/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230926.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 193
Headlines
3M CO: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 2
3M COMPANY: Long Suit Removed to D. Oregon
3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Simpson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACTIVUS CONNECT: Carrington Sues Over Agents' Unpaid Wages
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Garrett Suit Initially Certified
AIRGAS USA: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Van-Packer
ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
ALDER PROTECTION: Seeks to Decertify Ennis Collective Action
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Durgin Seeks to Reset Hearing of Class Cert Bid
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Dismisses McCarthy's 1st Amended Complaint
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Continue Oct 6. Discovery
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Seeks to File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 21
AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid
AMERICAN HOME: Faces Remsen Class Suit Over Robocalls
AMNEAL PHARMA: Antitrust Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Eaton Securities Suit
ARAMARK SERVICES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 6
AURORA SHOE COMPANY: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend VIH Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Baca Sues Over Defective Microneedling Tool
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Faces $500MM Racial Profiling Class Action
BITFINEX: New York Judge Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Bid for Class Certification OK'd
BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Walker & Cramer Suits Denied
BROCK PIERCE: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Rowan Bid to Certify Class
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Court Denies as Moot Fraser Class Cert. Bid
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Court OK's Fraser Class Certification Bid
CALIFORNIA CHECK: Class Action Settlement in Gilberg Gets Final Nod
CANADA: Military Veterans' Long-Term Benefits Settlement Finalized
CAPITA PLC: Data Breach Class Action Claimants Keep Rising
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: $7.9MM Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 13
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Arm & Hammer False Ad Detergent Class Suit
COBHAM ADVANCED: Must Oppose to Class Certification Bid by Oct. 16
CONSOL ENERGY: Workers' ERISA Suit Ongoing
CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Seeks Provisional Status of Class
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Loses Bids for Arbitration in Johnson Suit
CORSAIR GAMING: McKinney Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Domestic Flight Prices' Conspiracy
DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 13
ERIK ANDERSON: Malork Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing
FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FRED MEYER: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended to March 8, 2024
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit
FRINGE BENEFIT: Wants 5th Cir. to Reverse Class Certification
GEMA BERRY: Lopez Seeks to Vacate Class Certification Bid Deadline
GEMINI SOLAR: Class Certification Bid in Pack Suit Due Oct. 26
GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Wins Class Certification Bid
GOHEALTH INC: No Trial Date Scheduled for Securities Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Order
GOOGLE LLC: Consumentenbond Sues Over Privacy Violations
GULF HARBOUR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Toussaint Class Suit
HAPPY GROUP: Court Vacates Hearing on Bid for Class Certification
HAPPY STATE: Seeks Texas Supreme Ct. Review of Ruling in Williams
HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class of Patients
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Summary Judgment Hearing Postponed
HOMEADVISOR: Faces Airquip Securities Suit
HOSTESS BRANDS: Juan Monteverde Reminds of J.M. Smucker Sale
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Due Oct. 31
HP INC: Court Sets Briefing Sched for Renewed Suit Dismissal Bid
HP INC: Settlement in EWPF Suit Gets Court OK
HP INC: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Twardzik Consumer Suit
HUB GROUP: Andujar Sues Over Improper Wage Deductions, Unpaid OT
HUNT MH: Parties Seek Final Approval of Settlement in Skinner Suit
HUT AMERICAN: Collier Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
HYZON MOTORS: Brennan Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York
HYZON MOTORS: Miller Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court
IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit Over Batoclimab
INDIAN HARBOR: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Out Flood Claims
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Leacock Securities Class Suit
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Suit Over Property Tax Assessment
JAGUAR LAND: Bishop's Vehicle Defect Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
JAMES CLAYCOMB: Abuharba Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Prisoners
JANUS HOMECARE: Completion of Fact Discovery Due Jan. 15, 2024
JELD-WEN HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Molded Door Prices
JO-ANN STORES: Rath Must File Class Cert Bid by March 27, 2024
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Santana Seeks Conditional Class Certification
JORNS & ASSOCIATES: Prairie Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
JS FOOD: Faces Collado Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KIRSTEN HUNTER: Court Tosses Holloway Bid for Class Certification
LEE ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Class of Stockholders Certified in Nayani Suit
LITTLE CAESARS: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action for $7 Million
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: $7.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
LOANDEPOT INC: Approval of Settlement in Consolidated Suit Pending
LOUISIANA: Plaintiffs Win Class Status Bid
LUMINAR TECH: Faces Johnson Shareholder Suit Over Photonic IC
MAJESTIC STAR: Class Certification Bids in Rodriguez Due Dec. 27
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: 4th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
MDL 2428: Court OK's Dismissal of MSP Recovery From Fresenius MDL
MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 26
MENARD INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Leonhardt
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek Atty's Fees, Expenses & Awards
META PLATFORMS: Tucson Unified School District to Join Class Action
MITCHELL GROCERY: Fails to Put Nutrition Labels on Bakery Goods
NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit
NESTLE USA: Falcone Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 10
NETFLIX INC: East St. Louis Seeks to Revive Class Action
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Burey Sues Over Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK LIFE: Krohnengold Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
NEW YUNG: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 4 in Xia Suit
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NY & CO: Ruhireimer Must Seek Entry of Default from Court
OCS INC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Court Junks Discovery Requests
OPENAI INC: Faces Infringement Class Action in California
OPENAI INC: Seeks Dismissal of Several Claims in Tremblay Suit
OSF HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
PACWEST BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 10
PAPA INC: Dec. 18 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought in Pardo
PAYCOR INC: Court Stays Johns Class Suit
PHARAOH ENERGY: Carlson FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
PHARMERICA LOGISTIC: Bid for Protective Order Tossed
PINK JEEP: Filing Bid for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
PINNACLE WEST: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 19, 2024
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Berlanga Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
PREMERA BLUE: Bids for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Oct. 6
PREMIER NUTRITION: Suit Over Joint Supplements Ongoing
PROBUS INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE LIFE: Armstrong Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
R T FARM: Mondragon Granted Leave to File First Amended Complaint
REPUBLIC STEEL: Booker Sues Over WARN Act Violation
RIPPLE LABS: Sostack Seeks to Certify Two Classes
RITE AID: Gregory Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Berbe Suit Seeks to Certify Amended Classes
ROSEN PUBLISHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RPT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Kimco Merger
SACRAMENTO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inaccessible Sidewalks
SALESFORCE INC: Bid to Amend 401 (K) Plan Class Suit Denied
SCIPLAY CORP: Court Dismisses Boorn Class Suit
SENSIO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers
SEQUENOM INC: Averts Investors' Securities Class Action Suit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Securities Suit Ongoing
SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Due Jan. 16, 2024
STAR NISSAN: Faces Arsenal Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
STATE FARM: Bid to Strike Discrimination Class Suit Claims Denied
TANDEM DIABETES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7
TARGET CORP: N.D. New York Dismisses Solak Consumer Class Suit
TEXAS RICHMOND: Alotaibi Sues Over Lost Wages and Unpaid Tips
TIMEC: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings in Race Bias Suit OK'd
TRAVEL GUARD: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Exhibits OK'd
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2024
TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
TUSCAN HOLDINGS: Faces Jacob Stockholder Suit
UIPATH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 6
UIPATH INC: Bids to Serve as Lead Plaintiff in Gera Suit Due Nov. 5
UIPATH INC: Gera Sues Over False and Misleading SEC Statements
UNICREDIT: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 5
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Seeks to Continue Case Management Dates
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Handgun Access
UNITY TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Mulled Over Install Fees, Charges
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Eckl Files Suit Over Data Breach
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Fiacco Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
UPS STORE: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Notary Fees
VIVENDI TICKETING: Peterson Files Suit in S.D. New York
VOICE OF GUO: Court OK's Zhang Class Certification Bid
VOLVO CARS: Jenner Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
W.W. NORTON & COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Castellon Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Most of Claims in Health Plan Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settles Theranos Fraud Class Action for $44-M
WALMART INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Water Enhancers' Class Suit
WALMART INC: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Practices
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Junks Santana Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Sorace Class Suit
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Rent Fixing Scheme
[*] 66.2% of All TCPA Cases Filed in August Were Class Actions
[*] City of Waco to File Class Action v. Firefighting Foam Makers
*********
3M CO: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 2
-------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND COURT-APPROVAL HEARING
In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2:18-mn-02873
This Document relates to: City of Camden, et al., v. 3M Company,
No. 2:23-cv-03147-RMG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
CHARLESTON DIVISION
TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS: All Active Public Water Systems in the
United States of America that have one or more Impacted Water
Sources as of June 22, 2023; and all Active Public Water Systems
that do not have one or more Impacted Water Sources as of June 22,
2023 and (i) are required to test for certain PFAS under U.S. EPA's
UCMR-5, or (ii) serve more than 3,300 people, according to U.S.
EPA's SDWIS data system.
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement, available for
review at www.PFASWaterSettlement.com.
Active Public Water System means a Public Water System whose
activity-status field in SDWIS states that the system is "Active."
Impacted Water Source means a Water Source that has a Qualifying
Test Result showing a Measurable Concentration of PFAS.
As used above, Public Water System means a system for the provision
to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other
constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen (15)
service connections or regularly serves an average of at least
twenty-five (25) individuals daily at least sixty (60) days out of
the year, consistent with the use of that term in the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f(4)(A), and
40 C.F.R. Part 141.
Public Water System includes (i) any collection, treatment,
storage, and distribution facilities under control of the operator
of such system and used primarily in connection with such system,
and (ii) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not
under such control which are used primarily in connection with such
system. Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the term
"Public Water System" refers to a Community Water System of any
size or a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System that serves more
than 3,300 people, according to SDWIS; or any Person (but not any
financing or lending institution) that has legal authority or
responsibility (by statute, regulation, other law, or contract) to
fund or incur financial obligations for the design, engineering,
installation, operation, or maintenance of any facility or
equipment that treats, filters, remediates, or manages water that
has entered or may enter Drinking Water or any Public Water System;
but does not refer to a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
that serves 3,300 or fewer people, according to SDWIS, or to a
Transient Non-Community Water System of any size. It is the
intention of the Settlement Agreement that the definition of
"Public Water System" be as broad, expansive, and inclusive as
possible.
What Is the Purpose of this Notice? The purpose of this Notice is
(i) to advise you of a proposed settlement of certain Claims
against 3M Company ("3M" or "Defendant") in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina (the "Court");
(ii) to summarize your rights in connection with the Settlement;
and (iii) to inform you of a Court hearing to consider whether to
grant final approval of the Settlement (the "Final Fairness
Hearing"), to be held on February 2, 2024. at 10:00 a.m. EST in
Charleston Courtroom #1, J. Waties Waring Judicial Center, before
the Honorable Richard M. Gergel, United States District Judge of
the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, located at 85 Broad Street, Charleston, South Carolina
29401.
What Are the Key Terms of the Proposed Settlement? 3M has agreed to
pay an amount not less than $10,500,000,000 and not more than
$12,500,000,000, inclusive (the "Settlement Amount"), subject to
final approval of the Settlement by the Court and certain other
conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement. 3M shall
additionally pay up to $5,000,000 to cover costs incurred by the
Notice Administrator in the course of executing the Notice Plan.
Together, these payments constitute the "Settlement Funds." In no
event shall 3M be required under the Settlement Agreement to pay
any amounts above the Settlement Funds. Any fees, costs, or
expenses payable under the Settlement Agreement shall be paid out
of, and shall not be in addition to, the Settlement Funds. Each
Settlement Class Member that has not excluded itself from the Class
will be eligible to receive a settlement check(s) from the Claims
Administrator based on the Allocation Procedures developed by Class
Counsel, which are subject to final approval by the Court as fair
and reasonable and whose administration
is under the oversight of the Special Master.
What Are My Options?
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT. You must file a Claims Form
to be eligible to receive a payment under the Settlement. You can
submit your Claims Form online at www.PFASWaterSettlement.com, or
you can download, complete, and mail your Claims Form to the Claims
Administrator at AFFF Public Water System Claims, P.O. Box 4466,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821. The deadline for a Phase One
Settlement Class Member to submit a Phase One Public Water System
Settlement Claims Form is 60 days following the Effective Date, and
the deadline for a Phase Two Settlement Class Member to submit a
Phase Two Action Fund Claims Form is July 31, 2026.
Regardless of whether you file a Claims Form or receive any
distribution under the Settlement, unless you timely opt out as
described below, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment or other final disposition related to the Settlement,
including the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and
will be precluded from pursuing claims against 3M separately if
those Claims are within the scope
of the Release.
YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT. If you do not wish to be a
Settlement Class Member and do not want to participate in the
Settlement and receive a settlement check, you may exclude yourself
from the Class by completing and mailing a notice of intention to
opt out. Any Person within the Settlement Class that wishes to opt
out of the Settlement Class and Settlement must serve a written and
signed statement entitled "Request for Exclusion" on the Notice
Administrator, the Special Master, the Claims Administrator, 3M's
Counsel, and Class Counsel no later than December 11, 2023.
YOU CAN OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT. Any Settlement Class Member that
has not successfully excluded itself ("opted out") may object to
the Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member that wishes to object
to the Settlement or to an award of fees or expenses to Class
Counsel must file a written and signed statement designated
"Objection" with the Clerk of the Court and provide service on 3M's
Counsel and Class Counsel no later than November 11, 2023.
VISIT WWW.PFASWATERSETTLEMENT.COM FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT
YOUR RIGHTS
The Court's Final Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold the Final
Fairness Hearing in Charleston Courtroom #1, J. Waties Waring
Judicial Center of the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, located at 85 Broad Street, Charleston,
South Carolina 29401, on February 2, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. EST. At
that time, the Court will determine, among other things, (i)
whether the Settlement should be granted final approval as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, (ii) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, (iii) whether the Settlement Class should be
conclusively certified, (iv) whether Settlement Class Members
should be bound by the Release set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, (v) the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be
awarded to Class Counsel, if any, and (vi) the amount of the award
to be made to the Class Representatives for their services, if
any.
The Final Fairness Hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or
continued by Order of the Court without further notice to the
Class.
How Do I Get More Information? Please visit
www.PFASWaterSettlement.com or call toll free 1-855-714-4341. You
may also contact Class Counsel or the Notice Administrator for more
information:
Class Counsel Class Counsel
Scott Summy
Baron & Budd, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com
Paul J. Napoli
Napoli Shkolnik
1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, PR 00907
Email: pnapoli@NSPRlaw.com
Michael A. London
Douglas & London
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Fl.
New York, NY 10038
Email: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
Elizabeth A. Fegan
Fegan Scott LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
beth@feganscott.com
Joseph F. Rice
Motley Rice LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Notice Administrator Claims Administrator
In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products
Liability Litigation
c/o 3M Notice Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Email: PFASSettlement@AngeionGroup.com
AFFF Public Water System Claims
PO Box 4466
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Email: Info@pfaswatersettlement.com
3M COMPANY: Long Suit Removed to D. Oregon
------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard D. Long v. 3M COMPANY, Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation, Case No. 23CV27457 was removed from the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, to the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon on Sept.
12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01325-AR.
The Complaint alleges, in part, that Plaintiff's Richard D. Long,
was exposed to asbestos while working as a laborer for Dillingham
Corp. from the early 70s-mid-80s, then as a hands-on foreman and
senior foreman for Cascade General, Inc. from the mid-80s through
the late 90s, at various locations including, but not limited to
the shipyard at Swan Island, and finally, as a hands-on foreman for
Marcom from the late 90s-early 2000s at the Marcom shipyard.
Plaintiff also alleges asbestos exposure from automotive work on
his personal and family's vehicles. The Plaintiff served Foster
Wheeler with the Complaint on July 19, 2023. See Attachment B
(Service of Process Note/Affidavit of Service).[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher S. Marks, Esq.
Malika Johnson, Esq.
TANENBAUM KEALE, LLP
One Convention Place
701 Pike Street, Suite 1575
Seattle WA 98101
Phone: (206) 889-5150
Email: cmarks@tktrial.com
mjohnson@tktrial.com
3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan M. Ramirez, 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-04128-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 Hashimoto's
disease 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: Simpson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Simpson, 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-04130-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 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: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Ray Smith, Jr., 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-04131-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 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: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald L. Smith, 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-04132-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
ACTIVUS CONNECT: Carrington Sues Over Agents' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
SHANEEQUA CARRINGTON and KASCEY CASTILLO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACTIVUS
CONNECT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01708 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 6,
2023) arises from the Defendant's systemic failure to compensate
its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked
at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and common law.
Plaintiffs Carrington and Castillo worked for the Defendant as
agents from August 2022 until present and from December 2022 to
April 2023, respectively. They assert that Defendant compensated
them on an hourly basis and classified them as non-exempt employees
under the FLSA.
Activus Connect LLC provides customer experience outsourced
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
- and -
Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES
6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
Fort Meyers, FL 33912
Telephone: (239) 322-1615
E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. 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 on June 7, 2023, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
entered as order staying a consolidated a class action pending the
outcome of a private mediation between the parties.
On July 29, 2021, Robert Charles Faille Jr., a purported
shareholder of the company, filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its current and former
officers. The complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the company's stock between November
11, 2019 and July 16, 2021. The complaint generally alleges that
the company and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose material information
regarding the company's organic growth trajectory.
On October 14, 2021, the Delaware County Employees Retirement
System and the Bucks County Employees Retirement System were named
Lead Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on November 22, 2021, which asserts
substantially the same claim, but adds a number of current and
former directors of the company as additional defendants and a new
theory of recovery based on the company's alleged failure to
disclose information concerning the company's former Co-CEO's
alleged tax fraud arising from certain past private activity.
On January 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. Lead plaintiffs' opposition to defendants'
motion was filed on March 21, 2022, and defendants' reply was filed
April 15, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the court issued an opinion and
order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.
On July 15, 2022, the court entered a scheduling order providing
for, inter alia, a schedule for completing class certification
discovery, as well as setting a briefing schedule for motions for
class certification. Pursuant to the scheduling order, lead
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 28,
2022. On December 12, 2022, the court entered an amended scheduling
order with respect to class certification discovery and remaining
briefing on lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the defendants filed
their opposition to lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on March 30, 2023, and lead plaintiffs filed their reply on May 22,
2023.
AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment,
medical supplies and related services.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Strickland et al v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, LLC, Case No.
6:23-cv-01672 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Paul
G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff
and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
America Cash provides cash advances online and through centers
across the United States.[CC]
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Garrett Suit Initially Certified
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cecil C Garrett, v.
Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No.
2:21-cv-02082-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa
entered an order preliminarily certifying lawsuit for settlement
purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following class
of plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit:
"All natural persons who were the subject:
(1) of a consumer report furnished by Defendant Advantage Plus
Credit Reporting Incorporated to a third party from December
8,
2019 through November 2021;
(2) where the consumer report contained a notation that the
consumer was deceased from at least one of Experian,
Equifax,
or Trans Union; and
(3) where at least one other of Experian, Equifax, or Trans
Union
did not contain a deceased notation.
The Court expressly reserves the right to determine, should the
occasion arise, whether the above-captioned Lawsuit may continue to
be certified as a class action for purposes other than settlement,
and Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated retains
all rights to assert that the Lawsuit may not be certified as a
class
action except for purposes of this settlement.
The Court appoints the following:
-- As Class Representative: Plaintiff Cecil C. Garrett.
-- As Class Counsel: E. Michelle Drake and Joseph C. Hashmall,
Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE, Ste. 205, Minneapolis,
MN
55413.
-- Appoints as Settlement Administrators: E. Michelle Drake and
Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE,
Ste.
205, Minneapolis, MN 55413.
The class action suit arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. sections 1681, et seq. The Plaintiff Cecil C.
Garrett filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against
Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated.
On December 8, 2022, the parties filed a "Notice of Settlement and
Joint Motion to Stay Case Deadlines" indicating they resolved the
claims in the FAC.
Advantage is a "consumer reporting agency" that assembles consumer
credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports
to third parties.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46iAeN7 at no extra charge.[CC]
AIRGAS USA: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Van-Packer
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAN-PACKER CO. v. Airgas
USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-04090-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Airgas operates as an air liquide company. The Company distributes
industrial, medical, and specialty gases, welding supplies, safety
products,
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fUlv8 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS
VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual;
ADAM CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE
MCCARTNEY, an individual; and DOES IX, Case No.
2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify the Proposed Class:
"All persons who are, or have been, employed by Alder as sales
representatives on the residual compensation model during the
applicable limitations period, which for the contract claims
(the
claims with the longest limitations period) would run from six
years before the filing of this action through the present."
The "Proposed Class Claims" would include the following causes of
action:
-- Count II: Utah Payment of Wages Act
-- Count III: Breach of Contract
-- Count IV: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
-- Count V: Utah Sales Representative Commission Payment Act
-- Count VI: Common Law Fraudulent Inducement
-- Count VII: Common Law Fraud
-- Count VIII: Securities Fraud
-- Count IX: Unjust Enrichment
-- Count X: Declaratory Judgment
The case is about a company-wide pattern and practice of persuading
sales representatives through false representations to work for
Alder for little or no compensation and failing to pay agreed-upon
compensation.
The named Plaintiffs and the proposed class are the current and
former residual sales representatives who were harmed by this
fraudulent residual compensation program.
Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security,
home automation, and life safety services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpmcu5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew A. Steward, Esq.
Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq.
Keith M. Woodwell, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
One Utah Center, Suite 2200
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: mas@clydesnow.com
slm@clydesnow.com
vbf@clydesnow.com
kmw@clydesnow.com
ALDER PROTECTION: Seeks to Decertify Ennis Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS
VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM
CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE
MCCARTNEY, an individual; and COVE SMART, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP (D. Utah), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to decertify the
collective action, and dismissing the improperly joined Plaintiffs
without prejudice.
Part of this lawsuit involves a putative collective action in which
the named Plaintiffs assert on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, that Alder allegedly misclassified the members
of the collective action as independent contractors under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and should have paid them overtime.
During the pendency of the litigation, the Plaintiffs have
abandoned their FLSA minimum wage claim because Plaintiffs’ own
disclosed numbers and calculations, including the numbers and
calculations their damages expert relied on, indicate that their
alleged $26.00 regular rate of pay in commissions far exceeded the
$7.25 minimum wage allegedly required under the FLSA (and also the
$10.88 rate of over time).
The Defendants have a currently pending motion for partial summary
judgment, in which they demonstrate that Plaintiffs' and the
collective action members’ remaining FLSA overtime claim should
also be dismissed because Plaintiffs and the collective action
members are exempt pursuant to both the "retail or service
establishment" exemption and the "outside sales" exemption.
Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security,
home automation, and life safety services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46aLxH1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Ryan Mitchell, Esq.
Christopher A. Langston, Esq.
Mika Hillery, Esq.
MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD, P.C.
Nine Exchange Place, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 998-8888
Facsimile: (801) 998-8077
E-mail: rmitchell@mbmlawyers.com
clangston@mbmlawyers.com
mhillery@mbmlawyers.com
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Durgin Seeks to Reset Hearing of Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN DURGIN, Individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:19-cv-00721-RRS-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that the
Motion for Class Certification be reconsidered and reset for
hearing.
Allstate is a publicly traded property casualty insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44QgcYZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
KENNETH D. ST. PE, APLC
311 W. University Ave., Suite A
Lafayette, LA 70506
Telephone: (337) 534-4043
- and -
J. R. Whaley, Esq.
J. R. WHALEY
Jefferson Highway Building 12,
Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Telephone: (225) 302-8810
Facsimile: (225) 302-8814
- and -
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
- and -
Kenneth W. Dejean, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
Lafayette, LA 70502-4325
Telephone: (337) 235-5294
Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Dismisses McCarthy's 1st Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the
lawsuit styled TRACY MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01019-BJR (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiff Tracy McCarthy brought this putative class action against
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Audible, Inc., asserting claims of deceptive practices, false
advertising, and unjust enrichment. She alleges that she was a
member of Amazon's Prime service and, without her consent, she
became enrolled in Audible's service when she completed a
transaction on Amazon's website.
Ms. McCarthy commenced the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York in 2022, and the case was
transferred to this Court in July 2023. Currently pending before
the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint.
Ms. McCarthy alleges violations of the New York General Business
Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350. The parties participated in a
pre-motion conference to discuss the Defendants' planned motion to
dismiss, and she was given an opportunity to amend her complaint in
response to the identified deficiencies if the parties could not
reach settlement at a mediation conference. After her amended
complaint was filed in March 2023, the parties stipulated to a
transfer of the case to this Court.
In her amended complaint, Ms. McCarthy pleads three causes of
action: (1) First Cause of Action - Violation of GBL Section 349
(deceptive acts or practices); (2) Second Cause of Action -
Violation of GBL Section 350 (false advertising); and (3) Third
Cause of Action - Unjust Enrichment.
The Defendants' pending motion seeks to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice, arguing that Ms. McCarthy fails to state
a plausible claim, her GBL claims are time-barred, her newly
pleaded unjust enrichment claim is duplicative, and she lacks
standing to seek injunctive relief.
Judge Rothstein finds that the Plaintiff's GBL Claims are
time-barred. Ms. McCarthy has failed to plead the necessary rare
and exceptional circumstances in which a party is prevented in some
extraordinary way from exercising her rights, Judge Rothstein
opines, quoting Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d
74, 80 (2d Cir. 2003).
Although Ms. McCarthy pleads that Amazon "tricked" her into paying
for an unwanted membership, Judge Rothstein finds she does not
plead facts to show that the Defendants wrongfully concealed the
monthly charges for Audible, only that the charge appeared on her
monthly statement as an "Amazon" charge. Nor does she plead that
she made any effort to determine the source of the monthly
charges.
Judge Rothstein opines that the monthly charges do not have a
tolling effect because the charges reflect the continuing effects
of the alleged unlawful conduct--being tricked into enrolling in
the Audible service.
Ms. McCarthy alleges that the wrongful act occurred on or about
Oct. 13, 2018, and the monthly charges started on Nov. 13, 2018,
and continuing every month thereafter. She did not file her
complaint until April 26, 2022, which was more than three years and
six months later, Judge Rothstein notes.
Therefore, Ms. McCarthy's GBL claims are barred by the three-year
statute of limitations and will be dismissed with prejudice, Judge
Rothstein holds.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants contend that Ms.
McCarthy fails to allege a misleading statement or practice, which
not only defeats her GBL claims, but also her unjust enrichment
claim.
In sum, Ms. McCarthy alleges that Amazon "touted" free titles and
an invitation to start an Audible trial membership, and she
received a free title and a trial membership--exactly as "touted."
Therefore, Judge Rothstein holds, she fails to allege deception in
Amazon's promotional language. She complains that she was not
adequately informed regarding the details of the membership, but
she admits that she did not read the conditions.
Ms. McCarthy's arguments are unpersuasive, and her allegations are
insufficient to establish deception in Amazon's promotional
material or during the purchase transaction, Judge Rothstein holds.
Accordingly, she fails to plead a plausible deceptive practice or
false advertising claim, which also results in a failure to plead
an unjust enrichment claim.
Because the GBL claims are time-barred, and the amended complaint
has failed to address the pleading insufficiencies in the original
complaint, Judge Rothstein holds that Ms. McCarthy's amended
complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The First Amended
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ph26n58 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Continue Oct 6. Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an
individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
parties have agreed, pending the Court's approval, to continue:
(1) The deadline to complete class discovery to October 6, 2023;
(2) The deadline for Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion to
October 13, 2023;
(3) The deadline for the Defendants' Response to the Motion for
Class Certification to December 15, 2023; and
(4) The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to January 15, 2024.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LsrU5j at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Kalish, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 826-5354
E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com
- and -
Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
PILOT LAW, P.C.
4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr.
San Diego, CA 92117
Telephone: (619) 255-2398
E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com
- and -
Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW, APC
101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 235-7140
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
- and -
Kevin L. Wilson, Esq.
KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC
3110 Horton Avenue
Louisville, KY 40220
Telephone: (502) 276-5050
E-mail: kevin@klwilsonlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Shannon McDermott, Esq.
Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq.
Heather L. Shook, Esq.
Shannon McDermott, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com
HShook@perkinscoie.com
SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
Brian A. Richman, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com
BRichman@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Seeks to File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN P. SPENCE,
individually and as a representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
401(K) PLAN and the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(K) PLAN FOR PILOTS,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and the AMERICAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Case No. 4:23-cv-00552-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
for filing his motion for class certification to November 21, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 2, 2023), asserting ERISA
claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class of participants in
the American Airlines 401(k) Plan and the American Airlines
401(k) Plan for Pilots.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 4, 2023. The
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 25, 2023, mooting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the original Complaint.
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46c05WJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew B. Stephens, Esq.
Heather Gebelin Hacker, Esq.
HACKER STEPHENS LLP
108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 399-3022
E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com
heather@hackerstephens.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4280 West 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE L. MORIARTY,
Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty,
Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on
Behalf of the Class, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Texas Corporation; BAYSIDE INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 thru 20, Inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-01709-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order allowing her to file a renewed motion for class
certification after her prior motion was dismissed "without
prejudice."
American General offers life, travel, annuities, mutual funds, home
loan, retirement, and other related insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RkCBuz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
AMERICAN HOME: Faces Remsen Class Suit Over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman of TCPAWorld reports that American Home Shield was
recently sued in a new TCPA class action alleging the warranty
provider left prerecorded voicemail messages without consent. What
is fascinating to me is that AHS claims Plaintiff visited its owned
and operated website ahs.com and filled out a request for a quote
but the Plaintiff strenuously denies it.
So Plaintiff Kimberly Remsen contends she received multiple
unwanted prerecorded calls starting on July 12, 2023. The calls
were allegedly identical to calls complained about on YouMail.
AHS responded to a pre-suit demand letter claiming that Plaintiff
visited ahs.com but AHS apparently refused to provide back up
evidence:
28. On July 22, 2023, a reply was sent by Ashley Williams, Customer
& Regulatory
Claim Resolution Specialist for AHS confirming that Plaintiff's
phone number was added to
AHS's do not call database.
29. On July 24, 2023, a 2nd reply was sent by Defendant AHS,
claiming that Plaintiff
Remsen filled out a form on https://quote.ahs.com/affiliated-ni on
July 12, 2023 at 4:21 PM CT containing her contact information.
30. Defendant AHS was asked on July 24, 2023 to provide the details
that the Plaintiff
allegedly provided, including an IP address, but defendant AHS did
not respond to this inquiry as of September 6, 2023.
31. Plaintiff Remsen did not visit ahs.com or any websites
affiliated with Defendant
AHS.
As a result Plaintiff sued AHS under the TCPA looking to represent
two (overly broad in my view) clases:
Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who
from four
years prior to the filing of this action through class
certification (1) Defendant AHS
called on their cellular telephone number (2) using an artificial
or pre-recorded voice.
Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who
from four years
prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1)
Defendant AHS called
more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the
person's
residential telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry
for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason
Defendant called
Plaintiff.
Couple of interesting things here:
Since these calls were consented to (perhaps) on AHS' own website,
the use of the prerecorded calls here would not have violated the
FTC's new TSR guidance;
Notice, however, that despite the fact that consent was allegedly
provided on AHS own website this lawsuit still followed. This is
either because Plaintiff is a super scumbag liar–possible–or
because the data was filled out on the AHS site by a third-party
using a bot who hoped to get paid via an attribution URL.
Unfortunately, the lead generation world is so hit and miss right
now that if AHS was using a third-party to drive traffic it might
have been a fake lead even though it was on AHS' own website.
Crazy! (There's a reason the R.E.A.C.H. standards require fraud
detection!) Or this could be an absolute scam by a troll
litigant–also crazy!
We'll keep an eye on this and see how it turns out. [GN]
AMNEAL PHARMA: Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it was named as
defendant in case captioned "Value Drug Company v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.," where Value Drug Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and numerous other manufacturers of
generic versions of Takeda's Colcrys(R) (colchicine), including
Amneal, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with
Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain
higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws.
On April 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its
complaint to add 18 former absent class members as plaintiffs,
which the court subsequently granted. Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint did not add any new legal theories or allegations. On
April 14, 2023, the court entered a scheduling order requiring the
new plaintiffs to provide discovery on their claims by May 1, 2023,
and setting a 22-day jury trial to begin on September 5, 2023.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse
portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and
specialty branded pharmaceuticals.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Eaton Securities Suit
------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on June 3, 2020, the
company was named in a putative class action complaint filed in the
Federal Court of Canada in Toronto, Ontario against numerous
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who purchased generic drugs in the private sector
from 2012 to the present (Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et.
al., No. T-607-20).
The complaint alleges price fixing, among other claims. On August
23, 2022, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May
30, 2023, the plaintiff served materials for their motion to
certify the action as a class proceeding, define the class and
certify the common questions to be decided, among other things. The
court has not set a date for the return of the plaintiff's motion.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse
portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and
specialty branded pharmaceuticals.
ARAMARK SERVICES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE KELLY, JR, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01272-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
a joint stipulation and request to vacate discovery cutoff and
continue motion for class certification briefing schedule by 60
days order.
Event Deadline
Amendment of Pleadings/Joinder April 21, 2023
Close of Fact Discovery September 5, 2023
File Motion for Class Certification Nov. 6, 2023
(MCC)
File Opposition to MCC Jan. 5, 2024
File Reply in support of MCC Feb. 5, 2024
Hearing date for MCC March 7, 2024
Aramark provides food service, facilities and uniform services to
hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums and other
businesses around the world.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sU3NWW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
Tyson Gibb, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
jose@setarehlaw.com
tyson@setarehlaw.com
- and -
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
AURORA SHOE COMPANY: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aurora Shoe Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Aurora Shoe Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-08006 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aurora Shoe Company -- https://www.aurorashoeco.com/ -- is a retail
company that manufactures, repairs, and supplies handmade leather
footwear for men and women online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend VIH Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BAKKT Holdings 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 putative VIH class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On April 21, 2022, a putative class action was filed against Bakkt
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers prior to
the VIH Business Combination in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of
securities of VIH and/or purchasers of Bakkt Class A common stock
issued in connection with the VIH Business Combination.
On August 3, 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and on October 18, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint alleges that VIH made false or misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in the registration
statement and prospectus/proxy statement filing in connection with
the VIH Business Combination and in other SEC filings made by VIH,
in violation of federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures relating to certain of VIH's financial statements,
accounting, and internal controls and that, as a result, VIH
securities traded at artificially inflated prices.
Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of purchasers of (1)
VIH/Bakkt's publicly traded securities between March 31, 2021 and
November 19, 2021, and/or (2) Bakkt's publicly traded securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement.
The Amended Complaint sought damages, as well as fees and costs.
The Amended Complaint named as defendants only one current
director, and no current officers, of Bakkt.
On March 14, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
On April 12, 2023, the parties completed a stipulation of
settlement resolving the litigation for $3.0 million, subject to
Court approval.
A motion for preliminary approval was filed with the Court on April
17, 2023.
The motion remains pending.
The Company expects the settlement will be covered by its insurance
less its contractual retention.
On June 23, 2023, an "opt-out" action related to the foregoing
class action was filed against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. and the
individuals named in the class action.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.
Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and
operated as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company
that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Baca Sues Over Defective Microneedling Tool
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA BACA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES LLC, dba BEAUTYBIO,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04577 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2023) is a
putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant on behalf of
the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the defective
GloPRO Microneedling Regeneration Tool.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells GloPRO
as a microneedling regeneration tool capable of "stimulating skin
to boost collagen production" and able to "create firmer, smoother
skin in just 60 seconds a day." Contrary to Defendant's
representations, GloPRO Devices are not, in fact, capable of
stimulating collagen production and thus cannot provide
microneedling skin regeneration benefits, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have paid to purchase
Defendant's GloPRO Devices--or would not have paid as much to
purchase them--had they known that they are not, in fact, capable
of stimulating the skin to boost collagen production and thus
provide the claimed regeneration benefits for their skin. The
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered monetary damages as a result
of Defendant's alleged deceptive and false representations and
omissions, asserts the complaint.
Beauty Biosciences LLC is a manufacturer of microneedling devices
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jgavenman@bursor.com
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Faces $500MM Racial Profiling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hayes, writing for abc7, reports that attorneys Benjamin Crump
and Bradley Gage are accusing the city of Beverly Hills of racial
profiling, hitting the city with a $500 million class-action
lawsuit.
The lawsuit represents 1,086 Black people out of the 1,088 they say
were unjustly arrested by the Beverly Hills Police Department
between Aug. 30, 2019 and Aug. 30, 2021. That number represents 34%
of all arrests within Beverly Hills while African Americans only
make up less than 2% of the city's residents.
Some, they claim, were caught up in the city's Rodeo Drive Task
Force, designed to crack down on fraudulent purchases at the famous
shopping district.
"It wasn't to deter crime. It was to send a message to Black people
that we don't want your kind around here," said Crump at a news
conference on Sept. 11 outside the Beverly Hills Civic Center.
"That is racial profiling 101!"
"In two years, 1,088 Black people arrested, only two convictions,"
Gage told reporters. "There's only one explanation for that. They
want to drive Black people out of the city."
The city of Beverly Hills released a statement after the news
conference.
"The City of Beverly Hills is an international destination that
always welcomes visitors from across the country and around the
world. The role of the Beverly Hills Police Department is to
enforce the law, regardless of race."
"The statistics presented referencing the number of convictions is
a mischaracterization of the evidence in this case. In addition,
the 1,088 arrests referenced includes people cited and released,
not just custodial arrests. The City denies and will continue to
strongly defend itself against these allegations."
But Gage says the evidence proves the city has a problem with
racism.
"Since 1995, there have been claims of racial profiling," Gage
said. "Twenty-eight years and yet nothing has changed. If anything,
it's become worse." [GN]
BITFINEX: New York Judge Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Porcelli, writing for The Cryptonomist, reports that Chief
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York has unequivocally denied Shawn Dolifka's
motion to amend his class action lawsuit against crypto giants,
Tether and Bitfinex.
This important decision represents a definitive rebuttal of claims
that have been found to be without legal merit from the outset,
strengthening Bitfinex and Tether's unwavering position in the face
of the incessant litigation.
Good news for crypto giants Tether and Bitfinex: judge denies
motion to amend lawsuit
Dolifka's attempts to breathe new life into its class action
complaint were rejected by the court.
Judge Swain pointed out that the arguments advanced by Dolifka had
already been vetted and found to lack legal substance.
Moreover, the proposed amendments to the complaint failed to
correct the fundamental deficiencies that had plagued the case from
the beginning.
The repercussions of this ruling are profound. The ruling is
imminent and will decisively favor Tether and Bitfinex, leaving
Dolifka empty-handed.
This development underscores the critical absence of legal grounds
for the plaintiff's claims and strengthens Bitfinex and Tether's
resistance against opportunistic lawsuits.
It is essential to appreciate the broader context of this ruling.
The dismissal of the entire class action complaint at this stage of
the legal proceedings underscores the inherent lack of legal basis
for Dolifka's claims.
Bitfinex and Tether have always remained committed to defending
themselves against frivolous lawsuits, safeguarding their integrity
and resources from unscrupulous lawsuits.
This verdict is a stern message to all those who may want to file
similar lawsuits against these blockchain industry leaders in the
future.
Bitfinex and Tether's unwavering determination in the face of legal
challenges makes it clear that they will not succumb to shameless
attempts at monetary gain through lawsuits.
Importantly, this ruling is not an isolated case. Bitfinex and
Tether's track record of successfully defending themselves against
baseless legal claims is a testament to their commitment to their
customers and the broader cryptocurrency community.
They remain steadfast in their mission to deliver on their promises
and ensure the continued protection of their stakeholders.
The lawsuit filed demonstrates the challenges crypto companies face
from a legal perspective
The lawsuit filed by Shawn Dolifka is a testament to the diligence
and commitment of these companies to defend their reputations and
the interests of their users.
While the court ruling represents a victory for Tether and
Bitfinex, it also serves as a reminder of the importance of strict
legal oversight in the cryptocurrency space.
Cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and web3 technologies are
transformative forces, reshaping industries and challenging
traditional paradigms.
As these technologies spread, they are bound to attract the
attention of various parties, including regulators and stakeholders
seeking to test legal boundaries.
The outcome of this case underscores the importance of robust legal
defenses in an industry where innovation often trumps regulation.
Bitfinex and Tether have made it clear that they are willing to do
anything to protect their users, their assets, and their
reputations. This stance has solidified their position as
responsible stewards of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
It is worth noting that this legal victory does not indicate an
aversion to responsible regulation.
On the contrary, Tether and Bitfinex, like many other
cryptocurrency companies, recognize the importance of clear and
reasonable regulatory frameworks to ensure the long-term viability
and legitimacy of the industry.
They are committed to working with regulators to establish
standards that protect users and foster innovation.
Conclusions
As the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry continues to mature,
legal challenges will persist and evolve in complexity.
The Dolifka case is just one example of the legal hurdles that
companies operating in this space may face.
However, Tether and Bitfinex's unwavering commitment to their
principles and their ability to navigate the legal landscape
reinforce their position as industry leaders.
In conclusion, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain's recent ruling
represents a significant legal victory for Tether and Bitfinex,
affirming the absence of legal merit in Shawn Dolifka's class
action lawsuit.
This ruling is not only a testament to the resilience of these
companies, but also a reminder of the importance of a strong legal
defense in the cryptocurrency industry.
As the industry continues to evolve, companies like Tether and
Bitfinex are leading the way, demonstrating their commitment to
innovation, responsible regulation, and protecting their community.
The cryptocurrency revolution continues to march on, bolstered by
principled leaders who are relentlessly committed to the future of
finance. [GN]
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Bid for Class Certification OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEN PHILLIPS, ET
AL., v. BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, ET AL., Case
No. 2:19-cv-02402-TC-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Court entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiffs Thomas Allen Phillips, Kevin D. Murphy, Michael
Egger, and William Lofthouse are appointed as class
representatives.
-- The law firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C., is appointed as
class
counsel.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to Review Magistrate Order Denying
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is denied.
According to Plaintiffs, that provision sets forth the exclusive
benefit rule, which is "the cornerstone of fiduciary obligations"
and "mirrors the explicit duties of fiduciaries" under ERISA
Section 404, 29 USC section 1104.
The lawsuit involves the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiffs filed this suit against various
individuals and entities concerning the administration of their
pension and retirement health plans. They plausibly allege that the
Defendants violated various ERISA requirements and improperly
denied Plaintiffs their early retirement benefits.
The Plaintiffs were boilermakers who applied for -- and received --
early retirement pension benefits under the Plan. The Plaintiffs
later resumed work in another type of job (i.e., electrician,
safety coordinator, steam fitter, scheduler/planner), but did not
engage in any post-retirement boilermaker work.
Boilermaker offers pension, retirement, health, and welfare funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PE9YHs at no extra charge.[CC]
BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Walker & Cramer Suits Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration in the lawsuits styled LISA WALKER v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "H," and DANIELLE
CRAMER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "H,"
Case Nos. 2:17-cv-03622-JTM-MBN, 17-3688 (E.D. La.).
Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in two
different cases. The Plaintiffs have filed Motions to Reconsider
the Court's Orders Granting Defendants' Motions in Limine and
Motions for Summary Judgment in each of their cases.
These cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No.
10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021). This
bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due
to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response (e.g., dispersant)."
The cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge
Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out
of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition.
Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be
reallocated among the judges of this Court. The instant cases were
reassigned to Section H.
The Plaintiffs each filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on
their alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was
allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill,
and each contends that his or her resulting exposure to crude oil
and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. The
Plaintiffs bring claims for general maritime negligence, negligence
per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants.
Now before the Court in each of the cases are the Plaintiffs'
Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's order granting the
Defendants' Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment should
be reconsidered because of BP's decision not to collect dermal and
biometric data from cleanup workers.
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production
Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater,
Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, the "BP parties") oppose.
The Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
of its order excluding Dr. Jerald Cook's testimony and granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs state that
the affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the Director of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") creates an
issue of fact "as to whether biomonitoring would have been required
to adequately protect the workers from the known hazards of
exposure to crude oil."
The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs are rehashing arguments
irrelevant to this lawsuit and that they present no arguments
unique to their cases.
The Plaintiffs do not identify which of the four Rule 59(e)
criteria they believe are satisfied here, Judge Milazzo notes.
Their argument regarding Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit is irrelevant to
the fact that Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful and unreliable. In
its previous Orders, the Court, as well as others in this district,
determined that Dr. Cook's expert report was inadmissible and these
decisions did not depend on the dermal and biometric data that BP
allegedly failed to collect.
Specifically, another section of this Court has held that Dr.
Birnbaum's affidavit neither cures nor explains the deficiencies of
Dr. Cook's report. Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit appears to conflate
general causation with specific causation, as general causation
requires evidence demonstrating that the types of chemicals
encountered by the Plaintiff are actually capable of causing the
injuries alleged by the Plaintiff.
Judge Milazzo opines that the Fifth Circuit requires admissible
general causation expert testimony in toxic-tort cases, and Dr.
Birnbaum's affidavit does not remedy this deficiency within Dr.
Cook's expert report. Considering this, Judge Milazzo holds that
the Plaintiffs have not presented any justification for alteration
or amendment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Moreover, the Court is not
alone in this decision, as another court in this district has also
denied reconsideration on the same grounds.
For these reasons, Judge Milazzo denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for
Reconsideration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Sept. 7,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rrj5v2u from
PacerMonitor.com.
BROCK PIERCE: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Rowan Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rowan v. Brock Pierce,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01648 (D.P.R., Filed Nov. 16, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach entered an order denying without
prejudice motion to certify class.
-- The Plaintiff shall refile their Motion for Class
Certification
by September 15, 2023.
-- The Defendant shall file any opposition to the Motion for
Class
Certification by September 29, 2023.
The nature of suit alleges violation of the Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.[CC]
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Court Denies as Moot Fraser Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COREY FRASER, JOSHUA
CLAY MCCOY, TYLER DALTON MCGRATH, IAN FLETCHER SHACKLEY, and JUSTIN
TIMOTHY FRASER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated as a Class, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND
EXPLOSIVES, STEVEN DETTELBACH, and MERRICK GARLAND, Case No.
3:22-cv-00410-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne
entered an order denying as moot Fraser motion for class
certification.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enforces
federal criminal laws regulating the firearms and explosives
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PF8nB1 at no extra charge.[CC]
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Court OK's Fraser Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COREY FRASER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a
Class, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et
al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert
E. Payne entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on behalf of:
"Natural persons and citizens of the United States of America
who
have attained the age of 18 but who are not yet 21 and who have
been convicted of a felony, who are no fugitive from justice,
have
not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions, re not unlawful users of or addicted to any
controlled
substances, have not been adjudicated as mental defectives or
committed to a mental institution, are not on a parole or
probation, are no under indictment or restraint, and are not
Plaintiffs in the pending case of Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Case No, 1:22-cv-80
(N.D.W.Va.,
Filed Aug. 30, 2022)."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PmqgDj at no extra charge.[CC]
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enforces
federal criminal laws regulating the firearms and explosives
industries.
CALIFORNIA CHECK: Class Action Settlement in Gilberg Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESIREE GILBERG, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. CALIFORNIA CHECK
CASHING STORES, INC., a California corporation; CHECKSMART
FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02309-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Mendez entered an order granting the
plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement and certification of settlement class.
On Feb 28, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement,
Conditional Certification of Settlement Class, and Approval of
Proposed Notice to Settlement Class.
Class Representative Service Award to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has
applied for a service payment as Class Representative in the amount
of $20,000.00. The Plaintiff's request for the Class Representative
Service Award in the amount of $20,000.00 is granted.
California Check offers check cashing, savings account, bill
payment, money transfer, car insurance, long distance phone cards,
and postage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PDZbNt at no extra charge.[CC]
CANADA: Military Veterans' Long-Term Benefits Settlement Finalized
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cuthbertson, writing for CBC News, reports that the first
of thousands of injured Canadian military veterans are set to soon
begin receiving disability payment top-ups under a $283-million
class-action settlement, but policy changes mean no newly
discharged members will be entitled to the extra benefits.
The case involves a Federal Court judge's ruling that many veterans
who had served in certain difficult circumstances, such as on
submarines, in special forces or in areas with high costs of
living, weren't being paid the long-term disability benefits they
were entitled to.
The federal government did not challenge the 2020 ruling, and
ultimately agreed in a recently finalized settlement that more than
8,600 former members should receive retroactive payments as well as
increased monthly benefits.
"We hope that payments will be starting soon," said Daniel Wallace,
the Halifax lawyer who led the class-action lawsuit.
Lead plaintiff served in Afghanistan
The lead plaintiff was Simon Logan, a special operations soldier
who served in Afghanistan and was a warrant officer when he
received an involuntary medical release from the Canadian Forces in
2016 following a 28-year career.
The military calculates long-term disability at 75 per cent of a
member's monthly pay, but the Department of National Defence had
only used Logan's base salary to determine his payments, and did
not include an allowance he earned as a "special operations
assaulter."
That meant Logan received only $5,100 per month in disability
payments, instead of nearly $8,000.
Three years ago, a judge ruled in favour of Logan and other former
military members in similar situations, writing that monthly
allowances should be used in disability calculations.
The federal government accepted that ruling, but subsequently
changed its policy to "expressly exclude" allowances in the
calculation of long-term disability benefits for Canadian Forces
members released after Dec. 31, 2021, according to court records
filed earlier this year.
In an email on Sept. 12, National Defence said the Federal Court
ruled there was "ambiguity" in the definition of monthly pay, and
that the benefits policy was subsequently amended "to address the
court's decision."
"Allowances are benefits intended for [Canadian Armed Forces]
members performing particular activities and operations. They are
aimed at compensating members and their families for working in
unique, demanding and potentially high-risk circumstances," the
email said.
"They are not considered part of a member's basic pay rate, and
were never intended to be factored into the calculation of
long-term disability."
The new policy does not affect those who were discharged before
2022.
Under the settlement, about half the veterans entitled to the money
will be paid their retroactive benefits by June 2024, with the
second half receiving payment by June 2025. Higher monthly benefits
will begin once a veteran receives the retroactive payment,
according to Wallace.
Manulife, the insurance company that administers the disability
benefits, will send out the payments to the more than 8,000
veterans who qualify under the settlement.
People 'fell through the cracks'
But Clancy Keoughan, an Edmonton man who served with the Canadian
Forces for 29 years before being medically discharged due to PTSD,
said he and likely others have been left off the list because the
military's discharge clerks sometimes didn't notify Manulife of the
allowances.
Keoughan, a former military police officer, said he was paid an
allowance because he was stationed in the expensive city of
Victoria for 14 years. He worries about veterans who are homeless
or living in deep poverty who won't be aware they may be entitled
to more disability money.
He hopes publicizing the settlement will help change that.
"There's a lot of people out there who fell through the cracks," he
said on Sept. 11. "Some definitely need it a lot more than I do."
There is an appeal process for those left off the list, and Wallace
said his law firm has heard from about a dozen veterans who believe
they are entitled to higher payments but aren't included in the
settlement. [GN]
CAPITA PLC: Data Breach Class Action Claimants Keep Rising
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kunert, writing for The Register, reports that the number of
claimants signing up to a collective action against Capita over the
infamous March cyber security break-in and subsequent data exposure
keeps going up, according to the lawyer overseeing the case.
Manchester-based Barings Law dispatched a legal Letter of Claim to
Capita concerning the breach in June after claiming it received a
"staggering number" of enquiries, and by July said it had 1,000
clients on board.
In the latest update, the lawyer claims that figure has doubled to
2,000 -- comprised of pension customers, employees and circa 100
individuals that operate in the medical profession. It believes
millions of people's personal information including passport
details, emails and home addresses could have been revealed to
criminals in the breach.
"Barings Law are still receiving a large number of enquiries and
sign ups on a daily basis," claimed Adnan Malik, head of data
breach at the lawyer.
Capita took down its IT systems at the end of March after spotting
that an intruder had broken through its tech defenses. The break-in
happened on March 22 and wasn't spotted until March 31 when Capita
interrupted them.
Russian ransomware crew Black Basta claimed responsibility for the
criminal act, and posted data, including bank account information,
addresses and passport photos they to have accessed.
Capita initially thought 4 percent of its server estate were
accessed but later revised this to 0.1 percent, and admitted there
was some evidence that customer, supplier or colleague data had
been seen by the criminals.
Pension data was also added to the list the following month in May
as investigators combed over the wreckage -- Capita administers 450
pension schemes that contain 4.3 million members. The Pensions
Regulator was notified and was advising its clients speak to Capita
directly about any risks.
Britain's largest pension scheme, the Universities Superannuation
Scheme also told members their data might have been accessed, and
Capita warned staff that its own pension fund was among the victims
of the March burglary.
UK data watchdog, the Information Commissioner's Office reckoned
that as of May, 90 companies had informed them that their
information had been breached in the Capita burglary.
The cost of the clean-up effort is estimated by Capita to be close
to GBP25 million, the company said when releasing its financial
results last month, which is 25 percent higher than previous
estimate.
In a statement to The Register, a Capita spokesperson said: "Capita
treats cyber security with the utmost seriousness and, in common
with many organisations, regularly reviews its cyber security
stance using third-party consultants where appropriate."
"The company has invested in a multi-year, multi-million-pound
cyber security programme which has been accelerated in the wake of
March's cyber incident.
"Capita has since been praised by external experts for its high
level of cyber preparedness, and both UK government and commercial
clients have expressed their gratitude over its handling of the
incident."
"Capita strongly rejects any suggestion that there is any valid
basis for bringing claims against it as a result of the cyber
incident."
We asked the company how the investigation into the incident is
progressing and when it will have further information to share with
the public, but it refused to say more at this stage. [GN]
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: $7.9MM Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
The Celsius Holdings Securities Settlement Claims Administrator
issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action
settlement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 22-80418-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS
CLASS ACTION
CITY OF ATLANTA POLICE OFFICERS'
PENSION PLAN and CITY OF ATLANTA
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION PLAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
-V-
CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN
FIELDLY, and EDWIN NEGRON-
CARBALLO,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC. ("CELSIUS") BETWEEN AUGUST 12, 2021
AND MARCH 1, 2022, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"):
You are hereby notified that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a
hearing (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") will be held on January
31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Donald M.
Middlebrooks, United States District Judge, at the United States
Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, Room 257, West Palm Beach, FL
33401, to determine: (1) whether a proposed Settlement of City of
Atlanta Police Officers' Pension Plan, et al. v. Celsius Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80418-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS (S.D. Fla.) (the
"Action") including the sum of Seven Million Nine Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($7,900,000) in cash should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this Action
being dismissed with prejudice and will prevent Settlement Class
Members from ever being part of any other lawsuit against the
Released Defendant Parties (and parties related to them) about the
legal claims being resolved by this Settlement, as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated August 2, 2023; (2) whether, for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead
Plaintiffs should be certified as class representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as class
counsel for the Settlement Class; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Plaintiffs'
Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with this Action, together with interest thereon, and
whether the Lead Plaintiffs should receive an award of their costs
and expenses in representing the Settlement Class.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius common stock during
the Class Period (August 12, 2021 to March 1, 2022, inclusive),
your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement
thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies either by
downloading this information at
www.CelsiusHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com or by writing to
Celsius Holdings Securities Settlement, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, P.O. Box 301135, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135. If you are
a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release Form by mail (postmarked no later than December 27, 2023),
or online at www.CelsiusHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com (submitted
no later than December 27, 2023), establishing that you are
entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered
in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than January 10, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the Net
Settlement Fund, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will
not be legally bound by anything that happens in the Action, and
you may be able to sue the Released Defendant Parties and their
Related Parties about the Settlement Class's Released Claims in the
future. If you want to bring your own lawsuit based on the matters
alleged in this Action, you may want to consult an attorney and
discuss whether any individual claim that you may wish to pursue
would be time-barred. Any objection to any aspect of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and
expense application must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, such that they
are filed and received no later than January 10, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form should
be made to the Claims Administrator:
Celsius Holdings Securities Settlement
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
(866) 690-1317
info@CelsiusHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Daniel L. Berger
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Tel.: (646) 722-8500
Fax: (646) 722-8501
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE DEFENDANTS, THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S
OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: September 18, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as
Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA
HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), Hon.
Judge Frank Volk entered an order amending Scheduling Order as
follows:
Case Events Relating to Class Certification Date
Deadline for fact witness depositions related Oct. 13,
2023
to class certification.
Deadline for Plaintiffs' to serve expert Oct. 13,
2023
reports supporting class certification
Deadline to serve motion for class certification Oct. 13,
2023
Deadline for Defendant to depose Plaintiff's Nov. 17,
2023
expert witnesses on class certification
Deadline for Defendant to serve expert Nov. 17,
2023
reports supporting class certification
Deadline for response to motion for class Dec. 7, 2023
certification.
Deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendant's Jan. 9, 2024
expert witnesses on class certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs' reply supporting Jan. 17,
2024
their motion for class certification.
Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44T7jxV at no extra charge.[CC]
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Arm & Hammer False Ad Detergent Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims 144.5-fluid-ounce containers of Arm &
Hammer Clean Burst liquid detergent do not contain enough product
to do as many loads of laundry as advertised.
The 23-page lawsuit against Church & Dwight Co. says that despite
the prominent front-label claim that a container holds enough
detergent for 107 loads of laundry, an "almost invisible" asterisk
next to this statement refers consumers to a small-print statement,
"cleverly buried" in a "maze of citations" on the back label, that
reveals that this number can be reached only when doing "medium
loads when measured to Bar 5" on the cap.
Though the product's cap has no actual measurement marks on it, and
given that no separate measuring cup is provided, another
fine-print back-label statement suggests that "Bar 5" is roughly
equal to the "1/2 capful for energy saving cold wash settings"
mentioned in the same instruction, the suit describes. Per the
case, consumers are directed to use a full cap for only "large" or
"heavily soiled" loads.
According to the complaint, a reasonable consumer understands the
term "load" to refer to one that uses the full capacity of the
washing machine. Therefore, typical consumers, who routinely do
large, oversized loads of laundry, expect the detergent at issue in
the container in which it's sold to be sufficient for 107 full
loads, the complaint claims.
Advertising that the container holds enough detergent for 107
loads, when each load is half the size of what a consumer considers
a full load, is "misleading and deceptive," the lawsuit
summarizes.
"In other words, according to the product's own directions,
consumers are being shorted roughly 50% of the amount of product
they reasonably expect," the filing alleges. "Consumers are
expecting a product that has enough detergent for 107 loads of
laundry, but are instead receiving one that is only sufficient for
roughly 54 loads of laundry (or 107 half-loads)."
The plaintiff, a St. Louis resident, purchased the detergent in May
of this year and believed, based on the front-label
representations, that it would last for 107 full loads of laundry,
the suit says. Like other consumers, the man would not have bought
the product if he had known that it would not be enough for
"anywhere close" to that number, the case claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased Arm & Hammer
Clean Burst detergent at any time between September 7, 2018 and
September 7, 2023 in Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Hawaii, New
York, Washington D.C., Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington or
Connecticut. [GN]
COBHAM ADVANCED: Must Oppose to Class Certification 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., Case No.
3:21-cv-01784-TWR-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher
entered a scheduling order deadlines as follows:
Event Deadline/Date
Follow-Up Mandatory Settlement Sept. 15, 2023
Conference Videoconference before
the Hon. Daniel E. Butcher
Expert Witness Designations Sept. 30, 2023
Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Designations Oct. 13, 2023
Opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 16, 2023
Certification
Reply to Motion for Class Certification Oct. 30, 2023
Expert Witness Disclosures Nov. 13, 2023
Class Certification Hearing Nov. 16, 2023
Pretrial Conference June 6, 2024
Cobham is provider of mission critical electronics for aerospace
and defense.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EG9zxP at no extra charge.[CC]
CONSOL ENERGY: Workers' ERISA Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy 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 an ongoing class
action lawsuit filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion
retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company, CONSOL of
Kentucky Inc., CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co. LLC and Kurt Salvatori,
the company's Chief Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.
Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises
of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of
management during plaintiffs' employment and that they were not
provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to
the company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and
Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be
reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a
class of all nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the company's
former parent that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or
Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties,
Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
The complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs,
add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC and eliminate
defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand
the class of retirees. On October 15, 2019, plaintiffs'
supplemental motion for class certification was denied on all
counts. On July 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal
with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class
certification. The Fourth Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeal on
August 14, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a
pretrial order setting the trial date, which was held in February
2021. No ruling has been issued by the judge.
CONSOL Energy Inc. is into bituminous coal & lignite mining and is
based in Canonsburg, PA.
CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Seeks Provisional Status of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARZANNA JONES and HEYNARD
L. PAZ-CHOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ROHIT CHOPRA, in his official capacity as Director,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU, Case No. 1:18-cv-02132-BAH (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) provisionally certifying a class for settlement purposes;
(2) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement;
(3) provisionally appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class
Counsel
and the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for
settlement purposes;
(4) approving and directing distribution to Class Members the
Notice; and
(5) setting a schedule for the final approval process
The Settlement provides a $6 million Settlement Fund for Monetary
Awards for a Class of 85 Black/African American and/or Hispanic
Bureau employees in certain jobs within the Office of Consumer
Response, administration costs, any court-approved attorneys’
fees and costs, and any court-approved Service Awards.
Consumer Financial is a regulatory agency charged with overseeing
financial products and services that are offered to consumers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pdd4k4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
George S. Robot, Esq.
Truscenialyn Brooks, Esq.
Caitlin M. Kearney, Esq.
STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 431-0888
E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com
grobot@sfltd.com
- and -
Justin L. Leinenweber, Esq.
JUSTIN L. LEINENWEBER, P.C.
120 N LaSalle St Ste 2000,
Chicago, IL 60618
Telephone: (312) 857-3405
E-mail: justin@ilesq.com
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Loses Bids for Arbitration in Johnson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in
the lawsuits styled TIFFANY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL
FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants; TRACEY CRIDER, Plaintiff
v. CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
8:22-cv-02001-PX, 8:23-cv-00854-PX (D. Md.).
Pending before the Court in this consolidated matter are the
motions to compel arbitration filed by Defendants Continental
Finance Company, LLC and Continental Purchasing, LLC (together
"Continental"). Also pending is Continental's motion to strike
class allegations, and Plaintiff Tiffany Johnson's unopposed motion
to amend her Complaint.
Continental, a loan originator, marketer, and servicer, extended
credit cards to Maryland residents, including Plaintiffs Tiffany
Johnson and Tracey Crider. Continental engages a third-party
financial institution to extend the short-term unsecured credit,
then Continental buys back the loans and rights to collect
payments.
The Plaintiffs initially filed suit in state court, challenging
that this buyback arrangement was designed to circumvent the lender
licensing requirements set forth in the Maryland Credit Services
Business Act, and the Maryland Consumer Loan Law. Continental
timely removed both matters to this Court and next moved to compel
arbitration of the claims based on the arbitration provision within
the cardholder agreements.
The Plaintiffs oppose arbitration on the grounds that they never
formed a binding agreement to arbitrate such disputes. The argument
depends on a proper reading of the Cardholder Agreement and its
inclusive arbitration provision.
The Plaintiffs oppose the motion to compel arbitration, arguing
that the provision is "illusory," or lacking in adequate
consideration such that the parties never formed a binding
agreement to arbitrate in the first instance.
In sum, Judge Xinis finds, Continental retains unfettered and
unilateral power to alter any terms of the Arbitration Provision
however it wants. The Plaintiffs, in turn, have received no
definite promises in exchange for agreeing to submit to binding
arbitration in lieu of litigation.
Because the arbitration agreement lacks consideration, it is
illusory, and no legal basis exists to compel arbitration, Judge
Xinis holds. Thus, Continental's motions to compel must be denied.
For similar reasons, Continental's motion to strike class
allegations is easily disposed, Judge Xinis says. Continental
singularly contends that the allegations must be stricken because
the Plaintiffs have waived their right to "participate in class
action or other consolidated proceeding" in the Arbitration
Provision. But because the Arbitration Provision is illusory, the
Court cannot enforce any of its terms. The motion to strike is,
thus, denied.
Accordingly, Judge Xinis holds that (i) Continental's motions to
compel arbitration and strike class allegations are denied, and
(ii) Johnson's unopposed motion to amend the Complaint is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 7,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwe6c4p9 from
PacerMonitor.com.
CORSAIR GAMING: McKinney Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT
SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00312-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following classes:
-- California class:
"All individuals who purchased Corsair High Speed Memory in
California, within the governing statute of limitations
period;"
and
-- New York class
"All individuals who purchased Corsair High Speed Memory in
New
York, within the governing statute of limitations period."
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Appointing Plaintiffs McKinney and Sundeen as the class
representatives of the California class;
-- Appoint Plaintiff Alcantara as the class representative of the
New York class; and
-- Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel—Simon Franzini, Jonas
Jacobson,
Richard Lyon, and Grace Bennett of Dovel & Luner and Kevin
Kneupper and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper & Covey—as class
counsel.
California Plaintiffs Antonio McKinney and Clint Sundeen and New
York Plaintiff Joseph Alcantara contend that Defendant Corsair
misleads reasonable consumers by claiming that its HighSpeed Memory
products run at certain speeds out of the box (for example, 3200
MHz or 3600 MHz) when in truth the memory runs at a much slower
speed (2133MHz).
The higher advertised speed can be achieved only if the user
modifies their computer system (with a process known as
"overclocking"), which does not always work and can damage the
user's computer system.
Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zmjz8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
- and -
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cytodyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ending May 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 13, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the securities class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.
On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action
lawsuit (the "March 17, 2021 lawsuit") in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the Company and
certain former officers.
The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a
potential treatment for COVID-19.
On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021.
On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the
March 17, 2021 lawsuit.
On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May
17, 2021.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly
false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, the
safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for
COVID-19, the Company's CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV
BLA.
The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the
Company’s common stock purportedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information.
The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the
case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs.
On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged
class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names
the same defendants, and asserts the same claims as the prior
complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder,
and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint.
All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint in whole or in part.
The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the
matter.
Cytodyn Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in
Washington.
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Domestic Flight Prices' Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Jones, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
finding that a class of airline customers have solid evidence to
accuse Delta and United Airlines of conspiring to increase their
own profits on domestic flight prices, a federal judge on Sept. 12
kept alive an antitrust case against several major U.S. airlines.
The case began in 2015 when three customers -- Ethan Brodsky,
Jeffrey Robb and Valbona Alla -- filed an antitrust class action
against airlines Delta, American, Southwest and United.
From January 2009 to mid-2015, they said, the airlines conspired to
keep flight capacity the same while gas prices dropped, resulting
in airfares and profits skyrocketing.
On Sept. 12, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the
class of airline customers presented enough evidence to survive
summary judgment motions from defendants Delta and United.
"Plaintiffs have proffered a fair amount of circumstantial evidence
to demonstrate an alleged conspiracy by Defendants to restrict
capacity in order to drive up profits," the judge wrote.
Kollar-Kotelly added that the airlines engaged "admittedly and
openly in the practice of capacity discipline on domestic
flights."
The D.C. federal court judge seemed unpersuaded by the airlines'
justification of the resulting higher industry profits.
"Moving defendants proffer business justifications as the reason
for this practice, first, because of economic conditions, and
later, to appease their investors," Kollar-Kotelly wrote in the
70-page ruling.
"Plaintiffs point out however that this practice results in higher
industry profits only if there is a coordinated effort among
airlines controlling a majority share of the domestic market;
otherwise, it makes little economic sense for airlines to elect not
to compete for market share."
The airline customers wrote in the complaint that "collusion among
major airlines to limit routes, information and available seats to
keep airfares artificially high," and the airlines "illegally
signaled to each other how quickly they would add new flights,
routes, and extra seats."
The customers also said in the 2015 complaint that, although the
U.S. economy grew about 2.2% per year from January 2010 to January
2014, domestic flight capacity remained virtually the same. And
that at the same time, the average domestic airfares rose 13% from
2009 to 2014, when adjusted for inflation.
Additionally, they said, U.S. airlines grew by 5.5% from January
2014 to January 2015, and earned a combined $19.7 billion, as the
price for jet fuel -- the airlines' single highest expense --
dropped 34%, to $1.94 per gallon in April 2015. The defendant
airlines controlled more than 80% of seats in the domestic travel
market.
In 2018, Southwest Airlines paid $15 million to settle out of the
lawsuit. The Dallas-based airline denied it broke the law, saying
it was settling to avoid the cost of more litigation. The following
year, American settled for $45 million.
The multi-district lawsuit was originally filed in Milwaukee
Federal Court in July 2015. [GN]
DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOCN) securities
between February 16, 2023 and August 25, 2023. DigitalOcean is an
emerging growth company, which purports to offer a cloud computing
platform, primarily for small to medium sized businesses who lack
adequate resources to support on-premise software development
environments.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. (DOCN) Lacked
Effective Controls Over the Company's Accounting for Income Taxes
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that defendants lacked the
skills and experience to assess complicated tax matters and
therefore did not design or maintain effective controls over the
Company's accounting for income taxes; and (2) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' financial statements during the class
period were inaccurate and materially misleading.
On August 3, 2023, DigitalOcean announced that it had "identified
certain errors within the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2023 as
included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2023 filed on May 9, 2023" related to the Company's
accounting for income tax expense, resulting in an overstatement of
income tax expense in the quarter of approximately $18 million. The
Company would be restating its first quarter 2023 financials, and
announced that this restatement would "also include disclosure of
an identified material weakness and that our disclosure controls
and procedures were not effective as of March 31, 2023."
The material weakness, however, traced back at least to December
31, 2022, according to DigitalOcean, rendering the Company's Annual
Report for the previous year inaccurate as well. Consequently, the
Company conceded that it would also restate its financial
statements for Fiscal Year 2022, originally filed with the SEC on
February 23, 2023. On this news, DigitalOcean's stock price
declined $11.57 per share, or approximately 24.8%, to close at
$35.11 per share on the following trading day, August 4, 2023.
On August 24, 2023, DigitalOcean issued a press release announcing
that the Company's Board of Directors had begun a search for a new
CEO to replace defendant Spruill, who would step down as CEO and
board member as soon as his successor was appointed. On this news,
DigitalOcean's stock price declined $2.65 per share, or
approximately 8.4%, to close at $28.86 per share on August 25,
2023.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must
file their motion for lead plaintiff by November 13, 2023. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against DigitalOcean Holdings,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives
engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
ERIK ANDERSON: Malork Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors 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 Decarbonization Plus Acquisition
Corporation (DCRB) CEO Erik Anderson, is facing a putative class
action complaint captioned "Malork v. Erik Anderson et al." (C.A.
No. 2022-0260- KSJM), was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on March 18, 2022, alleging that the director defendants and
controlling stockholders of DCRB's sponsor breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger between DCRB and Legacy Hyzon.
The complaint seeks equitable relief and monetary damages.
On May 26, 2022, the defendants in this case moved to dismiss the
complaint. On August 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 15, 2022. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is
now complete, and oral argument occurred on April 21, 2023. On July
17, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint.
Hyzon Motors Inc. is headquartered in Honeoye Falls, New York, and
is into commercializing proprietary heavy-duty fuel cell technology
through assembling and upfitting HD hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE ZUEHLSDORF,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 5:18-cv-01877-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Steve
Zuehlsdorf will move for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3):
-- Class
"All individuals in the United States who purchased or leased
certain 2010-2013 Jeep Patriot and Compass vehicles and
2010-2012
Dodge Caliber vehicles equipped with a Jatco JF011E
Continuously
Variable Transmission (“CVT”) designed, manufactured,
marketed,
distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by FCA US LLC,
formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC"
-- California Sub-Class
"All members of the Class who reside in the State of
California;"
-- CLRA Sub-Class:
"All members of the Class who are "consumers" within the
meaning
of California Civil Code section 1761(d);" and
-- Implied Warranty Sub-Class
"All members of the Class who purchased or leased their
vehicles
in the State of California."
Each of the four requirements under Rule 23(a) are met. The
proposed classes include thousands of consumers, which is more than
sufficient to establish numerosity. Commonality is satisfied
because the class members' claims depend on several common
contentions that are capable of classwide resolution, the Plaintiff
contends.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LrsFeK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
FRED MEYER: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended to March 8, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Woody et al v. Fred Meyer
Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01800 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 17, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO March 8, 2024
Deadlines Class certification motion
is due by:
-- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report April 8, 2024
and Pretrial Order are due by:
-- The Court strikes the oral argument set for Nov. 9, 2023, and
will notify the parties if oral argument is required in the case.
Fred Meyer is an American chain of hypermarket superstores.[CC]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency 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 10, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated Quinones class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David
Lucchino.
On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and
on May 16, 2022, the Company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl
LeBel, was added as a defendant.
The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021.
The lawsuit sought, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July
15, 2022.
On March 29, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted and
the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety.
On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the order
dismissing the lawsuit.
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellant submitted its opening brief
to the First Circuit.
The Company's brief is due on September 1, 2023.
This matter is at the very early stages of the legal process, and
as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of
possible loss.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Massachusetts.
FRINGE BENEFIT: Wants 5th Cir. to Reverse Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
Texas-based benefit plan manager defending allegations of excessive
fees urged the Fifth Circuit to rethink its August decision
certifying a class covering thousands of its customers.
Fringe Benefit Group wants the dispute to go before the full panel
of Fifth Circuit judges so the court can take a side on a circuit
split over the requirements necessary to establish constitutional
standing in class actions. Fringe asked the court to adopt the
stricter "standing approach" -- which requires each claim and
injury to have a corresponding class representative with standing
to assert it -- and reject the more lenient "class certification
approach". [GN]
GEMA BERRY: Lopez Seeks to Vacate Class Certification Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GELACIO LOPEZ and PATRICIA
LIRA, individually and acting in the interest of other current and
former employees, v. GEMA BERRY FARMS, INC., a California
Corporation; IVAN LOPEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive Case No. 5:22-cv-02642-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
request the Court to vacate the class certification motion deadline
and that the parties be ordered to file a joint status report
within 30 days after mediation to inform the Court about the
results of those efforts.
The Defendants will not suffer prejudice if the Court modifies the
order. No hardship will result from vacating the class
certification motion deadline pending meditation. Rather, the
Plaintiffs would suffer hardship and prejudice if the requested
relief is not granted as Plaintiffs will be unable to certify a
class in the event that the parties do not settle at mediation.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LphxPE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Gonzalo Quezada, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com
GEMINI SOLAR: Class Certification Bid in Pack Suit Due Oct. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pack, et al., v. Gemini
Solar LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01156 (S.D. Ohio, Filed March
31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
-- Class Certification Motion due by Oct. 26, 2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Gemini provides solar energy equipment and installation services
for residential, commercial and farms.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Jon P. McCalla entered an order modifying the Court's prior order
regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court modifies its prior Order Granting in Part the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.
The class definition is as follows:
(1) Initial purchasers and lessees of new 'class vehicles,'
2017-18
GMC Acadias, who purchased or leased their vehicles in
Tennessee; and who
(2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the STP Issue
during
the warranty period; and who
(3) were not provided with either a silicon-free replacement
shifter assembly or silicon-free shifter control wire
harness
at no charge."
The Defendant does not seek reconsideration of the Court's findings
regarding Rule 23. In modifying its prior Order, the Court no
longer adopts a "new" class definition, instead adopting the class
definition that Defendant has already opposed and briefed.
The Court’s prior Order therefore stands, excepting the portions
that address the fail-safe class question and the class definition
itself, which are modified by the instant Order.
The Plaintiff's initial proposed class definition was as follows:
"All persons or entities who (1) bought or leased a 2017-2018
GMC
Acadia in Tennessee; (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer
regarding
the STP Issue (instances where the driver puts a 2017-2018 GMC
Acadia vehicle in the Park position, the driver then tries to
turn
the ignition off, however a 'Shift to Park' message appears)
during
GM's 36 month/30,000 mile warranty period; and (3) were not
provided with either a silicon-free replacement shifter assembly
or
silicon-free shifter control wire harness during the warranty
period at no charge to the person or entity."
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PHTUVg at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOHEALTH INC: No Trial Date Scheduled for Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GoHealth 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 United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois has not set trial date
for securities class suit.
In September 2020, three purported securities class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters, private equity
firms, and investment vehicles alleging that the Registration
Statement filed in connection with the IPO was negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact,
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation,
including the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Class
Action").
Compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
the Securities Class Action were sought by the plaintiffs.
On December 10, 2020, the court in the earliest filed action
consolidated the three complaints, appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the
consolidated action "In re GoHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation."
On February 25, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint.
On April 26, 2021, the Company and officer and director defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 5, 2022, that motion was denied.
On May 31, 2022, the Company and officer and director defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and, on June 21,
2022, they filed an amended answer.
On September 23, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which remains pending.
The court has not yet set a trial date.
GoHealth, Inc. is a leading health insurance marketplace whose
mission is to improve access to healthcare in America. The
company's proprietary technology platform leverages modern
machine-learning algorithms powered by nearly two decades of
insurance behavioral data optimize the process for helping
individuals find the best health insurance plan for their specific
needs. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com --, Heather Speers --
hspeers@cooley.com --and Jamie Robertson -- jdrobertson@cooley.com,
of Cooley, disclosed that on August 10, 2023, the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dealt a blow to securities class
action plaintiffs when it decertified the investor class in
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
After a long history of the case going up to the US Supreme Court
and back, the Second Circuit held that the defendants successfully
rebutted the presumption of reliance set forth in Basic Inc. v.
Levinson by demonstrating a mismatch in specificity between the
alleged misrepresentations and corrective disclosures. It explained
that because the challenged statements were generic compared to the
very specific alleged corrective disclosure, it could not conclude
that the challenged statements impacted Goldman's stock price.
Although only a single datapoint, this decision reiterates that
class certification is not a given for securities class action
plaintiffs. It also marks an important step toward clarifying when
securities class action plaintiffs can -- and, more importantly,
cannot -- rely on the presumption of reliance from Basic to
overcome weak securities fraud cases, as well as how defendants may
establish a price impact defense to class certification.
Background
The underlying securities class action, filed in 2010, accused
Goldman and several of its former executives of violating Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs alleged that between 2006 and 2010,
Goldman maintained an inflated stock price by making repeated
misrepresentations about its conflict-of-interest policies and
business practices. The alleged misrepresentation included generic
statements about Goldman's ability to manage conflicts of interest
in its business, such as:
"Most importantly, and the basic reason for our success, is our
extraordinary focus on our clients."
"Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business."
"We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to
identify and address conflicts of interest, including those
designed to prevent the improper sharing of information among our
businesses."
The plaintiffs alleged that the "truth" about Goldman's conflicts
of interest came to light in 2010 when the Securities and Exchange
Commission brought an enforcement action against Goldman and one of
its employees. The SEC alleged that Goldman failed to disclose in
its marketing materials that the hedge fund Paulson & Co. played an
active role in the asset selection process for certain
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions, and for telling
investors that Paulson held a long interest in one specific CDO
transaction, known as Abacus 2007 AC-1, when, in fact, Paulson was
short. The investigation resulted in a $550 million settlement with
the SEC.
The plaintiffs claimed that, once the truth about these conflicts
was revealed by the SEC enforcement action, Goldman's stock price
dropped, and its shareholders suffered losses of more than $13
billion.
Goldman has long argued that the public statements central to the
litigation were too generic to have been misleading or to have
induced investor reliance. At the motion to dismiss stage, Goldman
successfully argued that certain of the alleged misstatements were
immaterial as a matter of law. However, the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York held in 2012 that claims based on
the business principles and conflicts statements -- including the
examples cited above -- could proceed because they did not qualify
as "puffery" and were not "so obviously unimportant to a reasonable
investor" as to be immaterial as a matter of law.
In 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, relying on
the Basic presumption to support classwide reliance. The defendants
sought to rebut the Basic presumption and defeat class
certification by demonstrating that the alleged misstatements were
too generic to have any impact on Goldman's stock price. SDNY found
the defendants' arguments unpersuasive and certified the class. On
appeal, the Second Circuit remanded the case, holding that SDNY
applied the wrong standard of proof to the defendants' price impact
arguments and failed to consider some of the defendants' price
impact evidence.
Upon remand, SDNY again certified the class. On appeal, the Second
Circuit affirmed, and the defendants sought review by the Supreme
Court. In June 2021, the Supreme Court confirmed in Goldman Sachs
Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Tchr. Ret. Sys. that:
The "generic nature of a misrepresentation often is important
evidence of price impact that courts should consider at class
certification."
The defendants "bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of
price impact by a preponderance of the evidence."
In other words, a "mismatch" in specificity between the contents of
an alleged misstatement and a corrective disclosure makes it "less
likely that the specific disclosure actually corrected the generic
misrepresentation, which means that there is less reason to infer
front-end price inflation -- that is, price impact -- from the
back-end price drop."
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Second Circuit with
instructions to consider "[t]he generic nature of Goldman's alleged
misrepresentations" in its price impact analysis. On remand, the
Second Circuit determined that it was for SDNY to decide this issue
in the first instance and further remanded the case for
consideration and briefing.
Upon further remand to SDNY, the class was certified once again.
SDNY found in In re Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.that there
was a "comfortable" gap between the generic nature of the alleged
misstatements and the specific information conveyed in the alleged
corrective disclosures, but nevertheless held that Goldman failed
to establish a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the
evidence. The defendants appealed yet again. This time, the Second
Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to SDNY to
decertify the class.
Second Circuit's decision
In reversing the class certification order, the Second Circuit
applied the analytical framework set forth by the Supreme Court to
determine whether Goldman had successfully rebutted the Basic
presumption:
"[T]he 'inference [] that the back-end price drop equals front-end
inflation [] starts to break down' when the earlier
misrepresentation is generic and the later corrective disclosure is
specific, and that, '[u]nder those circumstances it is less likely
that the specific disclosure actually corrected the generic
misrepresentation[.]"
In conducting its analysis, the Second Circuit observed that claims
such as those brought by plaintiffs "require special attention to
the generic nature of the disclosure," because "the duty to
disclose more is triggered only where that which is disclosed is
sufficiently specific to evoke a reasonable investor's reliance."
"Were it otherwise," the Second Circuit reasoned, "securities
plaintiffs could find a road to success in the rearview mirror:
they would need only find negative news, such as the revelation
that a company may have committed securities fraud, and then point
to any previous disclosure from the company which touches upon a
similar subject, such as that company's commitment to complying
with the law -- no matter how generic that statement is."
Citing wide-ranging expert analyses introduced by Goldman,
including hundreds of analyst reports and an event study analyzing
public discussions about Goldman Sachs' ability to manage conflicts
of interests, the Second Circuit determined that Goldman "managed
to sever the link between back-end price drop and front-end
misrepresentation."
The Second Circuit also held that the district court misapplied the
inflation-maintenance theory recognized in 2016's In re Vivendi,
S.A. Sec. Litig. Under this theory, a plaintiff can show that a
defendant's misstatement affected the defendant's stock price if it
caused the price to remain at an inflated level. But "where the
corrective disclosures do not expressly identify the alleged
misrepresentation as false," the inference "is on shakier ground,"
and courts must pay "special attention to mismatches in specificity
between a misstatement and corrective disclosure." The Second
Circuit explained that this requires "a searching price impact
analysis" that asks "whether a truthful -- but equally generic --
substitute for the alleged misrepresentation would have impacted
the stock price."
Significance
Although each of the three judges on the panel agreed that the
class should be decertified, Judge Richard J. Sullivan separately
wrote a compelling concurrence highlighting what he viewed as the
majority's "needlessly complicate[d]" approach to what "should be a
straightforward balancing of the several factors that bear on the
question of reliance." Judge Sullivan cautioned that "the majority
has chartered a meandering course that . . . obscures what should
be an uncomplicated inquiry." The Supreme Court directive,
according to Judge Sullivan, is clear: Courts are to assess "all
probative evidence" of price impact -- including the genericness,
mismatch and materiality analyses -- regardless of the plaintiffs'
specific theory of liability.
Moving forward, the Second Circuit's 2023 ruling and the Supreme
Court's 2021 decision make clear that courts are required to
carefully consider a defendant's price impact defense, meaning that
securities defendants now have a helpful roadmap to defeating class
certification. It remains to be seen whether other circuits will
follow the Second Circuit's lead -- or take a simpler approach as
urged by Judge Sullivan -- and, perhaps more critically, whether
the panel majority's prediction that "[s]omeday the Supreme Court
will revisit [this] issue" comes to pass in the coming weeks or
years. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Consumentenbond Sues Over Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Van Campenhout, writing for Reuters, reports that the
Dutch consumers' association Consumentenbond together with the
Privacy Protection Foundation issued legal proceedings against
Google on Sept. 12 for alleged large-scale privacy violations, they
said in a statement.
Both groups demanded that Google, part of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O),
stops "its constant surveillance and sharing of personal data
through online advertising auctions" and that it pays 750 euros
($804) in damages "for every consumer who has used Google".
The statement said 82,000 people had so far joined the claim for
damages since the groups announced the action in May 2023.
A spokesperson for Google declined to comment on the case. [GN]
GULF HARBOUR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUPERTO and JUDITH
RUPERTO, v. GULF HARBOUR INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Case No.
5:23-cv-00508-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell
entered a Case management and scheduling order.
Class Discovery Deadline March 22, 2024
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification April 26, 2024
Defendant's Response May 28, 2024
Plaintiff's Rebuttal June 11, 2024
The Court will issue a subsequent Case Management and Scheduling
Order
once the class certification issue is resolved
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45RgNLt at no extra charge.[CC]
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Toussaint Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands 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 Toussaint class suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
This lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, and follows the consolidation of
two previously pending lawsuits, entitled Roman v. Hanes
Brands,[sic] Inc., and Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code.
The pending lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
injunctive relief.
The Company is vigorously defending the pending matter and believes
the case is without merit.
HANESBRANDS, INC. manufactures apparels and clothing products. The
Company produces underwear, t-shirts, sport shirts, socks, bras,
thermals, sweatshirts, sleepwear, and shoes for men, women, and
children. [BN]
HAPPY GROUP: Court Vacates Hearing on Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al.,
v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order regarding
objections to new Evidence and request for Leave to file sur-reply
The Court also entered order vacating a hearing on motion for class
certification.
The Court has not considered the substance of the parties'
non-compliant filings beyond what is necessary to provide the
guidance set forth in this Order.
The hearing on the motion for class certification, currently set
for August 31, 2023, is vacated pending receipt of the parties'
forthcoming filings.
Happy Group is a mobile application development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EybRPx at no extra charge.[CC]
HAPPY STATE: Seeks Texas Supreme Ct. Review of Ruling in Williams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAPPY STATE BANK filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f) in the case
captioned JAMIE LYNN WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT V. HAPPY STATE BANK, APPELLEE, Case
No. 07-22-00080-CV, in the Court of Appeals Seventh District of
Texas at Amarillo.
Jamie Lynn Williams initiated a class action suit against Happy
State Bank for breached contract. The purported breach involved the
ways Happy levied its $27 fee for items or debits made against
accounts lacking sufficient funds. One such breach allegedly
occurred when Happy assessed the fee upon the same "item" or check
each time it was presented for payment by a merchant. According to
Williams, the contract permitted only one assessment per the same
check or item. Another breach purportedly occurred when Happy
"charged [overdraft] Fees on . . .[debit] transactions that did not
overdraw checking accounts" at the time the underlying transaction
occurred. Allegedly, Happy "sequestered" enough funds in the
account to pay the item; so, there were funds available to pay the
debit. That pretermitted Happy from levying an overdraft fee upon
the item.
Happy joined issue, denied the allegations, and asserted a
multitude of defenses. That was followed by its combined motion to
dismiss under Rule 91a and for summary judgment. The trial court
was asked, at the onset of the suit, to address two different
motions having different standards of review. Williams responded to
the motion, and the trial court convened a hearing.
Upon entertaining argument from the parties, the trial court
granted the Rule 91a aspect of the motion, dismissed the suit with
prejudice, and awarded Happy its attorney's fees. Williams
appealed.
On May 17, 2023, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of the cause of action involving the repeated assessment
of overdraft fees on items repeatedly returned due to the
unavailability of sufficient funds for payment. The remainder of
the order was reversed and the Appeals Court remanded the cause to
the trial court.
The present appellate case filed on August 25, 2023, in the Supreme
Court of Texas is captioned Happy State Bank vs. Jamie Lynn
Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 23-0692. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner HAPPY STATE BANK is represented by:
William P. Huttenbach, Esq.
David A. Polsinelli, Esq.
CRAIN CATON & JAMES
Five Houston Center, 17th Floor
1401 McKinney, Suite 1700
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 752-8686
Facsimile: (713) 658-1921
- and -
Philip C. Reeves, Esq.
EWING & JONES
6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 590-9600
Facsimile: (713) 590-9601
- and -
Matthew W. Sherwood, Esq.
MCCARN & WEIR
905 S. Fillmore, Suite 530
Amarillo, TX 79101
Telephone: (806) 350-5416
Plaintiff-Respondent JAMIE LYNN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
- and -
Constance H. Pfeiffer, Esq.
Grant B. Martinez, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
Facsimile: (713) 632-8002
HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class of Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al.,
v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on behalf
of:
"All HRS patients whose personal information or medical
information
was compromised as a result of the data breach first disclosed
by
Defendant Health Recovery Services, Inc. on April 5, 2019."
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition fails
the ascertainability prong. The Plaintiffs' Motion is thus due
dismissal on this second, independent basis."
HRS is a non-profit that provides services to those suffering from
mental illness or substance abuse issues, including Plaintiffs and
their putative class.
The Plaintiff Frechette was a patient of HRS at the time of the
breach. Minors J.F. and C.F., represented in this lawsuit by their
mother and guardian, Jane Doe, were also patients of HRS at the
time of breach.
On February 5, 2019, HRS discovered that an unauthorized IP address
remotely had accessed its computer network since November 14, 2018.
On January 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs request the following class
definition:
Health Recovery is a non-profit that provides services to those
suffering from mental illness or substance abuse issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48fKuqY at no extra charge.[CC]
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Summary Judgment Hearing Postponed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berry, et al., v. Hennepin
County, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-02189 (D. Minn., Filed Oct. 19,
2020), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order
postponing the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and the
motion for partial summary judgment.
Because Judge Wright prefers to address the motions for judgment on
the pleadings first and then subsequently consider the motion to
certify class, the motion for summary judgment and the motion for
partial summary judgment will be heard after those motions have
been ruled on.
On August 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
against MPRB Defendants and a motion for partial summary judgment
against Hennepin County Defendants and City of Minneapolis
Defendants.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Hennepin is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. Its county
seat is Minneapolis, the state's most populous city.[CC]
HOMEADVISOR: Faces Airquip Securities Suit
------------------------------------------
Angi 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 July 2016 putative class action
captioned "Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al.," Case
No. 1:16-cv-1849, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.
The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleged that
HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the
service professionals who join its network, including charging them
for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain
charges. The complaint sought certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserted
claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and
violation of the federal (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act) RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, and sought injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount.
In November 2018, an order consolidating it under the caption "In
re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation" was issued.
Angi Inc. connects home service professionals with consumers for
repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and landscaping
operating under multiple brands including Angi, HomeAdvisor, Handy,
Total Home Roofing and Angi Roofing.
HOSTESS BRANDS: Juan Monteverde Reminds of J.M. Smucker Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Hostess Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: TWNK), relating to its proposed sale
to The J. M. Smucker Company. Under the terms of the tender offer,
TWNK shareholders are expected to receive 0.03002 shares of Smucker
and $30.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/hostess-brands-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Avantax, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVTA), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Aretec Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AVTA
shareholders are expected to receive $26.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/avantax-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
WestRock Co. (NYSE: WRK), relating to its proposed sale to Smurfit
Kapp Group plc. Under the terms of the agreement, WRK shareholders
are expected to receive 1 new share of the newly combined company,
Smurfit WestRock, and $5.00 in cash per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/westrock-co. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NextGen Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq: NXGN), relating to its proposed
sale to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, NXGN
shareholders are expected to receive $23.95 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nextgen-healthcare-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Due Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA JONES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HOWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-04010-SOH (W.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order granting the
Plaintiff Jones's unopposed motion to modify the scheduling order
to extend the motion for class certification filing deadline.
-- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or before
Tuesday, October 31, 2023.
-- All other remaining pretrial filing deadlines set forth in the
Court's Final Scheduling Order remain.
-- The Court is unlikely to entertain any further requests to
extend
the deadline for class certification.
Howard Memorial Hospital is a critical access hospital that
provides comprehensive patient-focused care in a variety of
settings— emergency, surgical, inpatient and outpatient.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Yd92n at no extra charge.[CC]
HP INC: Court Sets Briefing Sched for Renewed Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending July 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 11, 2023, that the federal court in the
Northern District of California issued an order that sets briefing
schedule for renewed dismissal motion for York County class suit.
On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against
HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the
Northern District of California.
The court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally
names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5,
2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing
material information and making false statements about HP's
printing supplies business.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.
HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On March 3, 2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.
On April 11, 2023, the appellate court reversed the district
court's decision and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion,
including consideration of HP's other arguments for dismissal.
On June 27, 2023, the district court issued an order setting the
briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss.
HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the
United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its
printers.
HP INC: Settlement in EWPF Suit Gets Court OK
---------------------------------------------
HP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending July 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 11, 2023, that the U.S. District Court in
the Northern District of California approved the settlement in
Electrical Workers Pension Fund (EWPF) class suit on September 6,
2023.
On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion
Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California.
The court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the
General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of
Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead
Plaintiffs.
Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally
named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell.
HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The court granted HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs
leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which no longer names
Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that
from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies
business.
It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling
shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing
supplies business.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the
named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion.
Plaintiffs appealed the decision.
The parties settled and the motion for preliminary approval of
settlement was filed on March 3, 2023.
Under the terms of the settlement, HP agreed to pay an amount that
is immaterial to HP.
The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on April 7, 2023.
On September 6, 2023, the court issued an order approving the
settlement and directing entry of final judgment.
HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the
United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its
printers.
HP INC: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Twardzik Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARK TWARDZIK, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Appellant v. HP INC.; NVIDIA
CORPORATION, Case No. 22-2650 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the dismissal of the
underlying case.
The matter is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1-21-cv-00396, Circuit Judge:
Honorable Stephanos Bibas).
Mark Twardzik, for himself and on behalf of others, sued HP and
NVIDIA for their marketing of the HP Envy 13 laptop with an NVIDIA
graphics processing unit. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit.
Based on Twardzik's allegations, his laptop purchase resulted from
his misunderstanding of his own research, not HP's or NVIDIA's
alleged misconduct.
Mark Twardzik was on the hunt for the perfect laptop: a small
machine with the performance of its full-size cousins. He saw the
HP Envy 13 on Slickdeals.net, a third-party online retailer. One
available option for the HP Envy 13 was a dedicated graphics
processing unit: NVIDIA's MX150. The MX150 was an "entry-level
option for discrete laptop GPUs." He began researching the laptop,
reviewing benchmark tests performed by third-party reviewers, and
seeking out other reviews.
Based on those reviews, Twardzik believed that the MX150 offered
"performance comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, an 'upper
mainstream GPU'" produced the year before. His source of
information on the GTX 1050 noted that the chip's performance "can
vary quite a lot depending on the cooling performance of the
laptop" and that "the notebook model is usually a bit slower" than
the desktop model. It also explained that "the graphics card will
usually be used for powerful multimedia notebooks and entry-level
gaming systems with at least 15.4 inches."
Undeterred by those warnings, Twardzik believed that any laptop
with the MX150 would perform as well as large laptops with the GTX
1050. He did not visit HP's or NVIDIA's websites to research the
laptop or the MX150. He ultimately bought the Envy 13, but not from
HP, NVIDIA, or Slickdeals. He instead purchased it from an
unaffiliated third-party retailer. He was disappointed when his
laptop exhibited GPU-related issues like frame rate drops and
stuttering during graphics-intensive operations like gaming,
displaying high resolution '4K' content, and running virtual
reality programs.
Circuit Judge David J. Porter, writing for the Panel, notes that it
turns out NVIDIA produced two variants of the MX150 with a wide gap
between the performance capabilities. NVIDIA advertised the
performance of the standard chip, noting up to 3x superior
performance-per-Watt and great improvements over its predecessor.
But it also produced a "slowed" variant of the MX150 that it
optimized for small laptops.
Mr. Twardzik owned the laptop for three years before filing this
action in March 2021. HP and NVIDIA moved to dismiss. He responded
by filing the operative First Amended Complaint. HP and NVIDIA
renewed their motion. The District Court dismissed the complaint
and denied leave to file a second amended complaint because
Twardzik has amended his complaint once already.
The Plaintiff/Appellant moved for reconsideration. The District
Court considered the motion and declined to reopen the case. He
asks the Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal, either by
reinstating his complaint or allowing him to amend.
Mr. Twardzik brings claims for violating the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
Judge Porter holds that all of Twardzik's claims were correctly
dismissed. His allegations foreclose reliance on HP's or NVIDIA's
conduct, and HP and NVIDIA were not unjustly enriched by his
purchase.
Mr. Twardzik himself summarizes the relevant caselaw on restitution
and unjust enrichment, Judge Porter says. He correctly concludes
that restitution requires a showing of actual reliance to justify
disgorging ill-gotten profits. Therefore, all three of his claims
require reliance.
Judge Porter finds that the allegations do not show reliance under
any standard. Twardzik baldly alleges that he purchased the laptop
in reliance on the Defendants' misleading marketing. Judge Porter
points out that that allegation lacks factual support and fails to
support his claims for at least two reasons.
First, Judge Porter explains, Twardzik does not include allegations
that he read or saw any marketing material published by HP or
NVIDIA. Twardzik instead alleges that he saw advertisements on
Slickdeals.net. He wants to impute those advertisements to HP and
NVIDIA without allegations that either would have endorsed the
advertisements for the laptop he ultimately purchased. He urges the
Court to infer that the advertisements on Slickdeals.net contained
the same or materially similar representations that HP and NVIDIA
made. Those inferences are not appropriate under the strictures of
Rule 9, which require Twardzik to plead fraud with particularity,
Judge Porter opines.
Second, Judge Porter holds that Twardzik's argument fails because
he did not actually rely on the statements on Slickdeals.net when
he decided to purchase his laptop. He instead researched the laptop
by scouring the internet for independent reviews. Through that
process, he read a review of a graphics card he expected would
perform comparably to the MX150. That review warned that the card's
performance varies across laptops and may be limited in laptops
under 15 inches. That information does not support a reasonable
conclusion that the Envy 13 would fully utilize the MX150's
capabilities.
Mr. Twardzik's misunderstanding of his own research substantially
induced his purchase, not HP's and NVIDIA's marketing materials.
Without reliance, his claims fail, Judge Porter points out.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms dismissal of
Twardzik's MCPA and fraudulent concealment claims for failure to
plead reliance.
The District Court dismissed Twardzik's claims with prejudice.
Twardzik asserts that the District Court abused its discretion by
denying him leave to file an amended complaint. The Court of
Appeals finds that the District Court did not abuse its discretion
for two reasons.
First, Judge Porter finds that Twardzik did not properly move for
leave to amend his complaint. Instead, he requested leave to amend
at the close of his brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Second, Twardzik did not submit a draft amended complaint. Judge
Porter holds that this failure is fatal to a request for leave to
amend. Twardzik had an opportunity after the dismissal order to
propose an amended complaint: after all, he moved to reargue the
motion to dismiss. But at that time he did not ask for leave to
amend or provide a proposed amended complaint.
Because Twardzik failed to file a proper motion for leave to amend
and never proposed an amended complaint, Judge Porter finds the
District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief.
The Court of Appeals affirms the District Court's judgment.
Circuit Judge Arianna J. Freeman dissented in part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8j4hcx from PacerMonitor.com.
Glenn Chappell -- gchappell@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei, 2000
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010, in Washington, D.C. 20006;
Spencer S. Hughes -- shughes@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei, 1970
Broadway, Suite 1070, in Oakland, California 94612; Nicholas
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Jason S. Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod, 412 H Street NE,
Suite 302, in Washington, D.C. 2002, Attorneys for the Appellant.
Alison D. Kehner -- akehner@dtolaw.com -- DTO Law, 27 E 28th
Street, Suite 208, in New York City, NY 10016; Megan O'Neill --
moneill@dtolaw.com -- DTO Law, 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite
2130, in Los Angeles, California 90017, Attorneys for Appellee HP
Inc.
David W. Feder -- dfeder@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West, 902
Broadway, Suite 14, in New York City, NY 10010; Laurence F. Pulgram
-- lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West, 555 California Street,
12th Floor, in San Francisco, California 94104, Attorneys for
Appellee NVIDIA Corporation.
HUB GROUP: Andujar Sues Over Improper Wage Deductions, Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ANDUJAR and FRANKLIN PENA BATISTA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUB GROUP
TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-16987 (D.N.J., Sept. 6,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the NJWPL by
subjecting Plaintiffs and other class members to improper wage
withholdings and diversions. These withholdings are itemized on
weekly "Settlement Statements" and include, inter alia,
withholdings for fuel, tolls, and insurance. The Defendant also
made withholdings up to a minimum of $1,000 for deposit into an
"escrow fund" for each employee so that Defendant could withdraw
money for, inter alia, damages incurred by Defendant.
Additionally, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees any overtime premium compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Andujar and Batista worked for Defendant as drivers from
2011 until July 2023 and from 2011 until early 2023, respectively.
Hub Group Trucking, Inc. is a transportation company that
transports goods for its customers located throughout New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
HUNT MH: Parties Seek Final Approval of Settlement in Skinner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALTON SKINNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V.
HUNT MH SHARED SERVICES, LLC AND HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES MGMT.,
INC. Case No. 5:22-cv-00799-JKP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties seek joint
motion for final approval of settlement.
Hunt primarily operates in the Business Management Consultant
business/industry.
A copy of the Parties' order dated Aug.28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Kvbnv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW | WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. – Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
The Defendants are represented by:
Heather Murray Sager, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
E-mail: HSager@perkinscoie.com
HUT AMERICAN: Collier Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Collier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hut American Group LLC; Flynn Restaurant Group LP; Doe
Corporation 1-10; and John Doe 1-10; Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03268-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2023) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated
individuals as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act, and for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at the Defendants' stores. He asserts that Defendants
repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA by
failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's Pizza Hut stores in
Springfield, Illinois from approximately November 2019 to April
2022.
Hut American Group LLC operates Pizza Hut stores in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
HYZON MOTORS: Brennan Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors 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 that it is currently facing a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York captioned "Brennan v.
Hyzon Motors Inc., et al." (No. 21-cv-06636-CJS).
Case asserts violations of federal securities laws generally
alleging that the company and individual defendants made materially
false and misleading statements relating to the nature of the
company's customer contracts, vehicle orders, and sales and
earnings projections.
Said lawsuit has been consolidated under the caption "In re Hyzon
Motors Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 6:21-cv-06612-CJS-MWP.
On March 21, 2022, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint seeking monetary damages. The
company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on May 20, 2022, and the court-appointed lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 19, 2022. The
court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March
21, 2022, and a second amended complaint on September 16, 2022.
Briefing regarding the company and individual defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
stayed pending a non-binding mediation among the parties, which
took place on May 9, 2023. The parties did not reach a settlement
during the May 9, 2023 mediation. On June 20, 2023, the court
granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint,
which was filed on June 23, 2023. The motion to dismiss currently
was due last August 25, 2023.
Hyzon Motors Inc. is headquartered in Honeoye Falls, New York, and
is into commercializing proprietary heavy-duty fuel cell technology
through assembling and upfitting HD hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
HYZON MOTORS: Miller Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors 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 that it is currently facing a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York captioned "Miller v.
Hyzon Motors Inc. et al.," Case No. 21-cv-06695-CJS.
Case asserts violations of federal securities laws generally
alleging that the company and individual defendants made materially
false and misleading statements relating to the nature of the
company's customer contracts, vehicle orders, and sales and
earnings projections.
Said lawsuit has been consolidated under the caption "In re Hyzon
Motors Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 6:21-cv-06612-CJS-MWP.
On March 21, 2022, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint seeking monetary damages. The
company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on May 20, 2022, and the court-appointed lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 19, 2022. The
court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March
21, 2022, and a second amended complaint on September 16, 2022.
Briefing regarding the company and individual defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
stayed pending a non-binding mediation among the parties, which
took place on May 9, 2023. The parties did not reach a settlement
during the May 9, 2023 mediation. On June 20, 2023, the court
granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint,
which was filed on June 23, 2023. The motion to dismiss currently
was due last August 25, 2023.
Hyzon Motors Inc. is headquartered in Honeoye Falls, New York, and
is into commercializing proprietary heavy-duty fuel cell technology
through assembling and upfitting HD hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
IMMUNOVANT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit Over Batoclimab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunovant 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 batoclimab securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the
Company's securities between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of batoclimab and seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
On December 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff.
On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding RSL and the Company's directors and underwriters as
defendants and asserting additional claims under Section 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a
putative class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's follow-on public offering on or about September 2, 2020.
On March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint.
On February 14, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiffs leave
to amend. On March 17, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint.
The Company and other defendants served motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2023.
The fully briefed motions to dismiss, including defendants' opening
briefs, lead plaintiff's opposition, and defendants' replies were
filed with the court on June 30, 2023.
No hearing date has been set.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and
has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible
losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either
probable or remote.
Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
based in New York.
INDIAN HARBOR: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Out Flood Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that an Ohio
man is suing Indian Harbor Insurance Company in a class-action
lawsuit alleging the insurance company did not properly pay out
flood claims.
Neptune Flood Incorporated, Peninsula Insurance Bureau and Sherri
Wynter also were named as defendants in the suit.
Gary Morrison lives in South Point, Ohio, but owns a residence in
Huntington and had a flood insurance policy with the defendants,
according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia.
On May 6, 2022, a flood occurred and severely damaged Morrison's
property, according to the suit, and he incurred damages and costs
for removing the resulting debris.
Morrison claims the policy obligated Defendant Indian Harbor to pay
the plaintiff the full cost to repair his property for damages
resulting from the flood.
"Following the Flood on or about May 6, 2022, the Plaintiff timely
notified defendants Indian Harbor and Neptune of the damage to his
property resulting from the Flood and presented a claim under the
Policy, which was identified as Claim No. 953551 and was handled by
defendants Indian Harbor, Neptune and Peninsula," the complaint
states. "Plaintiff, at all relevant times, paid the premiums due
and otherwise complied with the terms and conditions of the
Policy."
Morrison claims under the terms of the policy, the plaintiff's home
qualified for replacement cost coverage and the defendants failed
to assist him in completing his claim and failed to offer and pay
him the full amount of the damages to the plaintiff's property
resulting from the flood.
The defendants advised the plaintiff that Indian Harbor would pay
for only a portion of his damages and would be taking a deduction
for depreciation in connection with payment for the necessary
repair and/or replacement of the plaintiff's real property, thereby
refusing to pay the plaintiff for the full amount of the damages to
his property caused by the flood, according to the suit.
"Because the flood and the resulting damage to the plaintiff's
property was a covered cause of loss, defendant Indian Harbor was
obligated to promptly investigate the plaintiff's claims and to pay
the insurance benefits for the full cost of repairing and/or
replacing the plaintiff's real property, and to do so without any
deduction for depreciation," the complaint states. "Defendant
Indian Harbor's refusal to provide necessary first-party assistance
to the plaintiff and its refusal to pay the plaintiff applicable
insurance benefits, without imposing an unlawful deduction for
depreciation, constitute a breach of the policy, which has
proximately caused the plaintiff to incur continuing economic and
non-economic damages."
Morrison claims as a direct and proximate result of Indian Harbor's
breach of the policy, Morrison is entitled to recover compensatory
damages from the defendant for his net economic loss, attorney
fees, and consequential damages.
Upon information and belief, when other Indian Harbor insureds in
West Virginia have made claims for damage to their insured real
property, similar to the claim of Morrison, Indian Harbor has
applied an unlawful deduction for depreciation in connection with
the loss and/or repairs to their real property, according to the
suit.
Morrison is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest. He is represented by Brent K. Kesner,
Ernest G. Hentschel II and Anthony E. Nortz of Kesner & Kesner in
Charleston.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case
number: 3:23-cv-00451 [GN]
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, v.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and
THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- The following class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3):
"All United States residents who at any time from Dec. 18,
2013,
to date of trial had margin accounts with IB, which accounts
had
trades executed by the A-L Software, for which the actual
execution price of the trade was such that the ratio of
[Margin
Improvement][Cost to Liquidate] falls in the range greater
than
zero but less than three.
-- The Plaintiff Robert Scott Batchelar is appointed Class
Representative.
-- William M. Bloss and Christopher M. Mattei of Koskoff, Koskoff
&
Bieder, P.C.; Gary N. Reger of Orgain, Bell and Tucker, LLP;
and
L. DeWayne Layfield of the Law Office of L. DeWayne Layfield,
PLLC are appointed Class Counsel.
-- In August 2011, Batchelar became a customer of Interactive,
an online deep-discount broker-dealer. Interactive operates as
a
non-discretionary broker, employing proprietary software to
execute customers’ orders on various exchanges.
The plaintiff claims that members of the class suffered substantial
losses because the defendants negligently designed, coded, tested,
and maintained the auto-liquidation software, and the plaintiff
maintains that these claims raise common questions of law and
fact.
Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lk2k2u at no extra charge.[CC]
INVIVYD INC: Continues to Defend Brill Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
INVIVYD 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Brill securities class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On January 31, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Brill v. Invivyd, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:23-CV-10254-LTS, was
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the basis of
purportedly materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning ADG20's effectiveness against the Omicron
variant of COVID-19.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs.
The court appointed lead plaintiffs for the action on June 28,
2023, and has set an August 23, 2023 deadline for lead plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint.
The Company believes that is has strong defenses and it intends to
vigorously defend against this action.
Invivyd, Inc., f/k/a Adagio Therapeutics, Inc., is a
clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company.[BN]
IONQ INC: Continues to Defend Leacock Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
IONQ 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 Leacock securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock
v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (the "Leacock Litigation") against the
Company and certain of the Company's current officers.
In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher
v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the "Fisher Litigation")
was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the
Company’s current officers ("IonQ Defendants").
Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been
consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages.
In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel
for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022.
As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of
the Company's board of directors as well as other dMY-related
defendants ("Additional Defendants") have been added as defendants
to the case.
On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.
On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition
to the motions to dismiss.
On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional
Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss.
A hearing on the motions to dismiss has yet to be scheduled.
Both the IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants believe that the
allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to
defend the matters vigorously.
IONQ, INC. operates as a computing hardware and software company.
The Company develops a general-purpose trapped ion quantum
computer and software to generate, optimize, and execute quantum
circuits. [BN]
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Suit Over Property Tax Assessment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Ricono and Betsy Webster of KC TV 5 report that Lee's Summit
is suing Jackson County over the recent tax assessment.
It's the latest development in a troubled assessment.
More than 54,000 appeals have been filed, a state audit is underway
and a class action lawsuit has been filed.
The legal filing argued that Jackson County failed to do its job as
required by state law.
Lee's Summit Mayor Bill Baird said, "For too long the County and
its officials have offered one excuse after another for their
failure to correctly assess real property.
People are over or underpaying. The County still won't get it right
and Lee's Summit just can't wait any longer."
The filing argues increases were above what the state allows
pointing to required physical inspections. It says assessment
notices were mailed late. It also argues the county did not account
for new construction.
It asks the courts for a judge to rule on matters of law and
provide for injunctive relief. It also asks for damages. [GN]
JAGUAR LAND: Bishop's Vehicle Defect Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as BISHOP & HAYES, PC, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2331-CC00744, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Southern Division, on September 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 6:23-cv-03283-MDH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of itself and on behalf
of a similarly situated class of current and former owners and
lessees of a 2017 Land Rover Discovery nationwide. The Plaintiff
alleges that the vehicle subsequently suffered a water breach
around the windshield and a crack in the windshield, resulting in
destruction of the electronic system integrated in the windshield
and failure of the vehicle's computer system.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer
which produces luxury vehicles and sport utility vehicles.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen M. Strum, Esq.
Timothy R. Tevlin, Esq.
SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
Telephone: (314) 231-3332
Facsimile: (314) 241-7604
E-mail: sstrum@sandbergphoenix.com
ttevlin@sandbergphoenix.com
JAMES CLAYCOMB: Abuharba Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mohammed Abuharba v.
Chaplain James Claycomb, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01077-SMY (S.D.
Ill.), the HonPlaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1983 for the violations of the religious rights of the Plaintiff
and other Muslim prisoners.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45QeW9R at no extra
charge.[CC]
JANUS HOMECARE: Completion of Fact Discovery Due Jan. 15, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAQUEL GARCIA v. JANUS
HOMECARE AGENCY INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03321-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- The Defendant is directed to serve Sept. 7, 2023
remainder of initial disclosures,
including time sheets (if any), no
later than:
-- All fact discovery shall be Jan. 15, 2024
completed no later than:
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ribpwu at no extra charge.[CC]
JELD-WEN HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Molded Door Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, 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 consolidated case
captioned "In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation," filed
on October 19, 2018.
Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company
and one of its competitors in the doors market, Masonite
Corporation in the Eastern District of Virginia. The suits were
consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct Purchaser Action
and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits alleged that Masonite
and JELD-WEN violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and in the
Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust and consumer
protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise,
fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in
the United States. The complaints sought ordinary and treble
damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys fees.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, is a
vertically integrated global manufacturer and distributor of
windows, doors, and other building products with operation
facilities located in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Mexico. Its
products are marketed primarily under the JELD-WEN brand name in
the U.S. and Canada and under JELD-WEN and a variety of acquired
brand names in Europe.
JO-ANN STORES: Rath Must File Class Cert Bid by March 27, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rath v. Jo-Ann Stores,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y., Filed July 9, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Michael J Roemer entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to complete discovery.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification is
extended to March 27, 2024.
The suit alleges involves labor-related issues.
Jo-Ann Stores is an American haberdashery and mercery based in
Hudson, Ohio.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Santana Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN SANTANA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00930-NJ (E.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
conditional certification.
Santana seeks to allow her coworkers—other nonexempt JCI workers
who were subject to the same alleged illegal pay practices -- to
receive notice of the collective action and have the opportunity to
join it to recover any backwages they may still be owed along with
liquidated damages due to JCI’s failure to make these payments on
time. Santana's evidence easily exceeds the lenient standard for
conditional certification, and the Court should certify this
collective action and order notice to be sent to putative
collective members.
In the wake of a company-wide payroll outage beginning December
2021, JCI initially resorted to estimating its employees’ hours
instead of paying them for the actual time they worked, including
overtime and shift differentials, and then implemented systems
which still did not correctly track time or pay employees for the
hours they worked.
As a result, the wages these employees were owed were delayed for
months -- at a minimum -- or remain unpaid. But a payroll outage
does not excuse JCI’s non-compliance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). JCI's decision to initially ignore actual
hours worked by affected employees, as well as its subsequent
failure to implement systems to correctly pay its employees for
their time, including overtime, flagrantly violates the FLSA.
Carmen Santana worked for JCI as a non-exempt hourly worker during
the payroll outage.
Johnson Controls produces electronics and Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpm6md at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
AFrisch@forthepeople.com
JORNS & ASSOCIATES: Prairie Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRAIRIE POINTE
ORTHODONTICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. JORNS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ZEN LIFE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
"JORNS & ASSOCIATES", BEN WOOD, MALCOLM MENEZES, AND JASON CHARLES
GUCK A/K/A JASON CHARLES, Case No. 2:22-cv-02451-JAR-GEB (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiff file an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
The Settlement was reached through arm's length negotiations by
informed counsel through a mediation with third-party neutral
mediator Thomas V. Bender, and it reflects a reasonable, fair, and
adequate compromise of the claims brought in the case.
Entry of theg Preliminary Approval Order is warranted to:
(1) preliminarily approve the settlement;
(2) certify the Settlement Class;
(3) appoint Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
(4) appoint the undersigned as Class Counsel for the Settlement;
(5) appoint CAC Services Group, LLC as the Claims
Administrator;
(6) approve a reasonable form and manner of notice to the
Settlement Class;
(7) establish a 45-day deadline for any opt-outs or objections;
(8) enjoin any other proceedings against Defendants; and
(9) set a hearing date for final approval of the settlement,
which
(assuming preliminary approval is granted) Plaintiff
requests
be set within 100 days of entry of preliminary approval.
Jorns was created to assist businesses, navigate the complex rules
and regulations surrounding economic stimulus programs.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PdFSZW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Fisk, Esq.
BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC
8645 College Blvd., Suite 250
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 339-6888
Facsimile: (913) 339-9653
E-mail: rfisk@bkwflaw.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
E-mail: joey@hsglawgroup.com
tony@hsglawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean Walsh, Esq.
HINKLE LAW FIRM
1617 North Parkway, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67206
E-mail: swalsh@hinklaw.com
- and -
Brian Whiteley, Esq.
Kyra Ganswith, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
160 Federal Street, Suite 1001
Boston, MA 02110
E-mail: bwhiteley@barclaydamon.com
kganswith@barclaydamon.com
- and -
Patrick Edwards, Esq.
Andrew Scavotto, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1625 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67206-6620
E-mail: Patrick.Edwards@stinson.com
Andrew.scavotto@stinson.com
JS FOOD: Faces Collado Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIDO COLLADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JS FOOD & GROCERY CORP., EL CHIQUITO MINI MARKET
CORP., EL CHIQUITO DELI & GROCERY INC., EL CHIQUITO DELI GROCERY NY
CORP., and RAFAEL SUSANA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06617
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to furnish wage notices, and failure to
provide accurate statement with every payment of wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants in 2016
where he served as a clerk in a deli, preparing food, cleaning and
performing other clerical work in the store. His employment was
terminated by the Defendants on July 29, 2023.
JS Food & Grocery Corp. is engaged in the restaurant business with
its principal place of business located in the County of Nassau,
State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
KIRSTEN HUNTER: Court Tosses Holloway Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR HOLLOWAY, et al., v.
KIRSTEN HUNTER, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04149-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order that:
(1) The Plaintiff Holloway's Motion for Appointment of Counsel
is
denied without prejudice
(2) The Plaintiff Holloway's Motion for Class Certification is
Denied.
(3) The Plaintiffs John R Van Orden, Paul Bowlets, Brian E.
Craig,
Richard Berg, William Doyle, Jay Nelson, Michael D West,
Coretz
Moorman, Lloyd King, Michael Fogle, Ralph Booker Taiwo
Shango,
and Nicholas Grado are severed and dismissed from this
case.
(4) The Plaintiff Edgar Holloway is granted provisional leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
(5) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiffs John R
Van Orden, Paul Bowlets, Brian E. Craig, Richard Berg,
William
Doyle, Jay Nelson, Michael D West, Coretz Moorman, Lloyd
King,
Michael Fogle, Ralph Booker Taiwo Shango, and Nicholas Grado
each a set of civil rights forms for their use in filing a
new
case.
The Plaintiffs Edgar Holloway, John R Van Orden, Paul Bowlets,
Brian E. Craig, Richard Berg, William Doyle, Jay Nelson, Michael D
West, Coretz Moorman, Lloyd King, Michael Fogle, Ralph Booker Taiwo
Shango, and Nicholas Grado have filed pro se this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking relief for certain
claimed violations of their federally protected rights.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3repVus at no extra charge.[CC]
LEE ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTNEY STOUDEMIRE,
AMANDA VOSE, LUCINDA JACKSON, DANA FOLEY and BARBARA GRAZIOLI on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00086-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the
Hon. Judge Stephen B. Jackson Jr. entered an scheduling Order as
follows:
Order:
1. The parties must exchange initial Sept. 6, 2023
disclosures by:
2. Motions to add parties must Oct. 11, 2023
be filed by:
3. Motions for leave to Oct. 11, 2023
amend pleadings must be filed by:
4. The parties must serve initial Oct. 18, 2023
interrogatories and document
requests by:
5. The parties must provide responses Nov. 20, 2023
and objections to initial
interrogatories and document
requests by:
6. The parties must begin a rolling Jan. 8, 2024
production of documents responsive
to document requests by:
7. The parties must complete March 1, 2024
Production of documents in
response to document requests
by:
8. The Plaintiffs must file their April 26, 2024
motion for class certification
and designate expert witnesses
and disclose their written
reports by:
Lee Enterprises is a publicly traded American media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46clE9V at no extra charge.[CC]
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Class of Stockholders Certified in Nayani Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify a
class of stockholders in the lawsuit titled NIZAR S. NAYANI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC., MICHAEL K. LESTER, J.
MICHAEL BRUFF, ROBERT BESSLER, DARREN BLACK, JEFFREY CRISAN,
WILLIAM MILLER, JEFFREY RHODES, ERIC SHUEY, KATHERINE WOOD, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06833-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).
Lead Plaintiff Nizar Nayani filed this putative class action
against Defendants LifeStance Health Group, Inc., a firm that
provides mental health services; nine of LifeStance's officers and
directors (the "Individual Defendants"); and seven underwriters of
LifeStance's initial public offering ("IPO").
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges that LifeStance filed a
materially inaccurate registration statement (the "Registration
Statement") in preparation for its IPO and seeks damages under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC by "bottom-line order" on
April 10, 2023, and issued an opinion reconfirming and explaining
the reasoning for that ruling on May 4, 2023.
Mr. Nayani now moves to certify "a class of all persons, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased LifeStance common
stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
('IPO') on or about June 10, 2021," to appoint Nayani as class
representative, and to appoint his chosen counsel, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, as class counsel.
Upon consideration of the parties' written submissions and oral
argument, the Court grants Nayani's motion, but limits the class to
those who purchased LifeStance common stock no later than Nov. 8,
2021.
An opinion explaining the reasoning for this decision will follow
in due course. The Clerk is directed to close entry number 62 on
the docket of this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4svaapfr from PacerMonitor.com.
LITTLE CAESARS: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action for $7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Little
Caesars has agreed to pay almost $7 million to end a class action
from more than 8,000 former employees who alleged the pizza
purveyor violated a state biometric privacy law through its
timekeeping system.
In a motion filed Sept. 1, named plaintiff Brianna Starts asked
U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland to approve a $6.997 million
settlement for 8,407 people who had hourly jobs. The deal, which
would net class members $545, could end a lawsuit started in
January 2019 when Nivea Lenoir filed a complaint in Cook County
Circuit Court alleging Little Caesars violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by requiring workers to use a
fingerprint scanner time clock without complying with regulations
regarding consent and data retention policies.
Lawyers from the firm of Werman Salas, of Chicago, who led the
lawsuit, could receive up to $2.33 million and expenses of up to
$30,000 from the deal.
Little Caesars removed the complaint to federal court in March
2019, and Starts joined as the named plaintiff that August. A year
later Rowland denied Little Caesars' motion to dismiss the
complaint, then ordered a 150-day period of class discovery. All
parties agreed to dismiss Lenoir as a plaintiff in May 2021.
In October 2021, Rowland issued a stay pending the outcome of three
other BIPA lawsuits, including one involving White Castle. She
lifted the stay in February 2023, after which the class
certification process started and the parties began mediation.
Little Caesars "denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability,
including that it violated BIPA," according to the motion, yet has
determined settlement is preferable to possible exposure to the
considerable statutory damages BIPA plaintiffs can recover.
The Sept. 1 motion called for a class including anyone who used a
fingerprint scanner at a Little Caesars from Jan. 29, 2014, through
Jan. 14, 2019. If that number ends up exceeding 8,407 people, the
chain would increase the fund by $832.37 per each new member.
Starts is in line for a $15,000 service award.
In addition to the payment, Little Caesars agreed to delete all
employee finger scan data on its timekeeping system within 60 days
of final settlement approval. The only exception would be any
active or former "employees who have pending claims or whose data
is subject to preservation obligations," according to the motion.
Rust Consulting will serve as settlement administrator, with costs
capped at $35,500. Any uncashed checks will, after 180 days, be
transferred to the state's unclaimed property fund. Notification
will be through direct mail and email.
"If the litigation had continued, it would have been complex,
expensive and protracted," according to the motion, with Starts
hedging against first the possibility of losing the request for
class certification and then the potential of a defeat at trial.
The settlement is among the latest big money deals worth millions
to end some of the thousands of class action lawsuits that have
been filed against employers in Illinois under the state's
biometrics privacy law. Like the action against Little Caesars, the
actions typically do not claim employers mishandled employee data
or caused them any real harm. Rather, the lawsuits seek millions or
even billions of dollars in damages over alleged technical
violations of the BIPA law's notice and consent provisions.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the law allows plaintiffs
to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, and the court has
ruled individual violations should be defined as each time a
biometric identifier is scanned without notice or written
authorization, such as each time an employee scans a fingerprint on
a punch clock.
When multiplied against thousands of employees punching the clock
multiple times per day over as long as 5 years, damages can quickly
swell into what some on the high court called astronomical damages
which could cripple businesses across the state.
Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report. [GN]
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: $7.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Summary Notice was issued of a proposed partial class action
settlement reached in a lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey known as Lincoln
Adventures, LLC, et al. vs. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
et al. A more detailed version of this Notice is contained in a
Long-Form Notice posted on the Settlement website at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. You are encouraged to read the
Long-Form Notice for a more in-depth explanation of the proposed
partial settlement and your rights as they relate to the
Settlement.
IF YOU PURCHASED INSURANCE THROUGH CERTAIN SYNDICATES AT LLOYD'S OF
LONDON DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1997, THROUGH JUNE 15, 2023,
YOU COULD GET MONEY FROM A PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT THAT MAY
AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
A proposed partial class action settlement has been reached with
some, but not all, of the Lloyd's Syndicates who are Defendants in
the case and sold insurance to policyholders in the United States
(the "Settlement"). Plaintiffs assert causes of action against the
Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment based on
allegations that Defendants engaged in a deceptive scheme to
conceal the lack of competition in the Lloyd's Market. The Settling
Defendants deny the allegations made against them.
The Syndicates that have settled are Syndicate Nos. 510, 1084,
1096, and 1245 (the "Settling Defendants"). The Syndicates who
remain Defendants in the case, and who have not settled, are
Syndicate Nos. 0727, 1003, 2003, 2020, 2488, and 2791 (the
"Non-Settling Defendants"). The case will continue to be litigated
against the Non-Settling Defendants.
WHAT ARE YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND IMPORTANT DEADLINES
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself in writing from the Class by November 23, 2023.
The steps you must follow to be excluded are described in the
Long-Form Notice, which is available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. You can also obtain a copy of the
Long-Form Notice by mail or email by calling the toll-free number
at 1-877-298-4134 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central
Time The email address to request a copy of the Long-Form Notice is
info@SyndicateSettlement.com. It is also available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. If you do not exclude yourself, but
instead stay in the Class, you may object or comment on the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application for attorneys'
fees and expenses, and service awards to the class representatives
by November 23, 2023. The procedure on how to object or comment is
described in the Long-Form Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing for December 14, 2023, at
11:30 a.m. Eastern Time, at which the Court will consider whether
to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards for the class
representatives. The hearing will take place in Courtroom 5 in the
United States Courthouse located at Martin Luther King Building and
U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101. The
Court may choose to change the date and/or time of the hearing (or
decide to conduct it virtually) without further notice of any kind
other than on the settlement website and the Court's docket
available at http://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov.If you plan to attend the
hearing, you should confirm the date and time by checking the
website at www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by calling the toll-free
number at 1-877-298-4134. The Court at the hearing will consider
objections that have been properly made by Class Members. If the
Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, it
will approve the Settlement. You may choose to attend the hearing,
either in person or through an attorney hired at your own expense,
but attendance is not required. If you choose to attend the hearing
and intend to make a presentation to the Court, you or your
attorney must follow the procedures set forth in the Long-Form
Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COURT AND
THE COUNSEL IDENTIFIED BELOW NO LATER THAN November 23, 2023.
If the Court approves the Settlement, then the Settling Defendants
will be dismissed from the case. Class Members who have not
properly requested exclusion from the Class will be deemed to have
released the Settling Defendants from all claims related to the
case and will not be able to sue the Settling Defendants for any of
the conduct that was the subject of the case. The full text of the
Release is set forth in the Long-Form Notice at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS
The Settlement affects members of the Class, which are with certain
limited exceptions, all persons and entities in the United States
who, during the period January 1, 1997, through June 15, 2023 (the
"Class Period"), purchased or renewed a contract of insurance (an
insurance policy, not reinsurance) with any of the Defendants. The
complete description of the Class is set forth in the Long-Form
Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE
The Settling Defendants have agreed to make payments to settle the
claims against them. The total amount of these payments is
$7,900,000. After deducting the amounts approved by the Court for
settlement and claims administration costs, attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, and service awards for the class
representatives, these funds will be paid to members of the Class.
The Settling Defendants will be entitled to the release and other
provisions of the Settlement.
WHO WILL RECEIVE A PAYMENT
Payments to Class Members will be made according to the Plan of
Allocation, which is included in the Long-Form Notice at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. To receive a payment, Class Members
must submit a Claim Form by December 21, 2023, as more fully
described in the next paragraph.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT
To be eligible for a payment, a Class Member must submit a Claim
Form on or before December 21, 2023. Claim Forms are available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. Claim Forms can be requested from the
Claims Administrator by calling the toll-free number at
1-877-298-4134 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central Time,
or by email at info@SyndicateSettlement.com. Claim Forms can be
completed online at www.SyndicateSettlement.com, emailed to the
Claims Administrator at info@SyndicateSettlement.com, or mailed to
the Claims Administrator at Syndicate Settlement, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173075, Milwaukee, WI 53217. Each Class Member who
wishes to claim part of the Settlement must submit a Claim Form by
December 21, 2023. It is the responsibility of the Class Member to
provide truthful and accurate information, and to update any
information, including contact and address information, to the
Claims Administrator, when appropriate.
WHO ARE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CLASS AND THE SETTLING DEFENDANTS?
The Attorneys for the Class are:
Rachel L. Jensen
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Robert S. Schachter
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER
& ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
The Attorneys for the Settling Defendants are:
Matthew M. Burke
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
One Boston Place, 26th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Email: mburke@rc.com
HOW CAN I OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
If you think that you may be a Class Member, you can obtain more
information, including a copy of the Long-Form Notice, the Claim
Form, the Settlement Agreement, and other documents relating to the
Settlement by visiting www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by contacting
the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-877-298-4134.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK.
LOANDEPOT INC: Approval of Settlement in Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
loanDepot 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 9, 2023, that the preliminary settlement of
the consolidated class suit is pending for court approval.
Beginning in September 2021, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California asserting claims under the U.S. securities
laws against the Company, certain of its directors, and certain of
its officers regarding certain disclosures made in connection with
the Company's IPO.
The two actions were consolidated in May 2022.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2022, which, in
addition to challenging disclosures made in connection with the
IPO, alleges that certain disclosures made after the IPO were false
and/or misleading.
The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 24, 2022.
On January 24, 2023, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss.
The Company's answer to the consolidated amended complaint was
filed on March 3, 2023.
On June 26, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action.
On July 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the Court, which is pending
approval.
LoanDepot Inc. is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding
company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.
LOUISIANA: Plaintiffs Win Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX A., by and through
his guardian, MOLLY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official
capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official
capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice,
JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No.
3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs hereby appointed class representatives for the
Principal Class and the Disabilities Subclass, as defined.
The Court further designates Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel
under Rule 23(g).
Essentially, the relief requested is specific and quite simple:
forbid OJJ from transferring youth to BCCY-WF. Accordingly, the
Court finds that all requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied in this
case, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
granted.
The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary
to determine whether class certification is proper.
The proposed class and subclass in this case consist of:
"All youth who are now or will be in the custody of OJJ who have
been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site (the
"Transitional Treatment Unit" or "TTU) at Angola or another
adult
prison (the "Principal Class"), including a subclass of all
current
and future youth with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the custody of OJJ
who
have been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site at
Angola or another adult prison (the "Disabilities Subclass")
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RokjbS at no extra charge.[CC]
LUMINAR TECH: Faces Johnson Shareholder Suit Over Photonic IC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luminar Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on May 26, 2023, a
putative class action styled "Johnson v. Luminar Technologies,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
against the company
The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly
misleading statements regarding the company's photonic integrated
circuits (IC) technology.
Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology
company into vehicle safety and autonomy.
MAJESTIC STAR: Class Certification Bids in Rodriguez Due Dec. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. The Majestic
Star Casino, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00198 (N.D. Ind., Filed
July 19, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting bid for
extension of time.
-- Discovery deadline or initial Nov. 28, 2023
bifurcated stage is:
-- Class Certification Motions due by: Dec. 27, 2023
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.
Majestic was a gaming holding company founded in Gary,
Indiana.[CC]
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: 4th Cir. Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fuller, Esq., of Robinson Bradshaw, in an article for
JDSupra, disclosed that on Aug. 18, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the
long-running Marriott Data Breach MDL Litigation. The Fourth
Circuit reversed a district court's class certification decision,
holding that the district court erred in certifying damages classes
against the Marriott defendants without first addressing, as a
threshold issue, the potential enforceability of a "class-action
waiver" that could be applicable to all members of the putative
class. The Court of Appeals also reversed the district court's
certification of issue classes against Marriott's co-defendant,
Accenture. In certifying issue classes for the claims against
Accenture, the district court primarily had relied on the potential
efficiency of litigating the Accenture issue classes simultaneously
with the Marriott damages classes; therefore, reversal of the
Marriott damages classes required reversal of the Accenture issue
classes.
The Fourth Circuit's opinion provides a valuable precedent for
defendants fortunate enough to have a class-action waiver argument.
The opinion squarely holds that "the time to address a contractual
class waiver is before, not after, a class is certified." The Court
of Appeals recognized that treating a waiver as a threshold issue
reflects a "consensus practice," but acknowledged the absence of
precedent squarely on point. The opinion's language is unequivocal,
declaring:
[A] class-waiver defense is not a defense to liability but to being
required to litigate a class action at all. If that defense is
addressed only after a class action [has] already been litigated to
the merits, then it is effectively lost [citing Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)] and the defendant is denied the
benefit of this contractual bargain.
The Court went on to note that even if the waiver were regarded as
a merits defense, it would be appropriate under Walmart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011), to address the
effectiveness of the waiver at the certification stage.
The narrow holding of the Court's opinion is logical and helpful to
defendants. But the opinion leaves a number of interesting
questions unanswered.
To start, the district court avoided Rule 23(b) and Rule 23(c)
concerns by certifying a class comprising only Marriott customers
who had signed agreements containing class-action waivers,
excluding customers whose agreements did not include such a waiver.
The Court of Appeals declined to address Marriott's argument that
this exclusion created an ascertainability problem, noting that the
district court had reserved the ascertainability issue for later
consideration, if required. In this regard, the opinion indicates
that the parties in the trial court tried several "bellwether
cases" prior to class certification, which is an unusual procedure,
and that Marriott did not raise the "class-waiver" defense in any
of these cases. The district court's opinion implies that Marriott
may have "waived the waiver argument" by not advancing it sooner.
Ironically, if the district court concludes that the class-action
waiver is not enforceable, Marriott's appeal may well result in
certification of a much larger class including all potential
claimants.
The Fourth Circuit also declined to address when and under what
circumstances a district court may certify an issue class under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(c)(4). The Court of Appeals noted that, by
definition, narrowing the issues sufficiently will, as a practical
matter, eliminate the usual barriers (e.g., commonality,
typicality, manageability) to class certification. The appellate
court noted that it was appropriate for district courts to weigh
the efficiencies associated with the certification of issue classes
against the challenges and inefficiencies of proceeding to separate
trials on issues related to causation, affirmative defenses and
damages. Otherwise, the Fourth Circuit declined Accenture's
invitation to hold that, even had the district court certified
damages classes against Marriott on remand, issue-class proceedings
against Accenture would be improper.
Finally, the waiver at issue is interesting. Class-action waivers
are often included in arbitration provisions and are enforceable
after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). The waiver at issue, which is
included in the record on appeal (Docket 22-1744, Doc. 29-2, page
232 of 235), provides for exclusive jurisdiction in New York,
application of New York substantive law and states that "[a]ny
disputes . . . will be handled individually without any class
action." [GN]
MDL 2428: Court OK's Dismissal of MSP Recovery From Fresenius MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allows the Defendants' motion to dismiss
in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: FRESENIUS
GRANUFLO/NAUTRALYTE DIALYSATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
document relates to: MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, MDL No. 13-2428, Case No. 1:18-cv-12231-NMG (D.
Mass.).
Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and
Series PMPI (collectively, "MSP Recovery" or "Plaintiffs") bring
this product liability action against Defendants Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America;
Fresenius USA, Inc.; Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc.; Fresenius
USA Marketing, Inc. and Fresenius USA Sales, Inc. (collectively,
"Fresenius" or "Defendants") alleging severe defects in their
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo products. MSP Recovery brings this action
as assignee of various Medicare, Medicaid and similar third party
payers.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The case is part of a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") currently
pending before this session of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. All of the cases involve alleged
injuries to individual patients resulting from the use of
Fresenius's GranuFlo product in hemodialysis treatments.
As alleged in the complaint, Medicare payers, first-tier,
downstream and related entities, as well as Medicaid payers, such
as Accountable Care Organizations and other payers (collectively,
"Assignors") assigned to MSP Recovery the right to recover the
direct economic damages proximately caused by Fresenius's GranuFlo
products.
The Assignors made payments on behalf of or otherwise became
financially responsible for their enrollees' medical expenses
incurred as a result of the use of GranuFlo by such enrollees. In
its complaint, MSP Recovery contends that it "stands in the shoes
of the enrollees." In September 2018, MSP Recovery filed a pure
bill of discovery complaint against Fresenius in Miami-Dade County
Circuit Court in Florida. One week later, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
In October 2019, the Defendants removed the proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Later that
month, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation transferred the case to the U..S District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to be heard as part of In Re: Fresenius
GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2428, before United States District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.
In February 2019, Judge Woodlock held a status conference in which
he directed MSP Recovery to amend its allegations to provide
greater specificity.
The Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in March 2019.
That complaint includes counts for: 1) negligence, 2) unjust
enrichment, 3) strict liability, 4) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, 5) negligent failure to warn, 6) negligent design
defect, 7) negligent misrepresentation, 8) breach of express
warranty, 9) violation of consumer protection laws, 10) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and 11) fraud.
Fresenius has moved to dismiss all counts.
The MDL cases were transferred to this session in June 2023. This
Court held a status conference in July 2023, during which the
Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that several legal
developments had occurred since the filing of the original motion
to dismiss and requested leave to brief the Court on them. The
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in late July 2023 and
Fresenius promptly responded
Fresenius moves to dismiss for several reasons, including 1) MSP
Recovery's claims are time-barred, 2) the second amended complaint
fails to allege facts sufficient to establish a legal basis for
subrogation to the rights of the patients and 3) MSP Recovery has
not alleged facts with respect to individual patients sufficient to
establish all of the material elements of the claims asserted in
the second amended complaint.
First, and foremost, the claims of MSP Recovery are indeed
untimely, Judge Gorton holds. The Plaintiffs assert claims for
injuries occurring on or before March 21, 2013, five and a half
years prior to the commencement of the case at bar in September,
2018. MSP Recovery does not dispute that the claims in the second
amended complaint are outside the applicable time limits under
relevant state law but rather invokes an exception based on tolling
under American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).
The second amended complaint alleges that MSP Recovery's claims
fall within the class definition of Berzas, et al. v. Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc., et al, Case No. 13-cv-10843-DPW, a
putative class action filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana in March, 2013 and transferred to
this MDL the following month. MSP Recovery contends that it is,
therefore, entitled to class action tolling pursuant to American
Pipe based on the pendency of the Berzas action.
As an initial matter, Judge Gorton notes, tolling under American
Pipe is permissible only if the Plaintiffs are members of the
original putative class, citing In re Celexa & Lexapro Mktg. &
Sales Pracs. Litig., 915 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2019). Here,
Plaintiff MSP Recovery seeks to collect the payments that were made
by the Assignors, such as those arising from injuries resulting
from the Defendants' defective GranuFlo product.
The second amended complaint further explains that the Assignors
suffered financial injury when they paid for, or otherwise provided
medical care, to their enrollees for injuries sustained as a result
of having been administered the defective GranuFlo products during
hemodialysis.
According to the second amended complaint, MSP Recovery seeks to
recoup payments made by its assignors in connection with injuries
sustained by patients who were administered GranuFlo, not payments
for NaturaLyte or GranuFlo itself. That is further demonstrated by
the Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, which lists several primary care and
urgent care providers as its assignors, not dialysis providers.
Because MSP Recovery has not sufficiently established class
membership, Judge Gorton finds that its claims are not subject to
the tolling exception under American Pipe. Moreover, American Pipe
tolling is an equitable doctrine and ordinarily, to benefit from
equitable tolling, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have
been diligent in pursuit of their claims. Judge Gorton finds that
MSP Recovery was not diligent in pursuit of its claims.
MSP Recovery has also requested leave to amend its complaint. Judge
Gorton holds that the request will be denied because Judge Woodlock
specifically informed the parties at his February 2019 status
conference that the second amended complaint should be MSP
Recovery's "last and best offer." Furthermore, courts in other
circuits have denied MSP Recovery's repeated requests to amend its
complaints when confronted with motions to dismiss, aptly
describing such tactics as the result of MSP Recovery's
"scattershot litigation strategy."
For these reasons, Judge Gorton rules that Defendant Fresenius's
motion to dismiss is allowed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Sept. 7,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/u9h3ja4z from
PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MDL 2700 Genentech Herceptin
(Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.
4:16-md-02700 (N.D. Okla., Filed April 7, 2016), the Hon. Judge
Gregory K. Frizzell entered minute order deadlines as follows:
-- Genentech shall respond to plaintiffs' Sept. 19, 2023
Motion to Bifurcate Class Certification
Briefing on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs may file a reply on Sept. 26, 2023
or before:
Genentech, Inc. is an American biotechnology corporation
headquartered in South San Francisco, California. It became an
independent subsidiary of Roche in 2009. Genentech Research and
Early Development operates as an independent center within
Roche.[CC]
MENARD INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Leonhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leonhardt v. Menard, Inc.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-04118-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan
E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Menard owns and operates home improvement stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LktLcm at no extra charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek Atty's Fees, Expenses & Awards
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN LUNDY, MYRIAH
WATKINS, ELIZABETH CHILDERS, MICHELLE AGNITTI, and ROBIN HODGE, v.
META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06793-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order approving the
requested:
-- Fee of 25% percent of the Common Fund, or $9,375,000,
reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of
$322,464.95
(subject to being updated before the final approval hearing),
and
service awards of $5,000 to each of the five Class
Representatives.
The Class Representatives were essential to securing relief for the
Class.
Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44WKzx9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
The Tower Building
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
- and -
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
Jillian R. Dent, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: vahle@stuevesiegel.com
dent@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Paul R. Wood, Esq.
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
woodp@fdazar.com
murphym@fdazar.com
- and -
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (646) 876-3568
E-mail: ingo@fnf.law
META PLATFORMS: Tucson Unified School District to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Fink writing for KVOA, reports that Southern Arizona's largest
school district will take on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, 'X' and
other social media companies in court.
The Tucson Unified School District Governing Board voted
unanimously 5-0 on Sept. 12 to allow the school district to join a
nationwide class action lawsuit of school districts going up
against social media platforms.
The district says social media sites have substantially disrupted
its core educational mission.
According to the school district, social media platforms do not do
enough to keep a safe online environment for kids.
"Schools have anonymous pages that students will talk about other
students, my daughter has ended up on that," TUSD board member
Natalie Luna Rose said. "You read it and, for us as adults, your
first inclination is you roll your eyes and think don't worry about
it, it will go away, but social media is forever now. And these
things follow these kids."
TUSD attorney Robert Ross cautions social media platforms have deep
pockets and told the school board this legal process could take a
minimum three to four years.
Luna Rose is all in.
"This might be a good way to go forward, be a leader in trying to
protect our kids from not just the outside world but also from each
other a little bit," she said. "They're not experienced enough to
understand the implications of what social media can really do."
[GN]
MITCHELL GROCERY: Fails to Put Nutrition Labels on Bakery Goods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action out of Alabama alleges Food Giant has violated food labeling
regulations by failing to place nutrition labels on its bakery
goods.
The 22-page lawsuit says that despite "clear requirements" set by
state law and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stating
that food packages must be labeled with nutrition panels, the
grocery store chain sells bakery products in prepackaged containers
that lack nutrition labeling.
The case claims that defendant Mitchell Grocery Corp. -- which owns
numerous Food Giant locations throughout the Southeast -- has
neglected its legal responsibility to provide consumers with
information about the nutritional value of its baked products.
Although certain establishments are exempt from the FDA's nutrition
labeling laws, such as bakeries that make their goods on-site from
scratch and restaurants that serve food for immediate consumption,
Food Giant does not fall into any of those exemptions, the filing
contends.
The case claims that "[i]f bakery goods are merely baked and
packaged, then they are not exempt and the required Nutrition
Labeling is to be affixed."
According to the suit, Food Giant receives the dough for its
prepackaged bakery goods in shipments from either a third-party
vendor or Mitchell Grocery Corp.'s central location.
As the FDA clarifies in its 2013 Food Labeling Guide, nutrition
labeling is required if "pre-formed dough, pre-scaled/molded and
par baked dough are merely proofed and baked or simply thawed," the
lawsuit relays. Moreover, foods that are not for immediate
consumption, such as pre-portioned packages, are exempt only if the
product is "primarily processed and prepared on-site," the filing
shares.
By failing to disclose such details, the company is "misleading
consumers by marketing misbranded food," the suit contends.
The plaintiff, an Alabama resident who purchased Ma's yeast rolls
and cornbread from the Hueytown Food Giant, says that she and other
customers purchased baked goods from the grocery store chain that
were of less value than if proper nutrition labeling had been
attached.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Mississippi or Florida who
purchased Food Giant's bakery goods that were sold without
nutrition labels. The suit also seeks to cover anyone in Alabama
who purchased Food Giant's bakery goods that were not processed and
prepared on-site but were sold without nutrition labels. [GN]
NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings 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 Exchange Act class suit in the
Northern District of Georgia.
On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the
Company and two of the Company's officers.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 for materially false and misleading
statements made between May 2021 and May 2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable
relief.
On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield
General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members
Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion,
seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs.
On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 19, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff motion.
On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act and extended
the alleged class period to February 28, 2023.
The Company believes that the claims alleged are without merit and
intend to defend the litigation vigorously.
National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer,
Headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]
NESTLE USA: Falcone Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE, v. NESTLE
USA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
M. James Lorenz entered an order granting joint motion to set class
certificaiton motion briefing schedule.
1. No later than November 10, 2023, Plaintiff shall file her
motion
for class certification, if any, including any expert reports
she intends to rely upon for class certification.
2. No later than December 15, 2023, Defendant shall file its
opposition, if any, including any expert reports Defendant
intends to rely upon in opposition to class certification.
3. No later than January 16, 2024, Plaintiff shall file her
reply,
if any.
Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RprXme at no extra charge.[CC]
NETFLIX INC: East St. Louis Seeks to Revive Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that an
attorney for an Illinois town was met by a skeptical Seventh
Circuit on Sept. 12 as she sought revive a federal class action
against the country's TV streaming giants.
Judges wasted no time hammering Melissa Sims, who represented the
town of East St. Louis, about jurisdiction, kicking off the line of
questioning just seconds into a 40-minute hearing.
"You have defendants which are extraordinarily complex entities
that have many layers of organization," said U.S. Circuit Judge
Frank Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee. "And there's one in
particular that I'm worried about, which is AT&T Capital Services,
which … appears to have its principal place of business in
Illinois. And then there's no diversity jurisdiction."
Sims, of the firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman in
Knoxville, Tenn., said that appeared to be correct.
"Then why are we here?" Easterbrook replied. "If you believe that,
indeed, you have sued somebody from Illinois, then there is no
diversity jurisdiction, and your ethical obligation is to dismiss
this suit."
At issue is a 2021 lawsuit filed by East St. Louis in the U.S.
District Court for Southern Illinois against Netflix, Disney
Platform Distribution, Apple, Hulu, WarnerMedia Direct, Amazon.com
Services, CBS Interactive, YouTube, CuriosityStream, Peacock TV,
DirecTV and DISH Network.
East St. Louis claimed the defendants violated Illinois' Cable and
Video Competition Law by providing video service to Illinois
residents through the public rights of ways without first getting
authorization from the Illinois Commerce Commission and without
paying the required fees to municipalities.
The three-judge panel also questioned Gregory G. Garre, of the
Washington-based L Latham & Watkins, who represented the streaming
companies on jurisdiction, specifically on whether AT&T Capital
Services is based in Illinois or Texas.
"We would love the opportunity to provide a supplemental brief on
this," Garre said.
The panel made clear that it would need supplemental briefs from
both sides regarding jurisdiction.
East St. Louis claims the defendants, instead of complying with the
state law, entered into confidential interconnection agreements
with authorized holders to circumvent the nature and purpose of the
statute, all to avoid paying cities a 5% fee.
U.S. District Judge Mark A. Beatty tossed the lawsuit on Sept. 23,
2022, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
Beatty found neither East St. Louis nor the state of Illinois had
the right to seek statutory compensation against a non-holder under
the Cable and Video Competition Law. He also dismissed East St.
Louis' common law counts of trespass and unjust enrichment and the
city's ordinance count for the unlawful resale of cable
communication.
"To avoid compensating municipalities for the use of their
infrastructure, the streaming companies have leveraged private
interconnection agreements with cable providers to house their
video content on servers located within the [local internet service
providers]," Sims argued on Sept. 12.
The panel pressed Sims on language in the statute requiring cable
or video providers maintain a customer service facility staffed
with customer representatives within the boundaries of a local
holding unit, noting Illinois has 2,000 different municipalities.
"As you read the statute, then every one of them has to open up a
separate customer service facility, a brick-and-mortar facility, in
every one of those municipalities they serve," U.S. Circuit Judge
David Hamilton, a Barack Obama appointee, pointed out. "Doesn't
that strike you as an odd result?"
"When they have equipment in the rights of ways, such as servers,
then they should be responsible and have somebody local to talk if
something were to happen to that equipment," Sims answered. "They
should have a local person to address those issues with the city."
Garre said the servers Sims mentioned are not physically connected
to any hardware within city boundaries.
"All the streaming defendants are doing is making content available
for individuals to access through their own devices, and through
their own [internet service providers] over the internet," Garre
said. "This has nothing to do with the defendants actually
constructing, installing, or maintaining anything on wire lines in
the public rights of way, which is the prerequisite for imposing
this franchise fee on anyone."
Garre cited precedent in similar claims.
"Courts across the country, while they're not binding on this
court, have reached the same conclusion in almost identical
circumstances," Garre told the court. "And there's no reason for
this court to break from that pack and find any implied basis for
the city to maintain this action under the Illinois statute."
Judge Doris Pryor, a Joseph Biden appointee, rounded out the panel,
which took the case under advisement.
The rise of streaming television options has followed the "cord
cutting" trend by viewers seeking cheaper alternatives, and
traditional cable companies have struggled to keep popular stations
on the air, leaving viewers in the dark during contract disputes.
Spectrum on Sept. 11 announced a deal with Disney after its 15
million customers lost access to popular sports television stations
such as ESPN just as football season began. DirecTV customers have
been without access to Fox and other stations since July due to an
ongoing contract dispute.
East St. Louis claims "cord cutting" has caused substantial losses
to local and state governments.
"Indeed this 'cord cutting' is expected to strip nearly $33.6
billion in annual revenue from traditional U.S. cable television
services in the five-year outlook," the city stated in its brief.
East St. Louis, located directly across the Mississippi River from
St. Louis, has a population of 18,195, according to city-data.com.
The town's population, which has dropped 42% since 2002, is 86.2%
Black and its median household income in 2021 was $27,874, almost
$45,000 below Illinois' average. [GN]
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Burey Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle Burey, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE, INC., JANET TORRES,
MURRY ENGLARD and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-06767
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages from Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay,
as required by law, and entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to
the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and similar employees were home health aides who
worked numerous 24-hour shifts for which they were illegally paid
for only 13 of the 24 hours worked, as they did not get
uninterrupted meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted
sleep. Plaintiff and similar employees worked for Defendants for
more than 40 hours per week ("overtime hours") and were not paid
time and one half for their overtime hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a home health aide employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants are a licensed home health care agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mikhail Usher, Esq
USHER LAW GROUP, P.C.
1022 Avenue P 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11223
Phone: (718) 484-7510
NEW YORK LIFE: Krohnengold Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krohnengold, et al., v.
New York Life Inc. Co. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order
temporarily granting motion to seal.
The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed
or redacted when deciding the underlying motion.
The Plaintiffs request to leave to file under seal the following
materials in connection with their Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification:
-- LCG_Associates_00000118 and 1221
(Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Jacob Schutz)
-- LCG_Associates_00046726 (Exhibit 9 to the Schutz Declaration)
-- LCG_Associates_00020498 (Exhibit 12 to the Schutz Declaration)
-- LCG_Associates_00016069 (Exhibit 13 to the Schutz Declaration)
-- LCG_Associates_00000020 (Exhibit 21 to the Schutz Declaration)
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PChtyx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kai Richter, Esq.
COHENMILSTEIN
5290 Denver Tech Center Parkway, Suite 150
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Telephone: (720) 630-2092
NEW YUNG: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 4 in Xia Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYU XIA, et al., v. NEW
YUNG WAH CARRIERS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04475-HG-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order
granting the Parties stipulation and agreement as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file the attached Second Amended
Complaint
by no later than September 5, 2023.
-- The Parties agree that for the purposes of the instant
lawsuit,
the filing date of the First State Court Action Plaintiffs'
claims, which are added to the Second Amended Complaint, will
relate back to January 4, 2022.
-- The parties agree that for the purposes of the instant
lawsuit,
the filing date of the Second State Court Action Plaintiffs’
claims, which are added to the Second Amended Complaint, will
relate back to August 23, 2022.
-- The parties agree that for the purposes of the instant
lawsuit,
the filing date of the Third State Court Action Plaintiffs’
claims, which were filed with the State Court and which are
added
to the Second Amended Complaint, will relate back to July 27,
2023.
-- Fact discovery for the current parties and additional
plaintiffs
shall conclude by December 4, 2023.
New Yung is an active carrier in New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pmq5I9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Heng Wang, Esq.
HENG WANG &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 203-5231
Facsimile: (212) 203-5237
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven Seltzer, Esq.
THE SELTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
125 Maiden Lane, Suite 507
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 509-1616
Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nova Southeastern
University, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nova
Southeastern University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00953 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nova Southeastern University -- http://www.nova.edu/-- is a
private research university with its main campus in Fort
Lauderdale-Davie, Florida, United States, in the Miami metropolitan
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
NY & CO: Ruhireimer Must Seek Entry of Default from Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUHIREIMER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. NY & CO ECOMM
LLC, d/b/a NEW YORK & COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00740-TSE-WEF (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge T.S. Ellis, III entered an order directing the
Plaintiff to seek an entry of default from the Clerk of the Court
immediately pursuant to Rule 55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
-- If Plaintiff intends to seek relief on behalf of the Putative
Class, the Plaintiff must promptly file a motion for class
certification.
-- The Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for default
judgment
against Defend ant pursuant to Rule 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
together with an accompanying memorandum setting forth the
factual and legal support for the following findings:
(i) that this Court has subject matter and personal
jurisdiction;
(ii) that the defaulting Defendant was properly served;
(iii) that the First Amended Class Action Complaint
alleges
facts establishing all necessary elements of one or
more claims on which relief can be granted; and
(iv) that Plaintiff is entitled to the monetary and
injunctive relief sought, with specific references
to
affidavits, declarations, or other evidence
supporting
such relief.
NY & Co. is a nationwide specialty retailer of fashionable,
attractively priced women's apparel, accessories and beauty.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lsd3b8 at no extra charge.[CC]
OCS INC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OCS, Inc. The case is
styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. OCS, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08023 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OCS Inc. -- https://www.ocs.com/ -- provides technology solutions
for businesses throughout the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oklahoma Baptist
University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Oklahoma
Baptist University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oklahoma Baptist University -- https://www.okbu.edu/ -- is a
private Baptist university in Shawnee, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Court Junks Discovery Requests
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA GRANADOS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ONPOINT COMMUNITY
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00847-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Michael H. Simon entered an order denying the defendant's motion to
compel.
-- The Court denies without prejudice OnPoint's motion to compel.
If
Granados files a motion for class certification and OnPoint
needs
further discovery, it may renew its motion at that time.
The Plaintiff Granados brings this putative class action against
OnPoint Community.
OnPoint seeks an order that overrules Granados's objections to nine
interrogatories and four requests for admission. According to
OnPoint, these discovery requests are primarily intended to clarify
the contours of, and alleged factual basis supporting, the four
proposed classes outlined in the First Amended Complaint.
OnPoint maintains that responses to its discovery requests "are
necessary for OnPoint to oppose class certification."
Granados opposes OnPoint's motion on multiple grounds. For each
interrogatory at issue, Granados argues that she properly objected
because it violates the work-product doctrine; is unnecessary
because OnPoint has already disclosed the information sought;
mischaracterizes her prior representations to the Court; is
premature because Plaintiff has not yet moved for class
certification; or suffers from a combination of those defects.
Granados further argues that she properly objected to OnPoint's
requests for admission because they misstate her representations to
the Court, are impermissibly ambiguous, or both.
Onpoint deals with financial services such as saving accounts,
loans, credit, retirement planning and insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46xaLzJ at no extra charge.[CC]
OPENAI INC: Faces Infringement Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Report, reports that authors
are escalating efforts to block artificial intelligence companies
from using their copyrighted works to train artificial intelligence
systems, this time taking aim at Meta and OpenAI in proposed
class-action lawsuits.
Michael Chabon and other decorated writers of books and screenplays
sued Meta on Sept. 12 in California federal court, accusing the
company of copyright infringement for harvesting mass quantities of
books across the web, which were then used to produce infringing
works that allegedly violate their copyrights. OpenAI was sued on
Sept. 8 in an identical class action alleging the firms "benefit
commercially and profit handsomely from their unauthorized and
illegal" collection of the authors' books. They seek a court order
that would require the companies to destroy AI systems that were
trained on copyright-protected works.
The lawsuit is the latest volley from creators in a barrage of
court challenges over the legality of the way large language models
are trained. OpenAI is facing a proposed class action from author
Paul Tremblay, in addition to a suit filed by Sarah Silverman,
which also names Meta. Artists have similarly sued AI art
generators Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt for copyright
infringement.
As evidence that AI systems were fed authors' books, the suit
points to ChatGPT generating summaries and in-depth analyses of the
themes in the novels when prompted. It says that's "only possible
if the underlying GPT model was trained using" their works.
"If ChatGPT is prompted to generate a writing in the style of a
certain author, GPT would generate content based on patterns and
connections it learned from analysis of that author's work within
its training dataset," states the complaint, which largely borrows
from the suit filed by Tremblay.
And because the large language models can't operate without the
information extracted from the copyright-protected material, the
answers that ChatGPT produces are "themselves infringing derivative
works," the lawsuit against Meta says.
The authors allege that OpenAI and Meta built the datasets they use
to train their AI systems by "scraping the internet for text data."
In June 2018, OpenAI revealed that it fed GPT-1 — the first
iteration of its large language model — a collection of over
7,000 novels on BookCorpus, according to the complaint.
"BookCorpus is a controversial dataset, assembled in 2015 by a team
of AI researchers funded by Google and Samsung for the sole purpose
of training language models like GPT by copying written works from
a website called Smashwords, which hosts self-published novels,
making them available to readers at no cost," the lawsuit states.
"Despite those novels being largely under copyright, they were
copied into the BookCorpus dataset without consent, credit, or
compensation to the authors."
The complaint says that later versions of OpenAI's large language
models were also trained on illicitly obtained books. The company
disclosed in a 2020 paper introducing GPT-3 that the training
dataset came from "two-internet based book corpora," which it
referred to as "Books1" and "Book2." While OpenAI never disclosed
the books in the dataset, the authors say that "Books1" is based on
the Project Gutenberg archive, an online collection of books whose
copyrights have expired, which has gained popularity among AI
companies. They allege "Books2" is derived from shadow library
sites, including Library Genesis, Z-Library and Bibliotik, because
"those are the sources of trainable books most similar in nature
and size to OpenAI's description" of the dataset.
OpenAI no longer discloses information about the sources of its
dataset, "[g]iven both the competitive landscape and the safety
implications of large-scale models like GPT-4," the company said
last year.
Meta similarly doesn't disclose the origin of the books in its
dataset used to train LLaMA, according to the complaint, which is
embedded below. While it said that the works came from the "Books3
section of The Pile," a publicly available dataset for large
language models, it doesn't further describe the contents.
"But that information is available elsewhere," reads the complaint,
which alleges Books3 is composed of books obtained from Bibliotik.
"The person who assembled the 'Books3' dataset has confirmed in
public statements that it represents 'all of Bibliotik' and
contains 196,640 books."
The class actions seeking to represent a nationwide class of
authors in the U.S. whose work was used to train AI systems was
brought by Chabon -- known for The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, Wonder
Boys and The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay -- David Henry
Hwang and Matthew Klam, among other writers of books and
screenplays. They allege direct copyright infringement, vicarious
copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, unjust enrichment and negligence.
The courts will have to wrestle with two Supreme Court cases
considered by legal experts to likely dictate the outcome of the
litigation. On one hand, there's precedent greenlighting the
copying of works to generate noninfringing text responses from when
the Authors Guild in 2005 sued Google for digitizing millions of
books to create a search function. A federal judge in that case
rejected copyright infringement claims, finding the company's
utilization of copyrighted works amounts to fair use. Central to
the ruling was that Google only allowed users to view snippets of
text without providing the full book.
On the other hand, the authors can point to the Supreme Court's
recent decision rejecting a fair use defense in Andy Warhol
Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith. The justices stressed
that potentially overlapping commercial exploitation is a key
consideration in the analysis, finding that fair use is likely to
be rejected when an original work and derivative share the "same or
highly similar purpose" and that secondary use is commercial.
"Between the two Supreme Court cases, it looks like the courts are
going to focus on the nature of the use," says Ed Klaris, an
intellectual property lawyer and professor at Columbia Law School.
Notably, users can direct ChatGPT to generate screenplays in the
style of a specific book or author. "When prompted to produce a
screenplay in the style of The Dance and The Railroad, ChatGPT
produced a script written in Plaintiff Hwang's style, which
generated a screenplay involving a Chinese laborer toiling on the
Central Pacific Railroad that 'believe[s] in the power of art to
keep [their] spirits alive,'" the complaint says.
Depending on whether the copyright office authorizes the
copyrightability of works generated by AI, with companies listing
themselves as the owners under the work-for-hire doctrine, studios
could turn to optioning a book and having AI write the screenplay.
This would likely undermine the market prospects of authors.
Stephen Chbosky, author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Emma
Donoghue, author of Room, and Gillian Flynn, author of Gone Girl,
all adapted the screenplays to their novels.
Klaris predicts that the courts will "rule in favor of creators" if
they get to analyzing fair use. He points to arguments from authors
and artists that AI firms are actively hurting their economic
interests by creating competing works on the backs of their
material. This will force AI companies' hands in creating a
licensing framework, he says.
OpenAI didn't respond to a request for comment. Meta declined to
comment. [GN]
OPENAI INC: Seeks Dismissal of Several Claims in Tremblay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL TREMBLAY, an
individual; MONA AWAD, an individual, v. OPENAI, INC., a Delaware
nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership; OPENAI OPCO, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
corporation; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership; and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-03223-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendants move the Court to dismiss Counts II through VI of
the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6).
OpenAI seeks an order pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissing Counts
II through VI of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
The Plaintiffs are the authors of books. They filed suit for
monetary compensation and other relief, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, because they believe their texts were a
tiny part of the dataset that OpenAI used to teach its models to
derive the rules underlying human language in the service of the
goals recited.
OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence research laboratory.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug.28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r3wz6V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph C. Gratz, Esq.
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
Allyson R. Bennett, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 258-7522
E-mail: jgratz@mofo.com
tcheung@mofo.com
abennett@mofo.com
- and -
Andrew M. Gass, Esq.
Joseph R. Wetzel, Esq.
Sarang V. Damle, Esq.
Allison L. Stillman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
E-mail: andrew.gass@lw.com
joseph.wetzel@lw.com
sy.damle@lw.com
alli.stillman@lw.com
OSF HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Beasley, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action lawsuit accuses hospital and health care operator OSF
of violating a state genetic privacy law by allegedly forcing job
applicants to share their family medical history.
The company, headquartered in Peoria with more than 1,000 employees
in Illinois, allegedly violated the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act (GIPA), according to the complaint, filed in Cook
County Circuit Court.
The complaint was filed by attorneys Edward A. Wallace, Mark R.
Miller and Molly C. Wells, of the Wallace Miller firm, of Chicago,
on behalf of named plaintiff Aerial Basden.
"The Illinois Legislature enacted GIPA in 1998 with the goal to
protect Illinois residents from having their genetic information
being used against them in employment settings," the suit says.
"Consistent with this goal, GIPA provides strong legal protections
to ensure that Illinois residents can take advantage of the
knowledge that can be gained from obtaining personal genetic
information, without fear that this same information could be used
by employers to discriminate against them."
According to the complaint, Basden allegedly applied to OSF for a
position of Environmental Service Technician in September 2018.
At that time, the complaint asserts OSF allegedly required Basden
to disclose her personal and family medical history as part of the
application process.
According to the complaint, OSF allegedly required Basden to
complete a written questionnaire, which would have disclosed
"whether various diseases or disorders had manifested in her family
members, including cardiac health, asthma, diabetes, and cancer."
According to the complaint, Basden did not provide authorization to
OSF to request the information before they gave her the
questionnaire.
The interview was required as a condition of employment, according
to the suit, which seeks damages of $15,000 per intentional
violation and $2,500 for every negligent violation of the law, plus
attorney fees and court costs.
The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include a class of
potentially thousands of others who applied for jobs at OSF or who
worked for the health and hospital system in the last five years..
[GN]
PACWEST BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of PacWest Bancorp (NASDAQ: PACW, PACWP)
between February 28, 2022 and May 3, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than November 10, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased PacWest securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PacWest class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13000 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 10, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and misleading statements as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the PacWest's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PacWest
had understated the impact of interest rate hikes on Pacific
Western Bank ("PWB"), a smaller bank with excessive concentration
in specific industries; (2) accordingly, PacWest had overstated the
stability and/or sustainability of its deposit base; (3) as a
result, PacWest was exceptionally vulnerable to excessive deposit
flows and/or a liquidity crisis; and (4) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the PacWest class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13000 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PAPA INC: Dec. 18 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought in Pardo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Pardo and
Evangeline Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Papa, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties file a joint stipulation extending hearing date
for motion for class certification as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Sept. 14, 2023 Dec. 18, 2023
Certification
Defendant's Opposition Brief Oct. 5, 2023 Jan. 18, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Oct. 12, 2023 Feb. 8, 2024
Hearing on Class Certification Oct. 19, 2023 Feb. 15, 2024
On Aug. 17, 2021, the initial class action complaint in this matter
was filed, alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and several provisions of the California Labor
Code.
On Oct. 18, 2021, the initial complaint was amended for the first
time to add an eleventh cause of action for enforcement of the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
On March 4, 2022, a Second Amended Complaint was filed substituting
Plaintiff Jennifer Pardo as the named plaintiff in this matter.
Papa is a platform that connects college students to senior
citizens for companionship and assistance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44T7Yzp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Zachary T. Gershman, Esq.
Ryan C. Ely, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Zachary@lebelaw.com
Ryan@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald P. Sullivan, Esq.
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Kathleen B. Roney, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com
Kathleen.Roney@jacksonlewis.com
PAYCOR INC: Court Stays Johns Class Suit
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan
entered an order that the Johns case remains stayed.
-- The Defendant is directed to file a motion for continued stay
under the Colorado River Doctrine by September 29, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a Response to the Motion for a
continued stay under the Colorado River Doctrine by October
30,
2023.
-- On August 14, 2023, the Court directed the parties to file a
Joint Status Report, "updating the Court on the status of
Illinois proceedings and on whether a stay of this case
remains
necessary."
-- On the one hand, Plaintiffs request that the stay be lifted.
-- The Plaintiffs seek to file another Joint Status Report on
Discovery, a proposed schedule for the completion of
discovery,
and a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On the other
hand,
Defendant acknowledges that the purpose for the present stay
has
been fulfilled.
-- However, the Defendant argues an independent basis for a
continued stay exists under the Colorado River Doctrine.
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Fraud.
Paycor provides cloud-based on-boarding, human resources, payroll,
and time-keeping software solutions.[CC]
PHARAOH ENERGY: Carlson FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randy Carlson, Lucas Newton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharaoh Energy Services,
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00461 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma on Sept. 12, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00802-PRW to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC is an Oklahoma Domestic
Limited-Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELINO PC
3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, PMB # 201
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (817) 908-9861
Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin P Grose, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-OKLAHOMA CITY
621 N Robinson Ave., Suite 400
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Phone: (405) 546-3758
Fax: (405) 546-3775
Email: justin.grose@ogletree.com
- and -
Patrick Fred Clark, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
191 Peachtree Street NE, Ste. 4800
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 881-1300
Fax: (404) 870-1732
Email: patrick.clark@ogletree.com
PHARMERICA LOGISTIC: Bid for Protective Order Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BERNER, V. PHARMERICA
LOGISTIC SERVICES LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00142-CRS-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Regina Edwards entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion for protective order.
The Defendant primarily argues that the Court should issue the stay
due to Plaintiff's request being overbroad, as it would create an
undue burden and expense to produce the requested records.
However, the Defendant fails to offer a "particular and specific
demonstration of fact" showing why such a request would be
burdensome.
In fact, such record production should be relatively simple, as
federal law requires employers to "keep records identifying
employees and reflecting their wages, hours, 'and other conditions
of employment.'"
The case involves a wage dispute between Plaintiff, a pharmacist,
and Defendant, his former employer. The Plaintiff filed a Class
and Collective Action Complaint on March 23, 2023.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act (“OMFWA"),
specifically claiming that Defendant paid him "straight time for
overtime" work that he had completed.
Further, the Plaintiff suspects "dozens (if not hundreds)" of
Defendant's other employees are similarly situated, and he seeks to
have this case certified as a class or collective action.
The Plaintiff has not yet identified another individual who would
be included in this class or collective action. He does, however,
put forth two hypothetical groups:
(1) "All PharMerica pharmacists who were paid 'straight time'
for
overtime at any point in the past 3 years'" as a collective
action under the FLSA; and
(2) "All PharMerica pharmacists employed in Ohio who were paid
'straight time' for overtime” as a class action under the
OMFWA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PD6pkW at no extra charge.[CC]
PINK JEEP: Filing Bid for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geoffrey H. Slepian, v.
Pink Jeep Tours LLC, et al., Case No. e 3:23-cv-08105-SPL (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered a Rule 16 case
management order.
-- All discovery must be completed July 26, 2024
on or before:
-- All discovery for class certification, Jan. 12, 2024
including discovery by subpoena, shall
be completed on or before:
-- Any motion for class certification or Feb. 2, 2024
conditional collective certification
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act shall be filed no later
than:
-- Any motion for decertification shall be June 7, 2024
filed by:
-- Dispositive motions shall be filed no Aug. 30, 2024
later than:
-- All parties and their counsel shall June 8, 2024.
meet in person and engage in good
faith settlement talks no later than:
Pink Jeep is a passenger tour operator that offers off-road and
road-based excursions to various destinations across the American
Southwest.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PG3yra at no extra charge.[CC]
PINNACLE WEST: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 19, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerome M Skrtich, et al.,
v. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01753-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered
a case management order as follows:
-- The deadline for fact discovery, including discovery by
subpoena, shall be March 1, 2024.
-- The parties shall provide full and complete expert
disclosures,
as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure, no later than March 29, 2024.
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later
than
May 3, 2024.
-- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than May 31,
2024.
-- Class certification motion shall be filed no later than July
19,
2024.
-- Opposition to class certification shall be filed by August 30,
2024.
-- Reply in support of class certification motion shall be filed
by
October 11, 2024.
Pinnacle is an American utility holding company that owns Arizona
Public Service and Bright Canyon Energy.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PGkVbz at no extra charge.[CC]
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Berlanga Class Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francisco Berlanga, v.
Polaris Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC
(E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order declining to dismiss the
Berlanga action, as it has progressed alongside the Guzman action
apace.
The court also declines to stay the action. A stay would likely
lead to unnecessary delay. A transfer is the most efficient and
fairest means of avoiding wasted effort, delays, and inconsistent
or conflicting resolutions. The parties and the Central District
court may determine how best to litigate the two cases, such as by
reassignment to the same judge, coordination of scheduling and
hearings, consolidation and other means.
The action is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California under the first-to-file rule.
The plaintiffs allege that Polaris misrepresented the strength of
the rollover protective systems on its utility terrain vehicles.
They filed their original complaint in 2021.
Another nearly identical action is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. That
action was filed about two years before this one, in 2019.
In both cases, the plaintiffs allege Polaris falsely claimed its
vehicles' rollover protective systems met "OSHA requirements of 29
CFR section 1925.53," and in both cases, a motion to certify a
proposed class is pending.
Polaris designs, engineers and manufactures powersports vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3raIIXw at no extra charge.[CC]
PREMERA BLUE: Bids for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Oct. 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B., on behalf
of their minor child A.B., and on behalf of similarly situated
others; L.B.; and M.B, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case No.
2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order granting
the parties' stipulated proposed scheduling order as follows:
JURY TRIAL DATE Feb. 3, 2025
Deadline for joining additional parties Oct. 6, 2023
Any motions for leave to amend pleadings Oct. 6, 2023
filed by
Disclosure of expert testimony under Feb. 15, 2024
FRCP 26(a)(2)
All motions related to discovery must be April 25, 2024
filed by
Discovery completed by May 31, 2024
Any motions related to class June 6, 2024
certification must be filed by
Agreed Pretrial Order due1 Jan. 17, 2025
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire Jan. 17, 2025
questions, and proposed jury
instructions due
Pretrial conference Jan. 24, 2025
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PC1pNe at no extra charge.[CC]
PREMIER NUTRITION: Suit Over Joint Supplements Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
BellRing Brands, 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 several litigations have been
going on with regards to the company's "Joint Juice" product.
Complaints were filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of
consumers against its subsidiary Premier Nutrition Co. LLC seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some
of Premier Nutrition's advertising claims regarding its Joint Juice
line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages
were false and misleading.
Ten class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of
consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New
Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and
Pennsylvania. These complaints contain factual allegations similar
to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief. Trial in the action on behalf of New
York consumers was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury
delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022.
In August 2022, the court entered a judgment in that case in favor
of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9M, which includes statutory
damages and prejudgment interest. In October 2022, each plaintiff
and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
On February 7, 2023, plaintiff filed its Opening Brief and, on
April 28, 2023, Premier Nutrition filed its Answering Brief.
The other related Federal Actions remain pending, and the court has
certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except
New Mexico).
In September 2020, a California Federal Class Lawsuit against
Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of
Alameda allege identical claims and sought restitution and
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California
consumers. Following the federal district court's denial of Premier
Nutrition's motion to permanently enjoin the Alameda action under
the doctrine of res judicata, Premier Nutrition appealed to the
Ninth Circuit. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's denial of Premier Nutrition's motion to enjoin the
Alameda action, holding that the Alameda Superior Court would have
to decide whether plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata.
The hearing on Premier Nutrition's motion for judgment based on res
judicata currently in the Alameda Superior Court was held on
February 24, 2023 and, on March 23, 2023, the court granted the
motion in part and denied it in part and on May 12, 2023, the court
reaffirmed its ruling.
On July 14, 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has
ordered the plaintiff to respond by July 31, 2023 and Premier
Nutrition to reply by August 7, 2023. On July 5, 2023, the
plaintiff moved to certify the case as a class action. Premier
Nutrition's opposition to class certification is due on August 4,
2023. This case was previously set for trial on September 25, 2023,
together with Alameda County case set forth in the immediately
succeeding paragraph, but the court separated them. Trial is
anticipated in calendar year 2024.
BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company
operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a
provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and
powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize."
PROBUS INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Probus, Inc. The case
is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Probus, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06758
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Probus, Inc. -- https://probus.nyc/ -- offers high-end men's
streetwear curated in NYC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PROGRESSIVE LIFE: Armstrong Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:23-cv-01769 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 12, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant as a result the Defendant's misconduct of failing to
safeguard its customer's highly sensitive personal data and
information.
On May 18, 2023, Progressive lost control over its customer's
highly sensitive personal information in a data breach perpetrated
by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach exposed the
personal information belonging to what is estimated to be 347,100
customers, including names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of
birth, and email addresses. That exposure disturbs customers, as
they no longer control their highly sensitive and confidential
Personal Information, cannot stop others from viewing it, cannot
prevent criminals from misusing it, and crucially cannot control
where and to whom that Personal Information is sold and
subsequently used. Since Progressive's Data Breach, Plaintiff has
suffered identity theft and fraud, harms that she had no ability to
mitigate due to Progressive's delayed notice, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim having received Progressive's
Data Breach notice.
Progressive is a is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse A. Shore, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
300 Madison Ave. Suite 200
Covington, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 899-8786
Fax: (859) 899-8807
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
ramen@forthepeople.com
R T FARM: Mondragon Granted Leave to File First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, GUSTAVO
GUSMAN, and ALAN REYES on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. R T FARM LABOR, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California issued an order:
(a) granting Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, Gustavo
Gusman, and Alan Reyes' motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint;
(b) vacating the motion hearing currently set for Sept. 22,
2023; and
(c) setting a status conference for Nov. 2, 2023.
On Oct. 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, filed this putative class
action against Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc. Ricardo
Trevino Jr., Ricardo Gomez Trevino, and Harold Chuhlantseff. The
action arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
seasonal agricultural workers for all the wages owed to them.
The Plaintiffs have been unable to serve Defendant Chuhlantseff
with the summons and complaint, but now anticipate they will be
able to serve the original and first amended complaint by
substitute service. Default has been entered against the remaining
Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., and
Ricardo Trevino, Jr.
On Aug. 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking
to amend the complaint to add an additional defendant allegedly
responsible for the wage and hour violations: T&C Vineyards. The
Plaintiffs also appear to add a PAGA claim for penalties against
Defendants Chuhlantseff and T&C Vineyards.
In this case, Judge McAuliffe says, no responsive pleading has been
filed and the Plaintiffs may amend the complaint as a matter of
course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Even if that were not
the case, the Court finds leave to amend under Rule 15 appropriate
given the early stages and procedural posture of this action. Judge
McAuliffe points out that there will be little prejudice to the
Defendants in permitting the amendment as Defendants Ricardo Gomez
Trevino, R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., and Ricardo Trevino, Jr., are in
default and Defendants Chuhlantseff and T&C Vineyards will be
served with the amended complaint.
Judge McAuliffe notes that the Plaintiffs also have not unduly
delayed in seeking to amend the complaint, the amendment is not
brought in bad faith, and there is no indication that such
amendment is futile. Accordingly, leave to file a first amended
complaint will be granted.
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons discussed, Judge McAuliffe rules that:
1. the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is granted;
2. within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order,
the Plaintiffs will file the First Amended Complaint, a
copy of which was attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration
of Gonzalo Quezada, Esq.; and
3. the Court sets a status conference for Nov. 2, 2023, at
9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe to address the status of service of
the First Amended Complaint and, if appropriate, scheduling
of this action.
The parties will appear at the conference remotely either via Zoom
video conference or Zoom telephone number. The parties will be
provided with the Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy
prior to the conference. The Zoom ID number and password are
confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court attire
required.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2scup8zk from PacerMonitor.com.
REPUBLIC STEEL: Booker Sues Over WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Booker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
REPUBLIC STEEL, CORP., Case No. 5:23-cv-01771 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 12,
2023), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiff on his own
behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons
against the Defendant his employer for WARN Act purposes.
Within 30 days of August 10, 2023, Defendant made a mass layoff by,
unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff,
terminating approximately 176 employees at its facility, located at
3049 Lake Shore Rd, Blasdell, New York. The Defendant failed to
provide 60 days advance written notice to employees or staff as
required by the WARN Act to the affected employees. On August 10,
2023, Defendant denied access to affected employees in the
Blasdell, NY facilities. It provided official notice to the
employees that their services would no longer be needed on August
20, 2023. The Defendant's reduction in nearly the entire workforce
at that plant constituted a mass layoff or plant closing,
commencing on August 10, 2023. As such, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, should have received the full
protection afforded by the WARN Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Republic Steel at all relevant times
at the Blasdell, New York facility.
The Defendant is a private, Ohio-based business that operates a
plant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 766-9011
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: 615/254-8801
Facsimile: 615/255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
RIPPLE LABS: Sostack Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al v. Ripple
Labs, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Lead
Plaintiff Bradley Sostack will move the Court for certification of
two classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
-- Federal Securities Claims Class
"All persons or entities who purchased XRP from May 3, 2017
through the present and who have (a) retained the XRP, and/or
(b)
sold the XRP at a loss;"
-- California State Securities Claims Class
"All persons or entities who purchased XRP from Defendants
and/or
from any person or entity selling XRP on Defendants' behalf
from
May 3, 2017, through the present and who have (a) retained the
XRP, and/or (b) sold the XRP at a loss."
Excluded from both Classes are: Defendant Bradley
Garlinghouse;
corporate officers, members of the boards of directors, and
senior executives of Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. and XRP II,
LLC; members of Defendants’ immediate families and their
legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity
in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Lead Plaintiff also requests he be appointed by the Court as the
class representative and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and
Taylor-Copeland Law be appointed as Class Counsel.
Ripple, its wholly-owned subsidiary XRP II, LLC, and its Chief
Executive Officer Bradley Garlinghouse, offered or sold
unregistered securities to members of the proposed classes in
violation of federal and state securities laws. Each proposed class
member purchased units or subunits of XRP, a fungible digital asset
that is native to a blockchain called the XRP Ledger.
The Defendants solicited the XRP purchases through a multimedia
public marketing campaign that promoted XRP as an investment that
would appreciate due to Defendants' stewardship over XRP and
related technology. Defendants engaged in this marketing campaign
for the simple reason that Ripple’s company value was tied almost
exclusively to the value of its XRP holdings.
In 2018 and 2019 alone, Ripple made over $1 billion from XRP sales,
and it has continued to sell XRP to this day. Defendants, however,
never registered any of these transactions with federal or state
regulatory agencies, which violated Sections 5 and 12 of the
Securities Act and Sections 25110 and 25503 of the California
Corporations Code. More than two years after this litigation was
initiated, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
likewise filed an action against Defendants that similarly alleges
that Defendants offered or sold unregistered securities.
Ripple Labs is an American technology company which develops the
Ripple payment protocol and exchange network.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45OHP66 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Nicholas N. Spear, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
nspear@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James Q. Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4944
Facsimile: (619) 566-4341
E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com
RITE AID: Gregory Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY GREGORY, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03473 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 6, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices, including,
but not limited to, names, dates of birth, addresses, and medical
and health insurance information, which is protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
On May 31, 2023, Defendant was "informed by a vendor partner . . .
that there was a vulnerability in their software and it had been
exploited by an unknown third party." The Defendant proceeded to
investigate the nature and scope of the suspicious activity and as
a result of its investigation, Defendant "discovered", on an
unspecified date, that "on May 27, 2023, certain company files had
been accessed by the unknown party."
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing protected private
information using reasonable and effective security procedures free
of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Plaintiff and Class Members
seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose
personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data
breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data
security practices.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers
who obtained products and/or services at Rite Aid.
Rite Aid Corporation is an American drugstore chain based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Berbe Suit Seeks to Certify Amended Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Berube, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Rockwell Automation,
Inc., the Rockwell Automation Employee Benefits Plan Committee, and
John/Jane Does 1–20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01783-LA (E.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering its Order
dated April 14, 2023 that denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and to certify the Class that Plaintiff proposed.
In the alternative, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff moves the Court to grant a
Renewed Motion for Class Certification which divides the original
proposed Class into two classes and certify the SLA Group Class and
the 10 CLA Group Class as defined below:
-- The SLA Group Class
"All married participants (and their beneficiaries) of the
B006
Sub-Plan and the B001 Sub-Plan who earned benefits in the
form
of a single life annuity that began receiving pension
benefits
in the form of a joint and survivor annuity on or after
January
1, 2015;" and
-- The 10 CLA Group Class
"All married participants (and their beneficiaries) of the
B006
Sub-Plan and the B001 Sub-Plan who earned benefits in the
form
of a ten-year certain and life annuity that began receiving
pension benefits in the form of a joint and survivor annuity
on
or after January 1, 2015."
Rockwellis an American provider of industrial automation and
digital transformation technologies.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/465WMRe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: dneedham@ikrlaw.com
rizard@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 North Oakland Avenue
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
Facsimile: (414) 433-4544
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
Laura Babiak, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
lbabiak@baileyglasser.com
ROSEN PUBLISHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Rosen Publishing
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Rosen Publishing
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08005-PAE-SLC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. --
https://www.rosenpublishing.com/ -- is an independent publishing
house.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
RPT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Kimco Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
RPT Realty (NYSE: RPT), relating to its proposed merger with Kimco
Realty. Under the terms of the agreement, RPT shareholders are
expected to receive 0.6049 shares of Kimco per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/rpt-realty. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
Tabula Rasa HealthCare, Inc. (Nasdaq: TRHC), relating to its
proposed acquisition by Nautic Partners. Under the terms of the
agreement, TRHC shareholders are expected to receive $10.50 in cash
per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/tabula-rasa-healthcare-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
EchoStar Corp. (Nasdaq: SATS), relating to its proposed merger with
DISH Network Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, SATS
shareholders are expected to receive 2.85 shares of DISH per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/echostar-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Hersha Hospitality Trust (NYSE: HT), relating to its proposed sale
to affiliates of KSL Capital Partners, LLC. Under the terms of the
agreement, HT shareholders are expected to receive $10.00 in cash
per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/hersha-hospitality-trust. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
SACRAMENTO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inaccessible Sidewalks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Kennedy, writing for SpectrumNews1, reports that being
legally blind, Susan Hood said being able to walk around her city
is a necessity.
"It's really for my daily life in terms of running errands, going
to the pharmacy, going to the grocery store," Hood said.
Hood said getting where she needs to go in Sacramento is becoming
increasingly difficult due to homeless people's tents and makeshift
homes blocking sidewalks.
"The biggest problem that I encounter are homeless encampments on
the sidewalks that are literally blocking the sidewalks and
impeding my path," said Hood.
The issue became so much for Hood that she joined four other
disabled people in a class action lawsuit against the city and
county for failing to provide clear access on sidewalks under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
"When the sidewalk is blocked, I either have to retreat, literally
turn around and retrace my steps, or find another way forward,"
Hood said. "And frequently, the only way forward is to actually
step off the curb into the street."
Both the city and county said they don't comment on pending
litigation.
However, the city said it is working urgently and diligently to
address the current homelessness crisis and all its complexities.
The city said, "It remains committed to providing support to our
most vulnerable residents while also enforcing our laws and
ordinances."
The city currently has a sidewalk ordinance stating tenants will be
removed if they do not allow at a 4-foot-wide pathway.
"Having sidewalks clear and open for access -- it benefits
everybody," Hood said.
Unhoused advocacy groups said they sympathize with any marginalized
group and that there is a much better solution than removing or
conducting sweeps, according to Anthony Prince, lead organizer for
the Sacramento Homeless Union.
"Provide the housing," Prince said. "Provide the housing so they
don't need to camp. They don't need to be in a tent on a sidewalk
or anywhere else. The vast majority of homeless people do not want
to be in those circumstances."
Hood said using methods other than walking or public transport is
not an option.
"I don't have the choice or liberty of calling Lyft or Uber," Hood
said. "Those are extremely expensive."
The hope, Hood said, is that the lawsuit will prompt or force real
action, so anytime she or anyone with mobility issues needs to use
the sidewalks, they can. [GN]
SALESFORCE INC: Bid to Amend 401 (K) Plan Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Salesforce Inc.
employees who won a revival of their 401(k) plan lawsuit lost their
bid to file an amended complaint with new details about the plan's
consultants and investment performance.
The employees' proposed allegations are mostly performance
comparisons between funds in the plan and other options, Judge
Maxine M. Chesney said in a Sept. 8 order. This information was
available to them before the court-imposed deadline for filing
amended pleadings in October 2022, she said.
Chesney, who sits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, also denied their request to add new
information. [GN]
SCIPLAY CORP: Court Dismisses Boorn Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Sciplay Corporation 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 on October 27, 2022, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky entered
an order dismissing a putative class action against Light & Wonder,
Inc., SciPlay Corporation, and Appchi Media Ltd. in the Fayette
Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed on September
15, 2022 by plaintiff Hannelore Boorn.
In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all persons in Kentucky who, within the past five years, purchased
and allegedly lost $5.00 or more worth of chips, in a 24-hour
period, playing SciPlay's online social casino games. The complaint
asserts claims for alleged violations of Kentucky's "recovery of
gambling losses" statute and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages, the award of reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
other declaratory relief.
On October 18, 2022, defendants removed the action to Eastern
District of Kentucky. On October 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a
notice voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. On
November 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand
against defendants before the American Arbitration Association,
pursuant to which she seeks declaratory judgments that SciPlay's
online social casino games constitute gambling under Kentucky law,
and SciPlay's terms of service are void under Kentucky law. On
January 12, 2023, the respondents filed their answering statement
to plaintiff's arbitration demand.
SciPlay Corporation was formed as a Nevada corporation on November
30, 2018 as a subsidiary of Light & Wonder, Inc., for the purposes
of completing a public offering and related transactions in order
to carry on the business of SciPlay Parent LLC and its
subsidiaries. SciPlay operates and controls all of the business
affairs of SciPlay Parent LLC and its subsidiaries. It develops,
market and operates a portfolio of games played on various mobile
and web platforms. On August 8, 2023, Light & Wonder and SciPlay
entered into a definitive agreement whereby Light & Wonder will
acquire the remaining equity interest in SciPlay not already owned
by Light & Wonder (approximately 17%) pursuant to a merger in which
SciPlay's shareholders will receive $22.95 for each share of
SciPlay Class A common stock they own. As a result of the Merger,
SciPlay will cease to be publicly traded and will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of Light & Wonder.
The Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights for
SciPlay and Light & Wonder, including the right of either party to
terminate the Merger Agreement if the SciPlay Acquisition is not
consummated on or before February 8, 2024.
SENSIO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports Sensio faces a proposed
class action lawsuit nearly a month after recalling roughly 860,000
pressure cookers equipped with "dangerously defective" lid-locking
assemblies.
The 21-page complaint says that the faulty lid-locking mechanism on
the Sensio pressure cookers at issue allows the product's lid to
open while the contents therein are still under pressure, causing
the "super-heated" food to erupt from the cooker and potentially
scald the user with second- and third-degree burns.
"Given that Plaintiff and Class Members are unable to safely use
the Recalled Pressure Cookers without risk of severe burns or
injury, the Recalled Pressure Cookers are not fit for their
particular purpose of safe cooking," the case emphasizes.
According to a recall alert from the New York Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Services, defendant Sensio has received 63
incident reports, including 61 burn injuries to consumers' faces,
torsos, arms and hands. Both the New York agency and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have urged consumers to stop using
the recalled pressure cookers immediately and contact Sensio for a
refund.
The Sensio pressure cookers recalled by the company on August 10
include the Bella, Bella Pro Series, Crux and Cooks electric
pressure cookers, and the Bella stovetop pressure cookers, with the
following model numbers and in the following sizes:
Bella
14467 / 6-Qt
14570 / 6-Qt
14595 / 8-Qt
14682 / 8-Qt
14710 / 6-Qt
14718 / 8-Qt
14719 / 6-Qt
14780 / 10-Qt
Bella stovetop pressure cookers
JY-PC20US-5P / 5-Qt
JYPC24US-8P / 8-Qt
JY-PC26US-11P / 12-Qt
Bella Pro Series
90072 / 6-Qt
90073 / 8-Qt
Crux
14721 / 8-Qt
Cooks
22276 / 6-Qt
The suit relays that the plaintiff, a South Carolina resident,
purchased her Sensio Bella series eight-quart pressure cooker in
late 2016 on the belief that the device was reliable, not to
mention the defendant's "strong reputation" for producing quality
products. The filing says the plaintiff has never been informed "by
anyone affiliated with Sensio" of the recall or any defects related
to her pressure cooker.
"[I]nstead, she learned of the defects on social media," the suit
claims.
Even if Sensio's recall was effective and properly resolved the
issue, the plaintiff has nevertheless been burdened with a
"devalued" pressure cooker plagued by a "known, dangerous defect,"
the lawsuit contends.
The case looks to cover all consumers in the United States who
bought any recalled Sensio pressure cooker at any time between
September 2015 and September 2020. [GN]
SEQUENOM INC: Averts Investors' Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cooley represented the former board of directors of Sequenom, a
molecular diagnostics company, in a nearly seven-year-long
securities class action brought by former investors in the company.
Lawyers Koji Fukumura, Peter Adams, Sarah Lightdale, Barrett
Anderson and Dylan Scott led the Cooley team advising the board.
In July 2016, the Sequenom board of directors recommended that its
investors to agree to LabCorp's acquisition of Sequenom for $371
million, representing a 185% premium over the company's
then-current stock price. Approximately 69% of investors tendered
their shares, and the acquisition concluded on September 7, 2016.
The plaintiff investors then filed suit, alleging that the
acquisition violated Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Cooley's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, arguing among
other things that the investors' consolidated amended class action
complaint failed to adequately allege that the Sequenom board of
directors' recommendation was objectively and subjectively false,
or that it contained misleading omissions. The motion also
contended that the plaintiffs' allegations did not sufficiently
plead that the investors suffered economic loss as a result of the
acquisition.
After nearly five years and several rounds of supplemental briefing
due to intervening changes in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit's interpretation of Section 14(e), US District Judge John
A. Houston granted the Sequenom board of directors' motion to
dismiss on July 27, 2023. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint by September 11, but on September 7, the
plaintiffs instead filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the
case without prejudice.
The case is Sequenom Inc. Stockholder Litigation before the US
District Court for the Southern District of California
(16-cv-02054-JAH-DDL).
The victory also earned the Cooley team a Litigator of the Week
accolade in The American Lawyer's Litigation Daily column.
About Cooley LLP
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and
regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation, where innovation
meets the law.
Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 18 offices in the United
States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000.
[GN]
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Smiledirectclub, 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 a purported stockholder class
action complaint against the company, members of its board of
directors, certain of its current or former officers, and the
underwriters of its IPO, is ongoing.
Case captioned "Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.," Case No.
19-1254-III (October 18, 2019, Tenn. Ch.) allege, among other
things, that the registration statement filed with the SEC on
August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments, and the prospectus
filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in connection with the
company's initial public offering were inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading,
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. All the actions are in the
discovery stage.
In December 2019, the Wei Wei action was consolidated and
re-captioned "In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
Case No. 19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery Court).
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 20,
2019, and defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on
February 10, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court denied that motion.
Defendants subsequently moved for permission to seek an
interlocutory appeal of that decision. On June 22, 2020, the court
granted that motion. On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an
application for interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals,
which was denied. On September 21, 2020, Defendants filed an
application for interlocutory appeal with the Tennessee Supreme
Court, which was denied.
On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, which
defendants opposed on January 25, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the
court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs class certification. The
company filed its notice of appeal on May 4, 2021. That appeal was
fully briefed as of October 6, 2021. All trial court proceedings
are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. On March 18, 2022,
the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff's Section
12(a)(2) claims but affirmed the grant of certification. On October
24, 2022, plaintiffs in the Franchi action described below moved to
intervene in this action, and their motion was denied on December
6, 2022. The case is currently in the discovery phase and the
deadline for completion of fact discovery is being extended to
September 30, 2023.
SmileDirectClub is an oral care company and creator of the first
MedTech platform for teeth straightening. It is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee and operates in the U.S., Costa Rica, Puerto
Rico, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and Ireland.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Smiledirectclub, 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 a purported stockholder class
action complaint captioned "Mancour v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,"
(September 27, 2019, Tenn. Ch.) is currently ongoing.
Said complaint alleges, among other things, that the registration
statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and accompanying
amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13,
2019, in connection with the company's initial public offering were
inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated therein. The complaint seeks unspecified
money damages, other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
In December 2019, the Mancour action was consolidated and
re-captioned "In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery Court). Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on December 20, 2019, and defendants
moved to stay or dismiss the action on February 10, 2020. On June
4, 2020, the court denied that motion. Defendants subsequently
moved for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal of that
decision. On June 22, 2020, the court granted that motion. On
August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an application for interlocutory
appeal with the court of appeals, which was denied. On September
21, 2020, defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal
with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied. On October 2,
2020, plaintiffs moved for class certification, which defendants
opposed on January 25, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the court ruled in
favor of the Plaintiffs class certification. The company filed its
notice of appeal on May 4, 2021. That appeal was fully briefed as
of October 6, 2021. All trial court proceedings are stayed during
the pendency of the appeal.
On March 18, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the
plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims but affirmed the grant of
certification.
SmileDirectClub is an oral care company and creator of the first
MedTech platform for teeth straightening. It is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee and operates in the U.S., Costa Rica, Puerto
Rico, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and Ireland.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Smiledirectclub, 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 a purported stockholder class
action complaint against the company, members of its board of
directors, certain of its current or former officers, and the
underwriters of its IPO, is ongoing.
The case captioned "Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.," Case No.
19-cv-962 (October 29, 2019, M.D. Tenn.) alleged, among other
things, that the registration statement filed with the SEC on
August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments, and the prospectus
filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in connection with the
company's initial public offering were inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading,
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 24, 2022, plaintiffs in the Franchi action moved to
intervene in this action, and their motion was denied on December
6, 2022. The case is currently in the discovery phase and the
deadline for completion of fact discovery is being extended to
September 30, 2023.
SmileDirectClub is an oral care company and creator of the first
MedTech platform for teeth straightening. It is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee and operates in the U.S., Costa Rica, Puerto
Rico, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and Ireland.
SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Due Jan. 16, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY COLVIN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST HEALTH
CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00303-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Oct. 27, 2023
2. Motion for preliminary class Jan. 16, 2024
certification:
3. Motion & Brief to Certify Classes: June 28, 2024
4. This is the deadline for plaintiffs
to seek certification of a Rule 23
class or for defendant to seek
decertification of a conditional
FLSA class:
Responses: July 26, 2024
Replies: Aug. 9, 2024
5. Deadline for filing dispositive Jan. 10, 2025
motions:
6. Discovery Cutoff: April 11, 2025
7. Settlement Letters: April 11, 2025
8. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all April 25, 2025
motions in limine:
Objections: May 9, 2025
9. First Final Pretrial Conference: May 20, 2025
Second Final Pretrial Conference: June 3, 2025
10. Trial: July 14, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44WIO35 at no extra charge.[CC]
STAR NISSAN: Faces Arsenal Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Arvi Clyde Arsenal, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Star
Nissan, Inc., and John Koufukis, Jr., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06631 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours,
liquidated and statutory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York State Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention
Act.
The suit alleges Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish wage
statement provisions, and failure to provide spread-of-hours pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a porter and driver
from February 2018 until March 2020.
Star Nissan, Inc. is a car dealership and mechanic service provider
based in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
STATE FARM: Bid to Strike Discrimination Class Suit Claims Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook County Record reports that a federal judge
has largely rejected State Farm's attempt to scuttle a class action
accusing the insurer of discriminating against its Black agents.
Seven current and former State Farm agents sued the State Farm's
various corporate identities, alleging a set of practices and
policies that result in Black agents earning less than other
agents, enduring differential treatment and experiencing greater
attrition rates.
In July 2022, U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama rejected
State Farm's earlier attempt to dismiss the complaint. Following
that ruling, plaintiff Vvonaka Richardson added claims of racial
discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Ave, and Title VII
complaints of sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
In an opinion filed Sept. 6, U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins,
who is now presiding over the case, denied State Farm's motion to
strike the class action claims, but partially granted the insurer's
motion to dismiss the new Title VII claims.
State Farm argued Richardson, who lives in Alabama, doesn't have
standing to bring the Title VII claims because she didn't allege a
personal legal harm. Richardson alleged State Farm didn’'t assign
the promised number of customers at the start of her work as a Term
Independent Contract Agent, instead assigning those policies to a
white agent. She further alleged State Farm wouldn't extend her
13-month TICA term or make her a full agent, though she said the
company did the same for white agents.
Jenkins agreed with Richardson that "State Farm's arguments really
are an attempt to narrow her Title VII claims to just two alleged
policies." The judge said the complaint adequately alleges racial
discrimination with respect to Richardson's office in Mobile and
her compensation.
"These discriminatory policies and practices, she claims, harmed
her personally, including in the form of lost wages and other
benefits," Lindsay wrote. "While some of these factual allegations
are thinner than others, they nonetheless satisfy" minimum pleading
requirements.
However, Lindsay agreed with State Farm that the complaint doesn't
adequately allege personal exposure to racially discriminatory
discipline. Though Richardson alleged her July 2020 termination was
unlawful, Lindsay said that is a legal conclusion, not a factual
allegation that must be given the presumption of truth.
"Without the legal conclusion, all that remains is Richardson's
factual allegation that her contract expired," Lindsay said,
agreeing with State Farm that Richardson can’t pursue an
injunction or court order because she can't demonstrate possible
exposure to future discrimination by a company for which she no
longer works.
Turning to the Title VII disparate impact claim, Jenkins rejected
State Farm's argument to ignore Judge Valderrama's conclusion the
first complaint sufficiently "identified company-wide
discriminatory policies" because it was in the context of
individual claims. She said the amended complaint pleaded facts
connecting corporate policies to the Title VII claim, such as "the
policy of assigning Black TICAs and Agents to less wealthy regions
than non-Black TICAs and Agents, and implementing a policy of
'commission-based, cumulative-advantage compensation,'" Jenkins
wrote. "The descriptions of these policies are not merely
conclusory: they identify a policy or practice, one related to
territory assignment and the other to State Farm's compensation
structure, and they allege that these policies result in
experiences or outcomes not shared by other State Farm employees."
Jenkins further rejected State Farm's request to dismiss the Title
VII claims as overdue, again agreeing with Valderrama's earlier
reasoning. She also rejected its motion to strike the class
allegations. She said that decision cannot come until later in the
proceedings in the case, after so-called "class discovery" is
conducted to further uncover the facts in the case, such as how
common the experiences of Black agents may have been.
Jenkins assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge Sunil Harjani to supervise
the discovery and settlement phase.
The Black agents are represented in the matter by attorneys Linda
D. Friedman, Suzanne E. Bish and George S. Robot, of the firm of
Stowell & Friedman, of Chicago; Justin L. Leinenweber, of
Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada,of Chicago; Benjamin L. Crump and
Nabeha Shaer, of Ben Crump Law, of Tallahassee, Florida, and
Washington, D.C.
State Farm has been represented by attorneys Patricia Brown Holmes,
Joseph A. Cancila Jr. and Amy C. Andrews, of the firm of Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila; and Michael A. Warner Jr.,of Franczek P.C.,
both of Chicago. [GN]
TANDEM DIABETES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 12 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tandem
Diabetes Care, Inc. ("Tandem" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TNDM)
securities between August 3, 2022 and November 2, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company misled
investors by creating the false impression that the impact of
competitors' products was minimal or less than expected; (ii) the
Company's forecasting processes failed to adequately account for
the potential impact of the release of Omnipod 5, a competing
product, and the impact of that product on the Company's revenue;
and (iii) the Company created the false impression that the factors
which led to decreased sales guidance in August 2022 - competition,
the COVID-19 pandemic, and inflation - had been adequately
controlled for and were, in fact, improving.
The Complaint further alleges that on November 2, 2022, the Company
updated its 2022 annual guidance to lower annual sales estimates
from the range of $835 million to $845 million to an updated range
of $800 million to $805 million.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tandem
should contact the Firm prior to the November 7, 2023 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
TARGET CORP: N.D. New York Dismisses Solak Consumer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled JOHN SOLAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00813-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff John Solak brings this putative class action against
Defendant Target Corporation. The action is brought on behalf of
consumers, like the Plaintiff, who purchased the Defendant's "3%
hydrogen peroxide solution" under the "up & up" brand (the
"Product"). The Defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are
preempted and he fails to plead sufficient facts to meet his
pleading burden. The Court agrees that dismissal is appropriate
because the Plaintiff's claims are preempted.
The Plaintiff's claims are rooted in the Defendant's practice of
selling 3% hydrogen peroxide solution while representing on the
Product's front label that it is a "first aid antiseptic" to be
used for "treatment of minor cuts and abrasions." The Plaintiff
contends that even though consumers believe the Product would
"assist in the healing process and shorten healing time," medical
studies advise that hydrogen peroxide "does not help treat minor
cuts and abrasions." He asserts that while hydrogen peroxide may
reduce the number of bacteria at a wound, no credible evidence
supports a connection between the number of bacteria and reduction
in healing time of a clean wound.
The Plaintiff maintains that the representation the Product should
be used 'for treatment of minor cuts and abrasions' tells
purchasers it will assist in the healing process and shorten
healing time, but this statement is false, misleading, and not
authorized by any applicable body. He contends that had he known
that the Product did not treat minor cuts and abrasions, he would
not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
Solak seeks damages for: (1) violations of the New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350, and the consumer
protection laws of Maine, Montana, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,
Alabama, Utah, Indiana, and Nebraska; (2) state law breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA");
(3) state law claims of negligent misrepresentation; (4) state law
claims of fraud; and state law claims of unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff complains that Target cannot use the word "treatment"
on the label because, he says, while hydrogen peroxide may "reduce
the number of bacteria" there is no "connection between the number
of bacteria and reduction in healing time.
But, the Defendant argues, removing the term "treatment" would be
in direct conflict with the monograph, and that the Plaintiff's
lawsuit is an attempt to impose different or additional
requirements by means of state law, which is preempted by 21 U.S.C.
Section 379r.
The Court agrees with the Defendant. Judge McAvoy opines that the
Plaintiff's attempt to circumvent preemption by arguing that the
very claims made on the packaging, i.e. "For Treatment of Minor
Cuts & Abrasions," induced him to purchase the product in violation
of state law, but that is the very conduct that the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetics Act ("FDCA") regulates.
Further, Judge McAvoy finds, the Plaintiff's leap from the
treatment of minor cuts and scrapes to a shortened healing time was
wholly unsupported. Indeed, the back panel even specifies that the
solution should be used in "first aid to help prevent the risk of
infection in minor cuts, scrapes, and burns." The Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") has approved the solution as an antiseptic
and has the authority to regulate the package labelling and
marketing.
The Plaintiff's reliance on statements in two other OTC monographs
that he interprets as supporting his claim that hydrogen peroxide
solution is not effective to treat minor wounds is misplaced, Judge
McAvoy holds. The Court agrees with Judge Jorge L. Alonso's
analysis in Novotney v. Walgreen Co., 22 C 3439, 2023 WL 4698149,
at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2023) of the same argument.
The Court also rejects the Plaintiff's other arguments to avoid
preemption. The Plaintiff argues he is not attempting to impose
different or additional requirements by means of state law because
the representations about the Product's efficacy were made to him,
not to the FDA. The Court agrees with Judge Alonso's analysis in
Novotney on the same argument.
Lastly, the Court rejects the Plaintiff's argument that preemption
cannot apply because the FDA did not expressly authorize use of the
specific word "treat." The Court agrees with Judge Alonso's
analysis in Novotney rejecting a nearly identical argument.
For the reasons discussed, the Court agrees with the Defendant that
the Plaintiff's claims are preempted. The Court need not reach the
Defendant's arguments about whether the Plaintiff has met his
pleading burden by pleading sufficient factual matter to state a
claim.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
All claims alleged in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice
inasmuch as amendment would be futile because no amended complaint
can change the fact that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted under
21 U.S.C. Section 379(a)(2).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in the
Defendant's favor and close the file in this matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision & Order dated Sept. 7,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bntd4ma from
PacerMonitor.com.
TEXAS RICHMOND: Alotaibi Sues Over Lost Wages and Unpaid Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Alotaibi, and others similarly situated v. TEXAS RICHMOND
CORPORATION, and, LLOYD J. ACE, Case No. 4:23-cv-03390 (S.D. Tex.,
Sept. 11, 2023), is brought against her former employer pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking damages, including without
limitation, lost wages, liquidated damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, reinstatement and a reasonable attorney's fee
and costs.
On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff received a tip from a single customer in
the amount of $6,453.00. The customer paid the tip with his
American Express credit card. Per Defendants' policy, servers must
wait three to five business days before the Club pays tips of that
size which customers pay with a credit card. In early June, 2022,
Plaintiff asked Lloyd Ace about payment of The Tip. Mr. Ace stated
that the customer had disputed the charge with American Express and
the Club could not pay The Tip until American Express ruled on the
dispute.
On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff specifically asked Olivia (LNU) from
Defendants' accounting department if The Tip was still in dispute.
Olivia informed Plaintiff that American Express had put The Tip in
Club's account. Later on December 5, 2022, Plaintiff sent a text
message to Lloyd Ace relating to him the information obtained from
Olivia about The Tip and asked when he would be at Club so he could
write her a check for The Tip. Upon learning that Olivia had
provided the aforementioned information about The Tip to Plaintiff,
Lloyd Ace severely chastised Olivia for providing the information
to Plaintiff.
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff met with Lloyd Ace. In that meeting
the parties discussed an email complaint the Club had received from
a customer regarding service he had received while patronizing the
Club. The parties also discussed payment of The Tip and Mr. Ace
guaranteed that the club would write Plaintiff a check for The
Tip.
On December 14, 2022, Lloyd Ace informed Plaintiff that her
employment was terminated because she was not a good fit for the
Club anymore and that she was spreading rumors at work. Mr. Lloyd
and that she would receive her final paycheck and payment of The
Tip by the end of the week. Ultimately, Plaintiff did receive
payment of The Tip and her final paycheck.
The Defendants fired Plaintiff in retaliation for complaining about
not receiving The Tip. Defendants' stated reason for terminating
Plaintiff's employment is false and a pretext for terminating
Plaintiff for her complaint about not being paid her tips in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 5, 2021,
until December 14, 2022, as a Server.
TEXAS RICHMOND CORPORATION, owned and operated Men's Club located
in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
ROSS•SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com
TIMEC: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings in Race Bias Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther
of DuaneMorriss.com report that In Wilson v. Timec, No.
2:23-CV-00172, 2023 WL 5753617 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023), Judge
William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted Defendants' Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings in a race discrimination class action.
The Court held that Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique
Daniels ("Plaintiffs") failed plausibly to allege in their
complaint that Defendants' hair drug testing employment practice
had a disparate impact or disparate treatment on individuals with
melanin-rich hair under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
("Title VII") or under the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act ("FEHA"). This case serves as an important reminder to
companies that utilize employment-related drug testing to stay
vigilant as to the potential impact of their chosen drug testing
protocols on certain populations and communities.
Case Background
Plaintiffs, who both have melanin-rich hair, filed a complaint
alleging that Defendants failed to provide them work assignments or
opportunities on the basis of allegedly false positive hair drug
tests. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs asserted that hair drug testing is less
effective on melanin-rich hair, and persons of color who have
melanin-rich hair are consequently at a higher risk of false
positive test results than individuals with lighter-colored hair.
Id. at 2. Plaintiffs filed a class action and sued on behalf of
themselves and other similarly-situated workers alleging that the
drug testing had a disparate impact on individuals with
melanin-rich hair under Title VII and under the FEHA and that
Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment. Id. at 1. In
response, Defendant DISA (later joined by all other Defendants)
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Defendants'
Motion"). Id.
The Court's Decision
The Court initially noted that Title VII prohibits employers from
"discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race . . . or national origin." Id. at
2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1)). Similarly, the FEHA
prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual "'in
compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment'
on, inter alia, race, color, or national origin." Id. (quoting Cal.
Gov't Code Section 12940(a)). Due to the similar language between
Title VII and FEHA, the Court opined that that "Title VII framework
is applied to claims brought under the FEHA." Id. (quoting Pinder
v. Emp. Dev. Dep't., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2017)).
The Court reasoned that a disparate impact claim is proper when
plaintiffs "plausibly allege that an employment disparity exists
with respect to the protected group." Id. (citing Liu v. Uber
Techs. Inc., 551 F. Supp. 3d 988, 990 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). The Court
dismissed Plaintiffs' Title VII and FEHA disparate impact claims
because it found that their complaint lacked substantive
allegations sufficient to "establish a connection between race and
the challenged" hair drug testing. Id. at 3. Namely, the Court held
that, even though Plaintiffs raised allegations in their response
to Defendants' Motion "concerning the difference in the melanin
content of dark hair in people of different races, the disparity in
drug test outcomes between black and white employees, the
difference in how drugs interact with the hair of black and white
individuals, and the increased risk of false positive test results
due to hair products used by black individuals," "[n]one of th[o]se
allegations appear[ed] in the [Plaintiffs'] complaint." Id. at 2.
The Court also opined that a claim of disparate treatment is proper
"where an employer has treated a particular person less favorably
than others because of a protected trait." Id. at 3. That said, the
Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Title VII and FEHA disparate treatment
claims because Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that, in
adopting their facially neutral drug-testing policies, Defendants
"had discriminatory intent." Id.
For these reasons, the Court concluded that Defendants' Motion
should be granted. Id. at 3. It provided Plaintiffs 20 days, or
until September 26, 2023, to file an amended complaint. Id.
Implications for Employers
The Court's ruling is an important win for companies facing
disparate impact class actions in that it illustrates the high bar
plaintiffs must meet to clear the pleading phase. In particular,
the Court's decision shows that plaintiffs must allege facts
showing an actual connection between the challenged practice and
the protected category at issue. That said, companies that utilize
employment-related drug testing should be proactive and stay
apprised of research surrounding their chosen drug tests and their
potentially disparate impact on various communities. Additionally,
companies should evaluate their drug testing policies and practices
to ensure they remain free of discriminatory intent and potential
bias as to any particular community. [GN]
TRAVEL GUARD: Bid to Seal Portions of Class Cert Exhibits OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE
CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC.,
and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case
No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson
entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative motion to
seal portions of and exhibits to their opposition to class
certification.
Travel Guard offers travel insurance plans and assistance
programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIIM3S at no extra charge.[CC]
TRIDENT RESTORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ORTEGA, et al., v.
TRIDENT RESTORATION, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01927-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered a civil
case management plan and scheduling order.
-- The parties shall submit a joint letter by October 13, 2023,
indicating whether the parties consent to conditional class
certification.
-- If the parties do not consent, Plaintiffs shall indicate if
and
when they will move for conditional class certification. If
the
parties reach agreement before October 13, 2023, the parties
shall inform the Court as soon as they reach agreement.
-- The Plaintiffs' class/collective certification motion to be
filed
by February 5, 2024.
-- The Defendants' opposition to be filed by March 6, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to be filed by March 20, 2024.
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall
be
completed no later than Sept. 14, 2023.
-- Any motion for leave to amend or join additional parties shall
be
filed no later than Sept. 29, 2023.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 5,
2024.
Trident is a New York City area construction business that offers a
diverse range of services in custom building.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pfs3ds at no extra charge.[CC]
TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triumph Energy
Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Craig Cowan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Triumph Energy
Partners, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00300-JAR (E.D. Okla., Sept. 11,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Triumph Energy Partners, LLC -- https://www.triumphenergy.com/ --
provides oil and gas exploration and production services. The
Company serves customers in the State of Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON, PLLC
431 W Main St, Ste D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2770
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
TUSCAN HOLDINGS: Faces Jacob Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------
Microvast Holdings, 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 the directors of
company predecessor, Tuscan, have been named as defendants in a
litigation filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned "Matt
Jacob v. Stephen A. Vogel, et al.," No. 2022-0600-PAF (July 7,
2022, Del. Ch.).
The plaintiff is seeking to certify the litigation as a stockholder
class action. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with Tuscan's acquisition of
Microvast, Inc., including by making inadequate disclosures
concerning the projected earnings of Microvast, Inc. The plaintiff
further alleges that once the earnings of the combined company
became public, the company's stock dropped, causing losses to
investors.
Microvast, Inc. and its subsidiaries are primarily engaged in
developing, manufacturing, and selling electronic power products
for electric vehicles and energy storage across the globe. On July
23, 2021, Microvast, Inc. and Tuscan Holdings Corp. consummated the
previously announced merger, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated February 1, 2021, between Tuscan, Microvast, Inc. and
TSCN Merger Sub Inc.
UIPATH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 6
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of UiPath, Inc. (NYSE: PATH) between
April 21, 2021 and March 30, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than November 6, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased UiPath securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the UiPath class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19012 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 6, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) UiPath had enacted a widespread discounting program prior to
its IPO, which had the effect of temporarily boosting UiPath's
revenue and annualized recurring revenue ("ARR") metrics,
cannibalizing its future sales, eroding UiPath's margins, and
increasing the risk of client churn; (ii) UiPath's actual total
addressable market was not as large as portrayed by defendants,
because many companies included in UiPath's market survey did not
need the type of high-cost, high-functionality automation products
offered by UiPath; (iii) UiPath was losing customers to Microsoft,
ServiceNow, SAP, Salesforce, IBM, and other established enterprise
software vendors that were building automation into their
platforms; (iv) UiPath was losing customers due to the increased
availability of low-code automation software offered by vendors,
such as Microsoft's Power Automate software, which were capable of
addressing the majority of customer use cases at a fraction of the
price of UiPath's products and services; and (v) UiPath was
suffering from a loss of channel sales due to strained
relationships with UiPath's partners as a result of increased
competition between UiPath and these partners. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the UiPath class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19012 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
UIPATH INC: Bids to Serve as Lead Plaintiff in Gera Suit Due Nov. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York orders that purported class members have until
Nov. 5, 2023, to move to serve as lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
entitled SAMHITA GERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UIPATH, INC., DANIEL DINES, and,
ASHIM GUPTA, Defendants, Case No. 23cv7908 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Cote notes that the Plaintiff's counsel published the
required notice on Sept. 6, 2023. Members of the purported class,
therefore, have until Nov. 5, 2023, to move the Court to serve as
lead Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Judge Cote orders that a conference will be held at
10:00 a.m. on Dec. 1, 2023, to consider any motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation.
Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff will be
served and filed by Nov. 22, 2023.
The named Plaintiff will promptly serve a copy of this Order on
each of the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pzechz5w from PacerMonitor.com.
UIPATH INC: Gera Sues Over False and Misleading SEC Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMHITA GERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UiPATH, INC., DANIEL DINES, and ASHIM GUPTA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07908 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023) is a
securities class action on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated purchasers of UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021
and March 30, 2022 inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against
UiPath and certain of the Company's senior executives under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
On April 21, 2021, UiPath filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission a Prospectus on Form 424B4. The Prospectus
highlighted UiPath's purportedly robust growth rate. According to
the complaint, the statements made by the Defendants were
materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose
the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations,
and financial condition, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (a) that UiPath had
enacted a widespread discounting program prior to the IPO, which
had the effect of temporarily boosting the Company's revenue and
annualized renewal run-rate (ARR) metrics, cannibalizing its future
sales, eroding the Company's margins, and increasing the risk of
client churn; (b) that UiPath's actual total addressable market was
not as large as portrayed by defendants, because many companies
included in the market survey did not need the type of high-cost,
high-functionality automation products offered by the Company; (c)
that UiPath was losing customers to Microsoft, ServiceNow, SAP,
Salesforce, IBM, and other established enterprise software vendors
that were building automation into their platforms; (d) that UiPath
was losing customers due to the increased availability of low-code
automation software offered by vendors, such as Microsoft's Power
Automate software, which were capable of addressing the majority of
customer use cases at a fraction of the price of UiPath's products
and services; (e) that UiPath was suffering from a loss of channel
sales due to strained relationships with the Company's partners as
a result of increased competition between UiPath and these
partners; and (f) that, as a result of (a) to (e) above,
Defendants' statements during the Class Period regarding the
Company's business, operations, and key financial metrics such as
revenues and ARR were materially false and misleading.
The Plaintiff purchased UiPath common stock during the Class Period
and has been allegedly damaged thereby.
UiPath, Inc. is a global provider of robotic process automation
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: ggaizo@robbinsllp.com
UNICREDIT: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 5
-------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS
If you entered into a European Government Bond Transaction from
January 1, 2005 through and including December 31, 2016 ("Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by pending class action
settlements and you may be entitled to a portion of the settlement
fund.
This notice is to alert you to new and additional proposed
settlements reached with UniCredit and Natixis in In re European
Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-2601 (VM)
(S.D.N.Y.) and the creation of an additional settlement fund
totaling $27,000,000. Together with the prior settlements with
JPMorgan and State Street (collectively with UniCredit and Natixis,
the "Settling Defendants"), the settlement fund total is
$40,000,000. UniCredit and Natixis also agreed to provide
cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued prosecution of
claims against the non-settling Defendants. The settlements with
UniCredit and Natixis will resolve all claims that were or could
have been asserted against them in the action (as detailed in the
respective settlements). UniCredit and Natixis deny any liability,
fault, or wrongdoing. Litigation remains ongoing against the
non-settling Defendants.
The capitalized terms in these paragraphs, as well as other
capitalized terms, are explained or defined below or in the (i)
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities PLC (f/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities
Ltd.), and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities
Inc.); (ii) Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with State
Street Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company; (iii)
Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with UniCredit Bank
AG; and/or (iv) Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with Natixis S.A.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") authorized this notice. The Court appointed the
lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class:
Vincent Briganti
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Gregory S. Asciolla
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Kristen M. Anderson
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Todd A. Seaver
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?
Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class consists of all
persons that purchased or sold one or more European Government
Bond(s) in the United States directly from a Defendant, Deutsche
Bank, or Rabobank (or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary,
affiliate, or division of a Defendant, Deutsche Bank, or Rabobank,
or any of their alleged co-conspirators) from January 1, 2005
through December 31, 2016.
"European Government Bonds" means euro-denominated sovereign debt
or bonds issued by European governments (e.g., Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia,
and Spain).
If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, by visiting
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-883-7336.
What Is This Lawsuit About?
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, including UniCredit, Natixis,
JPMorgan, and State Street, conspired to fix the prices of European
Government Bonds in the primary and/or secondary markets.
In the primary market, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants furthered
this conspiracy by agreeing to artificially inflate European
Government Bond prices at auction through a process known as
"overbidding" and to otherwise coordinate their bidding strategies,
thereby outbidding rivals and raising the benchmark for resale in
the secondary market.
In the secondary market, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, in
control of the supply of newly issued European Government Bonds,
agreed to fix bid-ask spreads. This includes, Plaintiffs allege,
agreeing on higher prices to charge investors for European
Government Bonds. Defendants are alleged to have coordinated this
scheme via online chatroom communications, where they explicitly
fixed prices and bids and exchanged other sensitive, confidential
information necessary to carry out the scheme.
Plaintiffs allege they were injured by these artificially inflated
prices and fixed bid-ask spreads each time they transacted in
European Government Bonds directly with a Defendant (or Defendant
affiliate) and therefore pursue claims under the Sherman Act for
themselves and on behalf of the class.
What Do the Settlements Provide?
To settle the claims against them (as detailed in the respective
settlements), JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of $13,000,000,
UniCredit agreed to pay a total of $13,000,000, and Natixis agreed
to pay a total of $14,000,000. Settling Defendants also agreed to
provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued
prosecution of claims against the non-settling Defendants. If the
Settlements are approved, the Settlement Amount, plus interest
earned and less any Taxes, Notice and Administration Costs,
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, any service
awards for Plaintiffs, and any other expenses approved by the Court
will be divided among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid
claim forms. More information about the specific terms of the
settlements can be found by visiting
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-883-7336.
Will I Get a Payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the settlements if you file a
valid claim form. Claim forms must be submitted online at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern time on November 28, 2023 OR mailed so that they are
received by November 28, 2023.
What Are My Rights?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Settling Defendants and
the other Released Parties, as explained in the Court's detailed
notice and the Settlement agreements, which are available at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. If you do not want to
be a member of the Settlement Class with respect to these
Settlements, you must opt out by November 13, 2023. You may object
to these settlements, the Distribution Plan, application for an
award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, and/or service
awards for Plaintiffs by November 13, 2023. Information on how to
opt out or object is contained in the Court's detailed notice,
which is available at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.
When Is the Settlement Hearing?
The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom
15B, New York, NY 10007, on January 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether to finally approve the settlements, Distribution
Plan, application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. You or your
lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense, but you do not have to.
For more information, call toll-free 1-877-883-7336 or visit
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.
**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court
for information about the settlements. ****
UNITED PARCEL: Thistlewaite Seeks to Continue Case Management Dates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN THISTLEWAITE, and
WILLIAM FECHER, JR., individually, and on behalf of a Class of all
other persons similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
8:22-cv-01753-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order continuing the scheduling Dates currently in Class
Certification/Collective Action Certification Phase Scheduling
Order, and the Order to Complete mediation ordered on February 23,
2023 to 90 days from date the Court grants the concurrently
submitted Order to continue the deadlines.
The motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 7-3 which took place between August 31, 2023 and
September 1, 2023.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ZSDyA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Telephone: (949) 458-9675
Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
Amanda M. sowski, Esq.
GBG LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 358-2810
Facsimile: (213) 995- 6382
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
amandabolliger@gbgllp.com
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Handgun Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
News Radio Wina reports that a federal lawsuit arguing that adults
under the age of 21 should be legally allowed to purchase handguns
from federally licensed firearm dealers is now a class action suit
after a court ruled that the law prohibiting it violates the Second
Amendment.
"The court certified it for the class that's everybody between the
ages of 18 and 21, who is otherwise legally allowed to purchase a
firearm in the United States," said attorney for the plaintiffs
Elliott Harding in an interview on Charlottesville Right Now. "So
it's 10 to 14 million people."
Harding previously filed a similar suit against the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) on behalf of two local
plaintiffs including one who was the victim of domestic abuse by an
ex-boyfriend. That plaintiff wanted to bring a handgun to her job
on a rural horse farm to protect herself.
Those plaintiffs won the case in the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, Harding says, but then both parties turned 21 as the case
was progressing, rendering their claim moot.
Harding says the new suit was filed on behalf of several students
at Hampden-Sydney College in Farmville.
"They wanted to make sure that that issue could remain alive. And
so we filed on behalf of them individually in Richmond," Harding
says. "And then just last week or two weeks ago, the court
certified our class action. So now we don't ever have to worry
about one person turning 21."
The suit argues that federal legislation passed in 1968 prohibiting
anyone under 21 from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed
firearm dealer is unconstitutional.
"FFLs, as they're called, are the only source of background
checks," says Harding. "And so if you're an adult over the age of
18 and otherwise qualified to own and possess a firearm, you
actually can't go buy a handgun in the background check system."
The government argued there was no Second Amendment violation
because adults under 21 are legally permitted to purchase higher
capacity firearms including AR15s from federally licensed dealers.
"The court in Richmond this year struck down that law, found that
it is unconstitutional," Harding says.
Other arguments against the suit included ongoing brain development
in people under 25.
"I'll just note, these are all adults that we're talking about. And
one thing that they try to do in the argument is say that we're
arguing for all minors. We're not arguing for any minors," Harding
said.
He acknowledges studies showing that violence is predominately
committed by people below a certain age range but says that has no
bearing on Constitutional rights.
"Our argument has always been that when the state defines that
threshold, the age of adulthood, all of your fundamentally
liberties vest at that age," he said.
Harding says it makes no sense that young adults would be permitted
to possess handguns and purchase them in private sales. He believes
the lawsuit will close a loophole.
"If anything, it sounds backwards to think that you're relegating
people to the unregulated system. Yet here you are trying to do it
in the name of safety," he said. "Why do we even have the regulated
system if it somehow makes it safer? "
The government has until Oct. 30 to appeal the ruling, and Harding
doesn't believe the case will end there.
"I'd expect either party to try to petition it to the U.S. Supreme
Court," he said.
Listen to the full interview with Elliott Harding here. [GN]
UNITY TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Mulled Over Install Fees, Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nowacky, writing for Game Is Hard, reports that SideQuest, a
popular VR sideloading platform, has threatened legal action
against Unity, the leading VR engine, over its recently announced
install fees. Unity's new charges, known as the Runtime Fee, are
based on revenue and the number of installs over the past year.
This new fee covers both future releases and currently available
games.
In response, SideQuest issued a statement on Twitter, stating that
they do not authorize Unity to use any data obtained from them to
determine an install fee. They argue that their downloads are
referred to as "clicks" on their site and do not constitute a
download or install. SideQuest warns that any use of their data for
install fee calculations will result in an instant lawsuit against
Unity.
SideQuest further elaborates on their concerns in a blog post. They
argue that Unity's install fees are "damaging to developers of all
shapes and sizes" and to the gaming community as a whole. Their
main concerns include "predatory" revenue thresholds, retroactive
terms of service, contradictions in Unity's statements, the impact
on free-to-play games, and a lack of transparency.
It's not just SideQuest that is dissatisfied with Unity's new
policy. Xalavier Nelson Jr, a developer and Stranger Things VR
writer, mentioned in a separate post that a significant group of
developers is considering a class-action lawsuit against Unity.
Since the news broke, many VR developers have expressed their
condemnation of Unity's planned changes. The industry continues to
react, with developers voicing their concerns about the potential
financial impact on their projects.
Unity's Runtime Fee has sparked controversy and criticism within
the VR developer community. It remains to be seen how Unity will
respond to the threats of legal action and whether they will make
any adjustments to their install fee policy. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Eckl Files Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA ECKL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Defendant, Case No.
27-CV-23-14071 (D. Minn., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., Sept. 6,
2023) seeks to remedy harms on behalf of Plaintiff and all
similarly situated individuals whose private information was
accessed during a data breach in violation of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act.
On July 21, 2023, the Cyber Express, a news site focused on
cybersecurity, posted a story about a cybercriminal's "claims to
have accessed about 7 million Social Security numbers dating to
1989" related to a data breach at the University of Minnesota. The
information compromised in the data breach includes Defendant's
students', faculty members', and employees' names, Social Security
numbers, and debit card numbers.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a former student at the University of Minnesota.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff received a data breach
notice email dated August 22, 2023, informing her that her private
information was compromised in the data breach.
University of Minnesota is a land-grant research university found
in 1851.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
Allison E. Cole, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
acole@chestnutcambronne.com
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Fiacco Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dominic Fiacco, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. University of Rochester, Case No.
2:23-cv-00774 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York on Sept. 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-06518-EAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The University of Rochester -- https://www.rochester.edu/ -- is a
private research university in Rochester, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Bursor & Fisher P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
- and -
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarah A. Ballard, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street-Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Fax: (303) 861-7805
UPS STORE: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Notary Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven P. Garmisa, Esq., of Hoey & Farina, in an article for
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, disclosed that the unanimous portion of
an Illinois Appellate Court decision that reinstated Reba Shavers's
class action complaint against The UPS Store Inc. and one of its
franchisees concluded that she alleged a valid claim for conspiracy
to violate the fee-cap set by the Notary Public Act. But one
justice dissented from the majority's conclusion that her
allegations against TUPSS didn't add up to a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. [GN]
VIVENDI TICKETING: Peterson Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivendi Ticketing US
LLC. The case is styled as Mandi Peterson, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Vivendi Ticketing US LLC doing
business as: See Tickets, Case No. 2:23-cv-07498 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vivendi Ticketing US LLC doing business as See Tickets --
http://www.seetickets.us/-- is the an international ticketing
services company based in Nottingham, England.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq.
SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP
700 South Flower Street Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 376-3739
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
VOICE OF GUO: Court OK's Zhang Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rong Zhang, et al., v.
Voice of Guo Media Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01079-SMB
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of
class representatives and class counsel.
-- The Court finds that counsel at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP and Lynch Daskal Emery LLP has the necessary
experience in complex class action litigation, including
consumer
and securities litigation to represent this class, has
committed
the necessary resources to this litigation, and has
sufficiently
demonstrated their capability to understand the law and claims
at
hand.
-- The Court thus certifies Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP and Lynch Daskal Emery LLP as Class Counsel.
-- The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of
demonstrating that they have met each of the four requirements
of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least one of the
requirements of Rule 23(b).
Specifically, the Court finds as follows:
-- Under the numerosity requirement, a proposed class of at
least
40 members is typically satisfactory. Here, the Plaintiffs
estimate the number of victim to be more than 4,500.
The Court therefore finds the Plaintiffs' proposed class
and
subclass satisfy numerosity.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ENiayF at no extra charge.[CC]
VOLVO CARS: Jenner Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA JENNER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06152-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); and
-- Appointing Plaintiff as a Class Representative; and appointing
Seeger Weiss LLC and Kitner Woodward PLLC as Co-Lead Class
Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Volvo manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48lhLRV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
Shauna Itri, Esq.
Scott A. George, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
sweiss@seegerweiss.com
dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
sitri@seegerweiss.com
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Martin Woodward, Esq.
KITNER WOODWARD PLLC
13101 Preston Road, Suite 110
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (214) 443-4300
E-mail: martin@kitnerwoodward.com
- and -
Sarah T. Hansel, Esq.
Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
Woodland Falls Corporate Center
210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 667-0500
E-mail: shansel@motleyrice.com
mquirk@motleyrice.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
W.W. NORTON & COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07997 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
W. W. Norton & Company -- https://wwnorton.com/ -- is an American
publishing company based in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Castellon Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as GUMARO Zavalza Castellon, individually and on
behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV004890 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 11,
2023 and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07547.
The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of
himself and the putative class members: failure to pay all wages
and minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay
all wages owed at termination of employment; violations of
California Business and Professions Code; and Civil Penalties
Pursuant to PAGA Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Vi N. Applen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
aaron.cole@ogletree.com
vi.applen@ogletree.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-778-3700
Facsimile: 602-778-3750
Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
WALGREEN CO: Court Dismisses Most of Claims in Health Plan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NFP reports that on August 29, 2023, in Bryant v. Walgreen Co., a
federal district court dismissed most of the claims against a group
health plan sponsored by Walgreens Co. (Walgreens), most notably
the plaintiffs' claim that Walgreens failed to adequately notify
them of their right to continue health coverage as required by the
COBRA statute.
COBRA rules require plan administrators to notify qualified
beneficiaries of their rights to continued coverage in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant,
including information sufficient for qualified beneficiaries to
obtain such coverage should they wish to do so.
COBRA administrators typically comply with this requirement with
one election notice. Walgreens, however, used two different notices
for this purpose, titling the first notice the "COBRA Enrollment
Notice" and the second "Important Information About Your COBRA
Continuation Coverage."
The plaintiffs contended that these notices failed to provide
adequate information for qualified beneficiaries to make informed
decisions about their health coverage as required by COBRA, such as
the name, address, and telephone number of the plan administrator,
an explanation of the plan's procedures for electing continuation
coverage, including an explanation of the time period during which
the election must be made, and the date by which the election had
to be made, and the address which payments should be sent. The
plaintiffs further contended that Walgreens compounded the problem
by confusing recipients with two separate election notices rather
than a single notice, which the plaintiffs argued COBRA's
regulations implicitly require.
The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims except for an
allegation that the notices provided inaccurate election deadline
information to one employee whose qualifying event occurred during
the COVID-19 Outbreak Period. As for the rest, the court decided
the plaintiffs failed to show how the allegedly inadequate
provisions did cause, or even reasonably could have caused, any
harm to them. The court furthermore held that COBRA regulations
neither expressly nor implicitly require that the election notice
take the form of a single notice alone.
This case is important because it emphasizes that notice to
qualified beneficiaries of their rights to the continuation of
group health plan coverage is the linchpin of COBRA. Administrators
should not construe this ruling as a license to take shortcuts with
election notices. This decision was not so much a function of the
court's leniency regarding the adequacy of COBRA notices as it was
a function of the plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead their
claims (e.g., the plaintiffs originally claimed that the notices
did not identify a plan administrator only to have to concede later
that the notices did indeed do just that). Accordingly, the court's
dismissal of these claims was "without prejudice," meaning that the
plaintiffs are free to refile these claims with more supporting
information should they wish to do so. [GN]
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settles Theranos Fraud Class Action for $44-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Hobbins, writing for MDDI, reports that after nearly seven
years of litigation, Walgreens Boots Alliance has reached a $44
million settlement with customers who purchased blood draws from
one of the company's more than 40 Theranos Wellness Centers across
Arizona and California. In 2016, consumers filed a class-action
lawsuit accusing Walgreens and Theranos of fraud and medical
battery, claiming they purchased the test under false pretenses.
Theranos, which is now known as one of the most well-known
fraudulent medtech companies in the world, was once valued at $9
billion and touted its flagship Edison device as the future of
diagnostics, using just a finger-prick of blood to run a battery of
tests. Walgreens capitalized on the innovation, paying Theranos
$140 million to open wellness centers in their stores that utilized
the device. However, there was a problem… the device didn't
actually work.
So, I think it's fair to say Walgreens has since regretted that
decision.
Now, after years of back and forth, and subject to court approval,
the settlement agreement states that the lawsuit plaintiffs will
receive double the cost of their Theranos tests, plus an additional
$10 base payment. Members of a Walgreens Edison subclass will
receive an added $700 to $1,000 for medical battery claims,
according to a plaintiff-filed memorandum. A tentative deal was
reached with the plaintiffs in May after Phoenix US District judge
David Campbell ordered the case to go to trial.
The plaintiffs also reached a settlement with former Theranos COO
Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, but couldn't come to an agreement with
Elizabeth Holmes, the company's former CEO. Both Balwani and Holmes
were convicted of fraud last year, receiving a sentence of 13 and
11 years in prison, respectively.
The fact that plaintiffs were unable to come to a settlement
agreement with Holmes is unsurprising to this MD+DI editor, as only
months ago multiple news sources reported the founder said she was
unable to pay $250 a month for her share of $452 million in
restitution to her victims once released from prison, citing
"limited financial resources."
At Theranos' peak, Holmes' net worth was valued at $4.5 billion.
However, in June, Forbes reduced that estimate to zero. [GN]
WALMART INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Water Enhancers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that tiny bottles of water
flavoring don't need to include the words "artificial flavors,"
Walmart says in response to a recent class action lawsuit.
The company filed its motion to dismiss Sept. 6 in a case brought
in Florida federal court in May by plaintiff Robert Thompson and
attorneys William Wright and Spencer Sheehan. The suit claims malic
acid used in Walmart's water enhancers is synthetic, despite the
label promising "Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavors."
Walmart says the plaintiff can't even show the malic acid is a
flavoring agent.
"Although Plaintiff alleges that Walmart uses malic acid 'to
provide the tangy, sweet and tart taste peaches are known for,'
that bare-bones allegation does not establish that malic acid
provides the product with its 'characterizing' peach flavor - as
Plaintiff must plausibly allege to establish that it acts as an
'artificial flavor,'" the motion says.
"To the contrary, Plaintiff openly admits that malic acid is the
'predominant' acid in a wide range of fruits, including apples,
cherries, grapes, pears and watermelons. Given that admission, as
well as Plaintiff's generalized allegation that malic acid provides
a 'tart and tangy taste,' it is far more plausible that it acts as
a 'flavor enhancer' or a 'pH balancer' - which are not 'flavors'
and do not require an 'artificial flavor' disclosure under the
applicable FDA regulations."
The suit says "natural flavor" is the fifth listed ingredient by
weight, while malic acid is listed third. It says the enhancers
contain DL-Malic acid not found in peaches or other fruits because
it is derived from petroleum.
Walmart argues it never promised the enhancers would be free of
artificial flavors, only that they include natural flavors. Plus,
it says, Thompson can't show he has suffered an injury.
"Regardless of whether the malic acid in the product acts as a
'flavor,' and regardless of what the FDA regulations do or do not
require, Plaintiff's allegations establish that he received exactly
what he paid for - a convenient, shelf-stable, liquid beverage
enhancer that makes plain water taste like peach tea," the motion
says.
The motion cites a recent Florida federal court ruling over the
lack of real lemon in Publix's lozenges. [GN]
WALMART INC: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Practices
----------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other similarly
situated aggrieved individuals v. WALMART, INC., WALMART STORES
ARKANSAS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-05149-TLB (W.D. Ark., Sept. 11,
2023), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability
and to provide appropriate relief to Glenda Scott, Jaclyn Walker,
and a class of former employees who were adversely affected by such
practices.
Walmart, Inc. and Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC (Defendants or
Walmart) subjected Glenda Scott, Jaclyn Walker, and a class of
former employees to an unlawful qualifications standard, a Pathways
Graduation Assessment (PGA), that screened out or tended to screen
out a class of individuals with disabilities and subjected them to
an adverse employment action, termination, after they failed the
PGA. The Commission alleges the PGA was not job-related and
consistent with business necessity. Walmart also failed to provide
reasonable accommodation for the PGA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission)
is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Titles I and V
of the ADA.
The Defendant is the largest retailer in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faye A. Williams, Esq.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 1400
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone (901) 685-4609
Email: faye.williams@eeoc.gov
- and -
Gary Sullivan, Esq.
Pamela B. Dixon, Esq.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
820 Louisiana St., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone (501) 900-6145
Email: pamela.dixon@eeoc.gov
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Junks Santana Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL REYES SANTANA, v.
COUNTY OF WAYNE and WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Case No.
2:22-cv-12376-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie J.
Michelson entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The Court said, "The Defendants appear to be asking the Court to
apply Pullman abstention. But Pullman abstention does not apply
here since Santana's federal claims have been dismissed."
Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it
has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Santana's inverse-condemnation and
Michigan Constitution claims.
Accordingly, Santana's inverse-condemnation claim (Count III) and
Michigan Constitution claim (Count IV) are dismissed without
prejudice.
Maribel Reyes Santana owed $319.64 in property taxes on her Detroit
home which was allegedly worth $35,000 when Wayne County seized it.
The County then sold it at a November 2015 tax foreclosure auction
for $6,100 and refused to refund the difference. Over seven years
later, Santana filed this suit on behalf of herself and a class of
all other similarly situated homeowners.
She alleges that Wayne County and the Wayne County Treasurer
violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and the Eighth
Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause by not returning the excess
proceeds or excess equity from the foreclosure sale after recouping
the unpaid taxes.
She also brings a takings claim and an inverse-condemnation claim
under Michigan law.
Wayne County is located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario and
named after General Anthony Wayne.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PFm1UN at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Sorace Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, denies the amended motion to intervene
filed in the lawsuit entitled VINCENT SORACE, JOSEPH YERTY, TAMMY
YERTY, JAMES ZARONSKY, LINDA ZARONSKY, VIKTOR STEVENSON, ASHLEY
YATES, and KIMBERLY SOLOMON-ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant; ANTHONY C. GILMORE, JENNIFER LYNN HUMMEL,
SHAWN DAVID HUMMEL and JEFFREY F. SIEGLER, Intervenor Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04318-GJP (E.D. Pa.).
The Named Plaintiffs filed a class action against Wells Fargo Bank,
accusing Wells Fargo of violating Pennsylvania law by using
deficient disclosure notices and practices when it repossessed the
Plaintiffs' vehicles. After the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint and Wells Fargo moved to dismiss it, the parties
jointly requested a stay so that they could pursue settlement
negotiations.
After 18 months of negotiations, including mediation before retired
United States Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, with a proposed
settlement class consisting of persons who entered, in relevant
part, "a retail installment sales contract in Pennsylvania for the
financing of a Motor Vehicle purchased primarily for personal,
family or household use and whose retail installment sales contract
was assigned or sold to Wells Fargo."
Anthony Gilmore and Jeffrey Siegler filed a motion to intervene as
a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)
or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention under Rule
24(b)(1). Gilmore and Siegler then amended their motion, joined now
by Jennifer Lynn Hummel and Shawn David
Hummel.
The Court denies the amended motion to intervene because the
Proposed Intervenors do not meet the requirements for intervention
as of right or permissive intervention. The motion is untimely and
fails to demonstrate why, absent intervention, the Proposed
Intervenors' rights would be impaired, or their interests
inadequately represented. Furthermore, Gilmore and Siegler cannot
show significant interest in the litigation because they are not
members of the proposed settlement class.
The Proposed Intervenors argue that intervention is timely because
no class has been certified, the Court has not yet ruled on Wells
Fargo's motion to dismiss, and the "relatively short delay that
will result from intervention" will not cause prejudice. They also
contend they learned of the pendency of this case a few weeks
before seeking to intervene.
Considering all three factors under In re Fine Paper Antitrust
Lit., 695 F.2d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1982), Judge Pappert holds that
the motion to intervene is untimely.
Granting the motion to intervene would prejudice the adjudication
of the rights of the named and unnamed class members and cause
undue delay in the resolution of this case, Judge Pappert opines.
Between November 2021 and May 2023, the Named Plaintiffs and Wells
Fargo engaged in negotiations, including two mediation sessions
before Judge Welsh. These efforts resulted in a proposed settlement
for which the Plaintiffs are now seeking preliminary approval.
While the Proposed Intervenors contend they became aware of this
case a few weeks before seeking to intervene, the length of time an
applicant waits before applying for intervention should be measured
from the point at which the applicant knew, or should have known,
of the risk to its rights, Judge Pappert explains. The Proposed
Intervenors do not explain why they discovered the pending
litigation nearly three years after it began. But even if they had
no reason to know about the case until shortly before seeking to
intervene, this factor alone does not outweigh the other factors
that render the motion untimely.
Even if the motion to intervene was timely, Judge Pappert says the
applicant's interest in the litigation must be significantly
protectable as distinguished from interests of a general and
indefinite character.
The Proposed Intervenors argue that because Gilmore and Siegler
would have been class members under the original Class Action
Complaint and "have an interest in any settlement fund," they have
sufficient interest in the litigation. But Gilmore and Siegler are
not members of the proposed class in the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint--the relevant complaint for the proposed
settlement agreement--because they did not enter retail installment
sales contracts in Pennsylvania, Judge Pappert holds. Neither
Gilmore's nor Siegler's rights will be directly affected by the
proposed settlement agreement.
Judge Pappert notes that the Hummels have sufficient interest as
members of the class, but denying the Motion to Intervene does not
impair their ability to protect their interests. Any substantive
challenges can be addressed as objections to the settlement.
Furthermore, the Hummels are free to opt out of the class
settlement and proceed outside of the class.
The Proposed Intervenors also argue that, as to the Hummels, the
"Existing Plaintiffs have ignored their valuable related
claims—and those claims will be extinguished if the Existing
Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo have their way."
This argument is neither accurate nor grounds to find inadequate
representation, Judge Pappert holds. And again, the Hummels' claims
are not extinguished; they may still opt out of any future
settlement and pursue them.
The Proposed Intervenors argue that permissive intervention is
warranted because their claims "involve substantially identical
issues of fact and common questions of law."
Judge Pappert explains that Gilmore and Siegler do not share a
common question of law or fact, as they are not members of the
proposed settlement class. And although the Hummels are members of
the proposed settlement class, a motion for permissive intervention
must still be timely. For the reasons explained in denying them
intervention as of right, Judge Pappert finds their request for
permissive intervention is also untimely.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Sept. 7, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n88t54b from PacerMonitor.com.
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Rent Fixing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Wasielewski of BISNOW reports that Yardi Systems and 18
property management companies were named in a federal class-action
lawsuit accusing them of engaging in a scheme to fix apartment
rents across the country.
Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman alleged in the suit that Yardi
and the property management firms used Yardi's RENTmaximizer tool
to eliminate competition by automating rent increases. The suit
alleges that the use of Yardi's tools created a cartel of
organizations that leveraged the tool to raise rents across their
properties while keeping vacancies low. [GN]
[*] 66.2% of All TCPA Cases Filed in August Were Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPA World, reports that anyone who
thought the TCPA was dead following the Facebook decision really
did not understand how TCPAWorld works.
And it works like this– plaintiff's lawyers like money. And NO
federal statute in history has created more money for Plaintiffs
lawyers than the TCPA.
Pretty straightforward.
While Facebook weakened one line of attack, the Plaintiffs bar just
shifted to other lines of attack and kept coming.
These days prerecorded calls and calls to numbers on the DNC are
driving the massive bulk of TCPA filings -- although occasional
ATDS claim will still be brought (fn7 is still an issue!)
And the Plaintiffs' bar has really found its stride. According to
the stats provided by the good folks at WebRecon, TCPA filings YTD
are up a staggering 16.8% from last year! Holy smokes.
Even more stunning–at least to me–66.2% of all TCPA cases filed
last month were CLASS ACTIONS.
Just incredible.
These are massive numbers and demonstrate why marketers, servicers,
debt collectors and lead sellers are under so much pressure right
now to get compliant and stay compliant. And it can be incredibly
challenging to do so in TCPAWorld where things move so quickly.
Obviously Troutman Amin, LLP is here to help–and fee free reach
out for a consultation.
For now though be sure to request our FREE resources like the 2023
TCPA Annual Review (presented by TrustedForm) and our incredible
magazine–Deserve to Win.
Plus our YouTube channel is full of incredible FREE content as
well.
We do everything we can to help you WIN everyday.
Chat soon. [GN]
[*] City of Waco to File Class Action v. Firefighting Foam Makers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trenton Hooker, writing for KXXV, reports that the City of Waco has
filed a lawsuit against makers of a firefighting foam linked to
"forever chemicals" and cancer.
Waco's city council voted to join the class action lawsuit on Sept.
9, which is filed in the United States District Court of South
Carolina.
The plaintiffs allege chemicals inside the foam, called aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF), can potentially cause illness including
cancer and do long-term damage to the environment.
Waco used the foam for years at its airport to fight fuel fires.
Poly-fluoroalkyl materials (PFAS) are the so-called forever
chemicals inside the foam, which the body cannot expel naturally
and do not break down in the environment over time.
PFAS chemicals are resistant to heat and very effective at
extinguishing class b fires fueled by accelerants such as gasoline,
cooking oils, paint, and kerosene or other petroleum products,
according to the U.S. Fire Administration.
Many state and federal agencies prohibit the use of the foam and
chemicals in fire suppression.
Fort Worth and San Angelo are two other Texas cities among the
5,600 plaintiffs.
The lawsuit says the chemicals have been in use since the 1950's,
and manufacturers have known about the cancer risks -- but never
disclosed them.
Jennifer Richie, who serves as Waco's city attorney, sent this
statement to 25 News:
"The City of Waco, along with Fort Worth and San Angelo, Texas,
want to join the national litigation concerning firefighting foam
products that were required to be used for many years at airports,
including the Waco Regional Airport. These products can contaminate
water, wastewater, soil, and groundwater. In the lawsuit against
manufacturers, distributors, and others involved in profiting from
the sale of these chemicals, we seek our costs in testing and
monitoring and possibly remediating and/or treating for any
contamination."
The next scheduled hearing on the class action suit will happen on
December 14, 2023 at 10 a.m. in the United States Federal Court in
the District of South Carolina. [GN]
*********
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 ***