling practices wherein it placed unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers' residential phone numbers despite the numbers are registered on the DNC. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers are harmed in the form of annoyance, nuisance, invasion of privacy, occupied phone line, and disturbed use and enjoyment of phone, says the suit. Prospects DM Inc. is a company that operates call centers headquartered in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. GILES & HARPER, LLC 7243 Beechmont Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2715 E-mail: bgiles@gilesharper.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com PROVIDENCE, RI: Washington Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene ------------------------------------------------------------- Movant WILLIE K. WASHINGTON filed an appeal from a court ruling denying his motion to intervene in the lawsuit styled COALITION OF BLACK LEADERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH A. DOORLEY, et al., Defendants. WILLIE K. WASHINGTON, Proposed Intervenor, v. JORGE O. ELORZA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:71-cv-04523-JJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. Fifty-two years ago, an organization known as the "Coalition of Black Leadership," suing through its "President, Michael Van Leesten," together with six named individuals suing for themselves and those similarly situated, initiated the case against various officials of the City of Providence, including the mayor, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the police chief, the police Director of Personnel and a police officer. Soon after, the "Providence Lodge #3, Fraternal Order of Police" intervened and was joined as an additional defendant. Following a trial, in 1973 the parties settled the case with a Consent Judgment that required the City of Providence Police Department ("PPD") to immediately adopt a specified procedure for accepting, investigating, processing and resolving civilian complaints against PPD officers, including that each complainant must have an informal hearing with a hearing officer. After the settlement, litigation continued regarding whether the Consent Judgment would be modified. As reflected in the resulting decisions, attempts to modify the Consent Judgment were rejected. The Consent Judgment remains in full force and effect. The last activity reflected in the docket was in mid-March 1980. In 2022, with his post-conviction relief petition pending in the Superior Court, Washington submitted to the City of Providence a Civilian Complaint alleging irregularities and misconduct by officers of the Providence Police Department during the 2014 investigation that culminated in his 2015 criminal conviction. In response, Washington was told by the investigating officer that a review of his Civilian Complaint and a conferral with the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office had resulted in the conclusion that the accused officers did not violate any Police Department procedures or rules. He was further advised that he would not be afforded the informal hearing that is mandated by Providence's civilian complaint procedure because his allegations had been heard in his criminal case. On November 15, 2022, a motion for Rule 22 Interpleader, and several other motions were filed by Washington in the COALITION OF BLACK LEADERSHIP, et al. v. JOSEPH A. DOORLEY case. Washington does not allege that the City of Providence and PPD failed to comply with the Consent Judgment's requirement that a specific civilian complaint procedure must be adopted; to the contrary, he represents that he agrees with the foundational structure of the civilian complaint system and internal affairs procedures and doesn't want to reopen the proceedings to disregard the consent decree, but to enforce the document's core principles, which all parties already agree upon and Washington agrees with. Washington and the counsel for the City of Providence agree that the original parties are now deceased or unavailable. It does not appear that a class was ever certified. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of the District of Rhode Island entered a Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2023, holding that Washington's motion to intervene be denied and that all of his other motions be denied as moot. The motions that Mr. Washington has filed pro se are (i) motion for Rule 22 interpleader, interpreted as a motion for Rule 24 intervention; (ii) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (iii) motion to adjudge in contempt; (iv) motion to appoint counsel; and (v) motion to amend the contempt motion to strike three newly named Defendants and to add additional money damage claims, as well as claims for declaratory relief, against the remaining Defendants. Based on her analysis, Mag. Judge Sullivan recommended that Washington's motion to intervene should be denied because (i) he lacks standing to pursue intervention or contempt, (ii) the attempted intervention is untimely and prejudicial to the City of Providence, and (ii) he has failed to establish either that he has a demonstrated interest in the transactions that were the subject matter of the case and/or that he is raising claims that share with the main action common questions of law and fact. If the Court adopts this recommendation, all of Washington's other motions should be denied as moot. On June 26, 2023, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, denying the MOTION for Rule 22 Interpleader filed by Willie K. Washington; additionally, denying as moot the following motions: Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Motion to Adjudge in Contempt, Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Adjudge in Contempt, 2nd Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion to Stay, and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Report and Recommendation. The appellate case is captioned as The Coalition of Black Leadership, et al. v. Smiley, et al., Case No. 23-1711, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Aug. 31, 2023.[BN] Movant-Appellant WILLIE K. WASHINGTON of Cranston, RI, appears pro se. Defendant-Appellee PROVIDENCE, RI is represented by: Jillian Hoxsie Barker, Esq. Steven Bruce Nelson, Esq. CITY OF PROVIDENCE LAW DEPARTMENT 444 Westminster St., Ste 220 Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 680-5333 QUONTIC BANK: Sapan Must File Class Cert Bid by April 29, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUONTIC BANK, QUONTIC BANK HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:22-cv-00849-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac Carney entered an order granting joint motion to modify the Court's scheduling order to continue pretrial and trial dates and deadlines: a. The Plaintiff Sapan shall have until April 29, 2024, to file and have heard his motion for class certification. b. The parties shall have until April 29, 2024 to file and have heard any motions to exclude testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702. c. The parties shall have until June 3, 2024 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings. d. A pretrial conference will be held on October 21, 2024, at 03:00 PM. e. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, November 5, 2024, at 08:30 AM. f. The Plaintiff shall file his Certification Motion no later than February 26, 2024, Defendants Quontic Bank and Quontic Bank Holdings Corporation shall file their Opposition to the Certification Motion no later than March 25, 2024, and Plaintiff shall file his Reply in support of the Certification Motion no later than April 8, 2024. Quontic is a U.S.-based digital bank headquartered in Astoria, New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t1Cmdy at no extra charge.[CC] RAIN ONCOLOGY: Continues to Defend Thant Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rain Oncology 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 Thant securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 17, 2023, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants (the "Shareholders Class Action Lawsuit"), captioned Thant v. Rain Oncology, et al., Case No. 3-23-mc-8185. The Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading information about the Phase 3 MANTRA trial design quality and risks related to its clinical development strategy and regulatory approval. The Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and costs, and any other relief the court deems proper. The Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual costs to be incurred relating to the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is uncertain and the Company may not prevail. The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit. The Company is not currently able to estimate the possible cost to the Company from this matter, as the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit is currently at an early stage and the Company cannot ascertain how long it may take to resolve. The Company has not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit vigorously. Rain is a biopharmaceutical company that develops oncology therapeutics.[BN] RIDGWAY LLC: Hourly-Paid Employees Win Class Status in Ruid Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RUID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RIDGWAY LLC and ROBERT KIECKHEFER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00634-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting class certification and authorizing notice to all class members pursuant to fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All hourly-paid employees employed at The Price Erecting Company between May 27, 2020, and the date of certification who, at any time during that period, received safety and/or performance bonuses and who worked over 40 hours in any workweek to which such bonus(es) applied." On August 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class and authorize notice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. On August 24, 2023, Defendants submitted a letter informing the Court that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff Mark Ruid shall serve as the Class Representative for the certified class. The law firm of Walcheske & Luzi, LLC shall serve as Class Counsel for the certified class. The Court approves the Notice of Class Action Lawsuit as filed with the Court as constituting the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all class members who can be identified with reasonable effort, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to class members in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff's counsel will facilitate issuance of the approved Notice within approximately 20 business days from the date of this Order. Ridgway was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business includes installing building equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UreOb at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to Nov. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation, Master File No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting stipulation to extend class certification briefing schedule. -- The Plaintiff shall move for class certification and disclose expert reports in support of class certification no later than November 17, 2023. -- The Defendants shall depose Plaintiff's experts no later than January 5, 2024. -- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's class certification motion and all expert reports opposing class certification are due by January 26, 2024. -- The Plaintiff shall depose Defendants' experts no later than February 23, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall be filed no later than March 22, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/487ssHv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com mrobb@lsccounsel.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: scott@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Karen P. Kimmey, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com - and - Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. Brandon Fetzer, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com bfetzer@debevoise.com ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SHUPE and MATTHEW PEARLMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY D. FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT, and ROCK HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order. (i) Certifying this matter as a class action; (ii) Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) Appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Class and Subclass: -- Class "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Rocket Companies, Inc. Class A common stock (NYSE: RKT) between February 25, 2021, and May 5, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged thereby;" Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) members of the immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any person who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket; (e) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. -- Subclass "All persons and entities within the Class that purchased publicly traded Rocket Class A common stock contemporaneously with Defendant Gilbert’s and Defendant RHI's sale of Rocket Class A common stock on March 29, 2021;" Excluded from the Subclass are: (a) Defendants; (b) members of the immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any person who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket; (e) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. Rocket is a mortgage lender in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sVzeA5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- RYVYL Inx. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cullen class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 1, 2023 a purported class action lawsuit titled Cullen V. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of our current and former directors and officers (the "Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023, (the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and expert fees to the putative class. As the Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter the probability of an outcome cannot be determined. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims. Ryvyl Inc., formerly GreenBox POS, is a financial technology company. The Company develops, markets, and sells blockchain-based payment solutions.[BN] SALVATION ARMY: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GEISER, et al., v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01968-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order denying an extension of the deadline to submit a proposed briefing schedule for class certification as well as an adjournment of the September 27, 2023, conference. -- Any request for court action should be presented in a letter motion pursuant to the Court's Individual Practices. -- It is unclear why the "extensive discovery efforts underway" mean that the parties cannot even set a schedule for briefing of class certification at the present juncture. -- Given that the Court is not inclined to move the date for the parties to propose a class certification briefing schedule, the Court will maintain the status conference on September 27, 2023, on calendar. Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an international charitable organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RhIDMu at no extra charge.[CC] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Junks Monzon FLSA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MONZON and ANDREA ZATATTINI, individually and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00445-JES-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James E. Simmons Jr. entered an order granting Defendant County of San Diego's motion to dismiss. -- The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint if they wish within 14 days of this order. -- The Court finds that these causes of action cannot be sustained against the Doe defendants as currently pled and dismisses them in their entirety without prejudice. On February 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against the County in California state court. On March 10, 2023, the County removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the claims made under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs are both employees of the County's Department of Public Works. The Plaintiff Monzon was hired by the County in May 2019 and works as an Assistant Civil Engineer for the Construction Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. The Plaintiffs allege that they are classified as non-exempt employees for the purposes of overtime compensation. However, they alleged that they were made to work in excess of 8 hours a day or 40 hours in a week, despite being denied approval for overtime hours. San Diego is a county in the southwestern corner of the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44VKfia at no extra charge.[CC] SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Amended Complaint Over Astrals NFT Project Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Dorisca of Yahoo! Finance reports that Shaquille O'Neal is being sued again for his involvement with an non-fungible token (NFT) project. Decrypt reports an amended 111-page complaint was filed on September 7, 2023, centering on O'Neal's Astrals Project. As AFROTECH previously told you, O'Neal created the NFT project in 2022 in partnership with Music Manager Brian Bayati and his son Myles O’Neal, who was the head of investor relations. One series from the project was titled the "Shaq Signature Pass," which was promoted as the "first consumable NFT of its kind, and the signing technology is one that we think will have wide-ranging applications." In May 2023, there was a class action lawsuit first filed, per The Hollywood Reporter. Then, in July 2023, there was an attempt by O'Neil's lawyers to have the case dismissed, according to Law 360. The amended complaint -- which is said to be twice as lengthy as the initial case -- sheds light on more details pertaining to O'Neal's contributions in Astrals Project, according to Managing Partner Adam Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Law Firm, who represents the lead plaintiffs. Moskowitz claims now-deleted videos and tweets have been brought to life through archive.org and alleges that O'Neal remained heavily in touch with Astral Project's team members. "What we've put in this amended complaint is a much more extensive proof about how personally involved Shaquille O’Neal, his business partner, and his son were in Astrals," explained Moskowitz, according to Decrypt. "It’s much more than we ever expected." The complaint also mentions O'Neal neglected the Astrals community after the FTX exchange crumbled in November 2022. This was significant, the complaint states, since the project was "linked almost entirely to O’Neal’s celebrity status." "But O'Neal has not been seen at Astrals since this now-legendary 'Wolf of Wall Street' post," the complaint stated, per Decrypt. O'Neal's final community post had allegedly included a GIF from "The Wolf of Wall Street" with the phrase "I'm not fu-king leaving," according to the outlet. There has not been an official word from O'Neal's representatives, Decrypt reports. [GN] SHATTUCK LABS: Oct. 30 Final OK Hearing on Consolidated Suit Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shattuck Labs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2023, that the final approval hearing for consolidated class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is scheduled on October 30, 2023. On January 31, 2022 and February 11, 2022, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The cases were consolidated on June 2, 2022, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 1, 2022. The amended complaint cites the volatility in the Company's common stock and alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for misleading omissions regarding the Company’s clinical trial results and the collaboration agreement with Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. The parties reached a settlement in principle of the plaintiffs' claims in the amount of $1.4 million on November 2, 2022. The settlement is subject to a definitive settlement agreement, notice to stockholders and court approval. The court issued an order granting the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on June 16, 2023 and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for October 30, 2023. Shattuck Labs, Inc. innovative clinical-stage biotechnology company based in Texas. SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Ciccio Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al., v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.), the Provider Plaintiffs move to file their reply in support of class certification under seal. The Provider Plaintiffs do not believe their reply brief should be sealed, but the Defendants have designated certain information contained in it "confidential" or "attorneys' eyes only." Thus, Local Rule 5.03 requires Provider Plaintiffs to move for leave to file this document under seal but requires Defendants to file a response demonstrating "compelling reasons" for sealing this document and that sealing is "narrowly tailored to those reasons." The Defendants cannot meet that standard because the information they have designated is not a trade secret, covered by a recognized privilege, or statutorily confidential, and the Defendants cannot show that disclosing this information will cause a clearly defined and serious injury. SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/464HwUr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward M. Yarbrough, Esq. W. Justin Adams, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 238-6300 Facsimile: (615) 238-6301 E-mail: eyarbrough@spencerfane.com wjadams@spencerfane.com - and - Robert K. Spotswood, Esq. Michael T. Sansbury, Esq. Morgan Franz, Esq. SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC Financial Center 505 20th Street North, Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 986-3620 Facsimile: (205) 986-3639 E-mail: rks@spotswoodllc.com msansbury@spotswoodllc.com mfranz@spotswoodllc.com - and - Richard Stone, Esq. RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 11 East 44th St., Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 804-9569 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Jacobson, Esq. Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq. RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: jjacobson@rwjplc.com egonser@rwjplc.com - and - David Rammelt, Esq. Nicholas J. Secco, Esq. Emily N. Dillingham, Esq. Carl M. Johnson, Esq. Hannah Stowe, Esq. Michael D. Meuti, Esq. Andrew G. Fiorella, Esq. Mark K. Norris, Esq. James R. Bedell, Esq. Michael B. Silverstein, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: drammelt@beneschlaw.com nsecco@beneschlaw.com edillingham@beneschlaw.com cmjohnson@beneschlaw.com hstowe@beneschlaw.com mmeuti@beneschlaw.com afiorella@beneschlaw.com mnorris@beneschlaw.com jbedell@beneschlaw.com msilverstein@beneschlaw.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Whipple Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURTIS WHIPPLE, on behalf of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04583-SAL (D.S.C., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from the Defendant's breach of its fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to ensure that the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program does not charge excessive fees to Plan participants. The Defendant failed to monitor the total compensation paid to the Plan's recordkeeper is T. Rowe Price RPS Inc. (TRP) and allowed excessive compensation to be paid during the Class Period, even though its duties, services, and costs did not grow in proportion. As a result, the Plan suffered millions of dollars in losses, says the suit. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. is a transport company based in South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC Telephone: (854) 222-6075 - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Germond Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Spero Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Germond class suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one captioned Richard S. Germond v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla, Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the other captioned Kashif Memon v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on July 15, 2022. The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22, 2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022. Both Mr. Memon and stockholder Nabil Saad filed motions for appointment of lead plaintiff/lead counsel on July 25, 2022. Mr. Saad withdrew his opposition on August 15, 2022, and Mr. Memon was appointed lead plaintiff on September 19, 2022. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock from May 6, 2021 through May 2, 2022 (Mr. Memon's complaint alleged a six-month longer class period than the complaint originally filed by Mr. Germond). The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the New Drug Application for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Mr. Memon filed an amended complaint on December 5, 2022. The amended complaint generally restates the same allegations contained in the original complaint. The Court held a pre-motion conference on February 22, 2023 and set a date of June 21, 2023 for the Company to file its fully-briefed motion to dismiss, including Plaintiffs' opposition, which the Company filed within that deadline. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Spero Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company which focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing treatments for multi-drug resistant bacterial infections and rare diseases in the United States.[BN] STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss Brown Class Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-04002-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered an order denying State Farm's motions to dismiss, to strike the class-action allegations, and to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The sole factor that weighs in favor of transfer is the cost of witnesses' travel to the Western District of Missouri for trial, but the Court finds that that consideration alone is insufficient to overcome the deference due to Plaintiff’s choice of forum and the interest in judicial efficiency. The case revolves around the interpretation of an insurance contract. Plaintiff Brown suffered a property loss in 2013 to his home—a loss covered by a State Farm homeowner's insurance policy. State Farm allegedly chose to calculate Mr. Brown's loss exclusively using a "replacement cost less depreciation" (RCLD) methodology, and told him so, and it withheld future labor repair costs, totaling $651.15, from his payment. State Farm Insurance is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rfqzYH at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Class Cert Hearing Modified to March 27, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOOBULI'S LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-07074-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order modifying pretrial schedule as follows: -- Class certification hearing: March 27, 2024 -- Pretrial Conference: July 15, 2024 -- The Case Management Conference previously set for October 11, State Farm provides property liability insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LlaVlu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Anna S. Mclean, Esq. Frank Falzetta, Esq. Jennifer Hoffman, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: amclean@sheppardmullin.com ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com STATE FARM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Anderson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01270-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ECD3g8 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification of Policyholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE BELOTTI, et al., v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01284-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court granting their class certification motion in all aspects. The National Class for Claims Under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"): "All State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") property insurance policyholders who submitted a claim for partial structural damage and whose ACV and/or RCV repair costs payments were based upon State Farm using the Xactimate software’s "new construction" labor efficiency setting during the time period from March 30, 2016 to the date of trial, inclusive." Excluded from the class is any policyholder who received the full limits of applicable coverage without having been through an appraisal or any policyholder whose claim was the subject of an individual lawsuit and members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and plaintiff's counsel. The Pennsylvania Subclass for Common Law Breach of Contract and Violation of 42 PA 8731: "All State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") property insurance policyholders who submitted a claim for partial structural damage for an insured property located in Pennsylvania and whose claim was paid based upon an ACV or RCV estimated by State Farm using Xactimate’s software's "new construction" labor efficiency setting during the time period from March 30, 2016 to the date of trial, inclusive. Excluded from the class is any policyholder who received the full limits of applicable coverage without having been through an appraisal or any policyholder whose claim was the subject of an individual lawsuit and members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned and plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiffs also request that they be appointed class representatives, and that their counsel be appointed counsel for the class and subclass. The Plaintiffs can satisfy the four requirements stated in Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation as well as one of the three bases for class certification stated in Rule 23(b), here 23(b)(3). Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs move for an order certifying a class and subclass. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class and subclass: State Farm offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RprrVk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP Lee Squitieri, Esq. 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and - Harry A. Cummins, Esq. Roman Rabinovich, Esq. WILKOFSKY, FRIEDMAN, KAREL & CUMMINS 299 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 285-0510 E-mail: hcummins@wfkclaw.com romanlaws@gmail.com - and - Martin Durkin, Esq. DURKIN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1760 Market Street, Suite 601 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-9090 E-mail: mdurkin@durkinpc.com STATE FARM: Seeks Leave to Supplement Record in Velazquez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ and FERNANDO VELAZQUEZ, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), State Farm requests that the Court grant its motion and permit State Farm to supplement the record at class certification by: (a) running a test of Mr. Pacchione's revised search terms; (b) deposing Mr. Pacchione regarding his supplemental report; and (c) filing a supplemental brief regarding class certification of no more than 10 pages to address this additional discovery. State Farm moves for leave to supplement the record in advance of the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Class Certification to address the evidentiary issues raised by the Court's denial of State Farm's Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of Michael Pacchione. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fs3kq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq. Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq. Jacob L. Kahn, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 471-8700 E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com shemeryck@rshc-law.com jkahn@rshc-law.com - and - Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq. BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG, LLC 960 Harvest Drive, Building B, Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (267) 654-1116 E-mail: desipio@bbs-law.com TAMKO BUILDING: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, AND SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's motions to seal. -- All docket entries through Doc. 357 that have been filed as provisionally sealed shall remain sealed. It would be an unnecessary waste of resources to go through the docket unsealing numerous documents. Because all the documents that the parties agree can be unsealed have been filed on the record at, the public's right to access is satisfied. TAMKO is a leading independent manufacturer of residential roofing shingles crafted with American pride. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PBFsOo at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order granting motion for leave to file motion for class certification under seal. The Court entered an order that Justice Declaration Exhibit Nos. N, O, Q-V, X-CC, KKLL, and NN-WW and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel shall be maintained under seal. Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIdhaq at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Zeman Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ZEMAN, v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01786-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. -- The Plaintiff's claims for disparate treatment are dismissed with leave to amend. -- The Plaintiff must amend his claims no later than September 29, 2023. The Complaint alleges that the RIF following Musk's acquisition of Twitter was a continuing event in which "some were laid of earlier and many were laid off after" November 4. While the proposed class is broad and may be narrowed after discovery, to strike the class allegations now would be premature. The Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant Twitter, Inc., who alleges Twitter unlawfully discriminated against him and other employees based on age. Twitter, Inc. was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LjlgOA at no extra charge.[CC] TWO JINN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TWO JINN, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, a California corporation Case No. 3:22-cv-02540-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file stipulation re: class certification briefing and hearing schedule and plaintiffs' motion to certify interlocutory appeal: Event Deadline Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Oct. 24, 2023 Certify Interlocutory Appeal Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Motion for Dec. 4, 2023 Class Certification and any supporting Expert Reports Defendants' Deadline to File Oppositions Jan. 15, 2024 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and any supporting Expert Reports or Rebuttal Expert Reports, as well as any Daubert Motions Plaintiffs' Deadline to file Replies in Feb. 26, 2024 support of Class Certification and Replies to Defendants' Expert Reports; any Opposition(s) to Defendants' Daubert Motion(s); and any Daubert Motions as to Defendants’ Experts Defendants' Deadline to file Replies in Mar. 4, 2023 support of their Daubert Motions and Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions Plaintiffs' Deadline to file Replies Mar. 11, 2024 in support of their Daubert Motions Hearing on Class Certification Mar. 18, 2024 Two Jinn provides consulting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sXwEK1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com tlogan@edelson.com ysalahi@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Beatriz Mejia, Esq. K.C. Jaski, Esq. Katelyn L. Kang, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com kjaski@cooley.com kkang@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com - and - David J. Kaminski, Esq. Martin Schannong, Esq. CARLSON & MESSER LLP 5901W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 242-2200 Facsimile: (310) 242-2222 E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com schannongm@cmtlaw.com UNIT CORPORATION: Poarch Sues Over Breach of Warrant Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID M. POARCH and R. BRETT KRAMER, individually and as trustee of the R. Brett Kramer Trust B; and PJ OIL LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00798-PRW (W.D. Okla., September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. According to complaint, the Defendant breached the terms of its bankruptcy plan by failing to issue warrants to purchase new common stock to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals pursuant to the original form of warrant agreement and failing to adjust the value of the warrants on account of dividends. After confirmation of the Defendant's bankruptcy plan and approval of the form of warrant agreement, the Defendant modified the form of warrant agreement and issued warrants to the Plaintiffs and Class members pursuant to the modified warrant agreement. However, the Defendant failed to present such modification to the Bankruptcy Court and never sought approval of the Plaintiffs and the Class of such modification. As a result, the Defendant remains bound by the original form of warrant agreement approved by the Bankruptcy Court as part of the bankruptcy plan. The Defendant has thereby deprived the Plaintiffs and Class members of the value they bargained for under the bankruptcy plan and caused them to suffer injury and damage, the suit alleges. PJ Oil LLC is an oil and gas company located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Unit Corporation is an oil and gas wells company, with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Bartz, Esq. BARBER & BARTZ, P.C. 525 S. Main Street, Suite 800 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 599-7755 Facsimile: (918) 599-7756 E-mail: rbartz@barberbartz.com - and - Douglas J. McGill, Esq. WEBBER MCGILL LLC 100 E. Hanover Avenue, Suite 401 Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927 Telephone: (973) 739-9559 Facsimile: (973) 739-9575 E-mail: dmcgill@webbermcgill.com UNITED STATES: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule in Lado Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AL OTRO LADO, Inc., et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01367-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule relating to Plaintiffs' motions for provisional class certification and for a preliminary injunction, to moderately extend the deadlines for both Defendants' oppositions to the Motions and Plaintiffs' reply briefs in support of the Motions from the schedule previously proposed by the parties. The Defendants only seek to moderately extend the briefing schedule, and do not seek to modify the October 13 hearing date. On August 9 and 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motions with a noticed hearing date of September 22, 2023. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZiXxUw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Katherine J. Shinners, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-8259 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 VISION SERVICE: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and the Class and Collective members, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02400-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall Newman entered an order denying without prejudice to a renewed motion addressing the court's concerns the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for provisional class certification and preliminary approval of settlement. The Court said, "The settlement agreement and notice are defective and must be cured before the court can properly evaluate them. The Plaintiff's briefing conveys sufficient information for the court to make a preliminary determination on the settlement agreement, with one exception. The settlement provides for a single settlement fund from which both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Rule 23 claims are paid, but the parties have not conveyed what portion is allocated to the FLSA claims." The Defendants have agreed to pay a non-reversionary maximum gross settlement amount of $3,450,000 to settle all claims in the amended complaint. The following will be deduced from the gross settlement award: (i) Plaintiff’s service award (up to $15,000); (ii) Class counsel's fee awards (up to 33.33% of the gross settlement amount, or $1,150,000); (iii) Class counsel’s costs (estimated to be $25,000); (iv) Settlement administrator costs (estimated to be $20,880); and (v) the payment to the LWDA for its share of the PAGA payment ($75,000). An individual is eligible to share in the proposed settlement if he or she belongs to any of the following: -- California Class Members "All current and former employees of defendants who were employed as customer service representatives (CSRs) or equivalent positions in California at any time between December 2, 2016, and November 12, 2021;" -- PAGA Group "All current and former employees of defendants who were employed as CSRs or equivalent positions in California at any time between July 31, 2019 and November 12, 2021;" and -- FLSA Collective Members "All current and former employees of defendants who were employed as CSRs or equivalent positions in the United States at any time between December 2, 2017 and November 12, 2021." All settlement class members will be paid a settlement award from the net settlement amount. The Plaintiff Michael Schmidt moves for preliminary approval of settlement of his class, FLSA collective, and PAGA) claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LuxQL5 at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to June 28, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TOPOREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 1:21-cv-10603-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order amending discovery schedule as follows: Original Deadline Proposed New Deadline End of Fact Discovery Aug. 25, 2023 Dec. 15, 2023 Deposition Deadline Aug. 25, 2023 Dec. 15, 2023 Joint Status Letter to Court Aug. 31, 2023 Dec. 22, 2023 Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures Oct. 27, 2023 Feb. 16, 2024 Defendant's Expert Disclosures Nov. 30, 2023 March 15, 2024 All Expert Discovery Jan. 31, 2024 May 31, 2024 Class Certification Motion Feb. 29, 2024 June 28, 2024 Class Certification Opposition March 29, 2024 30 days after filing of Class Cert. Motion Class Certification Reply April 19, 2024 21 days after filing of Class Cert. Opposition Walgreens specializes in filling prescriptions, health and wellness products, health information, and photo services A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EzLCZ0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy Storino, Esq. DENTONS 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606-6361 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 E-mail: Timothy.storino@dentons.com WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH ELLIOTT, SUSAN YOUNG, and GLORIA BALALA SAITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. and TAG WARRANTY CORPORATION f/k/a AMT WARRANTY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) Certifying class for the three claims in the Complaint; "All natural persons domiciled in the United States or its territories who purchased a Warrantech extended service plan containing a "no lemon guarantee" who have had more than three (3) service calls or repair attempts within any 12-month period between April 2016 and the present and have not received a replacement product." (ii) Appointing Plaintiffs Kenneth Elliott, Susan Young, and Gloria Balala Saito as class representatives; and (iii) Appoint Andrew R. Lynch and Joseph W. Weeks as class counsel. Warrantech provides innovative extended service plans (ESPs) and warranty programs for retailers, dealers, distributors, and manufacturers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIhQRO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Weeks, Esq. MCNALLY WEEKS 125 Clairemont Ave., Ste. 450 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-3131 - and - Andrew R. Lynch, Esq. ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C. 125 Clairemont Ave., Ste. 470 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-7735 WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Seeks Sept. 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH ELLIOTT, SUSAN YOUNG, and GLORIA BALALA SAITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. and TAG WARRANTY CORPORATION, f/k/a AMT WARRANTY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time, until September 29, 2023, to file its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on August 30, 2023. The Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to File Matters Under Seal and both Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification and all supporting exhibits have been filed under provisional seal. Warrantech provides innovative extended service plans (ESPs) and warranty programs for retailers, dealers, distributors, and manufacturers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EHq2Sw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Weeks, Esq. MCNALLY WEEKS 125 Clairmont Avenue, Suite 450 Decatur, GA 30030-2560 E-mail: jweeks@mcnallyweeks.com - and - Andrew R. Lynch, Esq. ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C. 125 Clairmont Avenue, Suite 470 Decatur, GA 30030-2560 E-mail: andrew@attorneyandrew.com The Defendants are represented by: Alycen A. Moss, Esq. Luciana Aquino, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR The Promenade, Suite 400 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-2052 Facsimile: (877) 728-1396 E-mail: amoss@cozen.com laquino@cozen.com WASHINGTON, DC: Alexander Seeks to Amend Final Approval Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ALEXANDER, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01885-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending the Final Approval Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23(d)(1) and (d)(2) by enlarging the Class Administrator making to make distributions and to submit a report to the Court, and by raising the cap on the Class Administrator's fee. The Final Approval Order capped the total amount of the Administration Fee for the Class Administrator at $35,000. The final invoice submitted brings the total fees paid to for the Class Administrator to $36,902. Class Counsel believes the amounts are reasonable. Funds are available in the amount remaining after distributions to pay the invoice (as provided in the Settlement Agreement). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RlcjZc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Claiborne, Esq. 717 D Street, N.W. 300 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 824-0700 E-mail: claibornelaw@gmail.com WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 16, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHELAN, et al, v. WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00567-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend the complaint or Jan. 31, 2024 join parties must be filed by Plaintiffs no later than: -- Any motion to amend the answer or Jan. 31, 2024 join parties must be filed by any Defendant no later than: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Sept. 20, 2023 Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by: -- All fact discovery will be completed Aug. 30, 2024 (not propounded) by: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Sept. 16, 2024 certification and class certification expert declarations are due: -- The Defendants may depose Plaintiffs' Dec. 17, 2024 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendants' rebuttal class certification expert declarations are due: -- The Plaintiffs may reply and submit Jan. 17, 2025 reply class certification expert declarations by: Webster Financial Corporation is a bank holding company. The Company's banking subsidiary provides a wide range of financial services to individuals, and families. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PEWviq at no extra charge.[CC] WEST VIRGINIA: Rosel Bid for Leave to File Outside of Time OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, individually and as an employee 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 Volk entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file outside of time. The Plaintiffs' late-filed Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is permitted to remain on the docket as filed. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. The Plaintiffs seek leave to refile their Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification outside the time limit imposed in the Court's August 24, 2023, Order. They contend the late filing was due to a clerical error on the part of Plaintiffs' counsel which resulted in the relevant deadline being calendared one day late. The Plaintiffs' deadline to refile their memorandum in support of class certification was August 28, 2023. 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, and WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, III individually and in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fHolk at no extra charge.[CC] WEST VIRGINIA: West Va. Parents Files Appeal in Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal has been filed by WEST VIRGINIA PARENTS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, et al. against Matthew Christiansen, in his official capacity as the State Health Officer and Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Health, in the lawsuit entitled West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Matthew Christiansen, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00158-JPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The nature of the suit is stated as Civil Rights. The appellate case is captioned West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Matthew Christiansen, Case No. 23-1887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 25, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WEST VIRGINIA PARENTS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. 25 Town Center Boulevard Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Defendants-Appellees DR. MATTHEW CHRISTIANSEN, in his official capacities as the State Health Officer and Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Health, et al., are represented by: Steven R. Compton, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 812 Quarrier Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 558-2131 - and - Michael Brian Hissam, Esq. Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq. Andrew Carver Robey, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC P.O. Box 3983 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (681) 265-3802 WESTERN DIGITAL: Solid-State Drives "Defective," Jackson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and SANDISK LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04681 (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; breach of express warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; unjust enrichment; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged design, marketing, and distribution of defective SanDisk and Western Digital solid-state drives (SSDs). According to the complaint, the SanDisk SSDs are suddenly, and without warning, wiping data and, in some cases, becoming unreadable. In other words, the SSDs suddenly become worthless. After months of inaction, Defendant Western Digital finally admitted in May of 2023 that the SanDisk SSDs had a firmware problem and released a firmware update that purported to resolve issues on some of the SanDisk SSDs that are regularly failing customers. At the time, Western Digital announced that they addressed this firmware issue in the manufacturing process, and they can confirm that the issue is not impacting currently shipping products. However, Western Digital's purported fix has not resolved anything and consumers continue to have their products fail, causing them to lose the valuable data they stored on the SanDisk SSDs, and defeating the purpose of owning a SanDisk SSD in the first place. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by the Defendants to be merchantable. Western Digital Corporation is a digital storage solutions company headquartered in San Jose, California. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. is a company that develops and manufactures storage solutions, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. SanDisk LLC is a wholly owned brand of Western Digital Corp., with its headquarters in Milpitas, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com WOODLAND ENTERPRISES: Fails to Reimburse Drivers, Loynd Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH LOYND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOODLAND ENTERPRISES, INC., and WESLEY K. WOOD, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00401-DCN (D. Idaho, September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reasonably reimburse automobile expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Idaho Falls, Idaho from approximately March 2021 to September 2021. Woodland Enterprises, Inc. is an operator of Domino's Pizza franchise stores based in Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Nicholson, Esq. Steven Fisher, Esq. McCONNELL WAGNER SYKES + STACEY, PLLC 827 E. Park Blvd., Ste. 201 Boise, ID 83712 Telephone: (208) 489-0100 Facsimile: (208) 489-0110 E-mail: sfisher@mwsslawyers.com WOW 1ST: Loynd Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Business Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH LOYND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOW 1ST, INC., and SEAN MCCOMAS, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00400-REP (D. Idaho, September 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reasonably reimburse automobile expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Idaho Falls, Idaho from approximately September 2021 to April 2023. WOW 1st, Inc. is an operator of Domino's Pizza franchise stores based in Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Nicholson, Esq. Steven Fisher, Esq. McCONNELL WAGNER SYKES + STACEY, PLLC 827 E. Park Blvd., Ste. 201 Boise, ID 83712 Telephone: (208) 489-0100 Facsimile: (208) 489-0110 E-mail: sfisher@mwsslawyers.com WOW RESTAURANT: Seeks to Decertify Putative Class in Chen Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. WOW RESTAURANT TH LLC d/b/a Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-02774-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the putative class after the Court entered its order to conditionally grant certification of class and state as follows. The Order conditionally granted the certification was issued on June 13, 2023. However, after more than two months, no opt-in notice has been filed with the Court. "Evidence of similarly situated employees who desire to opt in may be based on affidavits of other employees, consents to join the lawsuit filed by other employees, or expert evidence on the existence of other similarly situated employees," the Defendants contend. Yaki Sushi offers authentic and delicious Japanese cuisine, plus a cook-your-own Korean BBQ experience. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sJI7wo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jianyin Liu, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES LIU P LLC 15750 SW 92nd Ave Unit 20C Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 Telephone: (305) 209 6188 E-mail: jamesliulaw@gmail.com XOOM ENERGY: Small Commercial Customers Get Class Status in Merkin ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order certifying the following class: "All New York XOOM residential or small commercial customers who were charged a variable rate for electricity or natural gas under the operative 2013 XOOM New York variable rate sales contract or its equivalent language at any time from January 1, 2013, through and including the date of judgment." Excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of Defendants, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of Defendants, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest, all federal, state and local government entities and any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Court also entered an order appointing Wittels McInturff Palikovic as lead class counsel and appointing Susanna Mirkin as class representative. XOOM has suggested no other reason a class action is not superior to an alternative in this case, and I see none. This case involves a large class with small individual claims that become significant only in the aggregate. The class action mechanism is meant for this very situation, and I find that a class action is superior to any alternative, Judge Ross says. XOOM is an independent energy service company ("ESCO") that offers an assortment of energy products to residential and commercial customers as an alternative to their local utilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ZR5Vi at no extra charge.[CC] YARDI SYSTEMS: Robledo Must Oppose Summary Judgment Bid by Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LEE ROBLEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01233-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan D Albright entered an order setting briefing schedule and staying class certification discovery and briefing. -- Defendant's Summary Judgment Sept. 8, 2023 Motion Due: -- Plaintiff's Opposition Due: Nov. 17, 2023 -- Defendant's Reply Due: Dec. 18, 2023 Yardi offers management software and client support services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EF9RVF 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 ***