/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 10, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 226 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Beeman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Cashen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Cates Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Clemente Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ADTALEM GLOBAL: BIPA Act Violation Class Suit Concluded ALASKA: Kovol Appeals Partial Dismissal of Foster Care Reform Suit ALLIED WASTE: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 15 ASTRA SPACE: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 14, 2024 BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Securities Class Suit BARKBOX INC: Appeals Rulings in Farmer Suit to 9th Cir. BIG PICTURE: Martorello Appeals Ruling in Williams Suit to 4th Cir. BOSTON BEER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York C.R. ENGLAND: Deadline to File Remand Bid Set for Nov. 27 CONNECTICUT: Horelick Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. DESKTOP METAL: Zhou Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. FCA US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Thompson Extended to Oct. 15, 2024 FLO HEALTH: Seeks to File Materials Under Seal FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Deadline FRESH MARK: Court OK's Settlement in McElroy Suit GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Hearing on Settlement OK Set for Feb. 26, 2024 GRINDR INC: Data Privacy Suit Ongoing GWG HOLDINGS: Scura Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed HERITAGE VALLEY: Robinson Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania HERSHEY COMPANY: Ziobro Sues Over Unlawful Representations HILCORP ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Colton Suit to 10th Cir. HOME DEPOT: Wins Summary Judgment v. Collins HONDA MOTOR: Spencer Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 31, 2024 I LOST MY DOG: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INSURANCE COMPANY: W.E.B Production Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois INTEGON GENERAL: Greenwald Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Gregory Suit Transferred to D. Mass. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Hunter Suit Transferred to D. Mass. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Means Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois KANSAS CITY LIFE: Files 8th Circuit Appeal in Meek Suit KENNETH JAY LANE: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KOHLS INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California LEGACY SAFETY: Woodard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MAHIR FLORAL: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MAXIMUS INC: Valiente Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MERCK & CO: Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in Mumps Vaccine Case META PLATFORMS: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. California MFS SUPPLY LLC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Hale Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Soto Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MORPHE LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS: Leandre Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia NEW YORK: B. B. Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NOVOCURE LTD: Continues to Defend LUNAR Data Omission Suit OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. N.Y. OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Carbonite Class Suit in Mass. OTIS WORLDWIDE: 2nd Cir. Concludes Darnis Class Suit OVATIONS FOOD: Cooks Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania PATHWARD N.A.: Kent Files Suit in D. South Dakota PENSION BENEFIT: Collins Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSION BENEFIT: Ellis Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PEPSI COLA BOTTLING: Poletti Appeals Arbitration Order in FLSA Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: 2nd Trial of Antitrust Suit Set for March 4, 2024 PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan Suit Fully Briefed PURFOODS LLC: Avant Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa R&M CAPITAL GROUP: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RALPHS GROCERY: Grimes Suit Removed to C.D. California REFLEX PERFORMANCE: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RIDGECREST SHS PAYROLL: Pepper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCHELL & KAMPETER: Monteleone Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHOES ON FIRST: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIT MEANS SIT: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOLV ENERGY: Turner Suit Removed to S.D. California SPB HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Suit Removed to C.D. California SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Petris Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania SPOTON TRANSACT: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STELLANTIS NV: Singh Suit Transferred to D. Delaware STERLING JEWELERS: Brazil Suit Removed to E.D. California TMX FINANCE CORPORATE: Nicholas Suit Removed to D. Nevada UNITED SERVICES: Marchek Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Graves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. USA MINISO: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Harrison Files Suit in D. Delaware YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Morrison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,980 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $48MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Receives A&E Exposure Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: Beeman Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ESTATE OF KARL J. BEEMAN, SR. by and through Special Administrator and heir Benita Beeman; BENITA BEEMAN (an individual); KARL J. BEEMAN, JR (an individual), and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (formerly known as 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION; MARKEN ENTERPRISES (also known as MarKen PPE Restoration); STEAMATIC OF SOUTHERN, NEVADA (a Nevada corporation); LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 100, inclusive;, Case No. 2:23-cv-01596 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05350 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as 365 Torts - Personal Injury - Product Liability. 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kelly A. Evans, Esq. Chad R. Fears, Esq. EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Phone: (702) 805-0290 Facsimile: (702) 805-0291 Email: kevans@efsmmlaw.com cfears@efsmmlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Cashen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Cashen, 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 PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 2:23-cv-05369-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 25, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of 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 to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to 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: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway Bldg. 1, Ste 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 439-3202 Fax: (512) 439-3201 Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Cates Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Cates, 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 PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 2:23-cv-05365-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 25, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of 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 to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to 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: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway Bldg. 1, Ste 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 439-3202 Fax: (512) 439-3201 Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Clemente Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Uldarico Clemente, 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 PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 2:23-cv-05368-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 25, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of 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 to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to 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: Scott M. Hendler, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway Bldg. 1, Ste 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 439-3202 Fax: (512) 439-3201 Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ramirez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alexander 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 PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05328-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 24, 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 firefighter and was diagnosed with Bladder 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: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com ADTALEM GLOBAL: BIPA Act Violation Class Suit Concluded -------------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Chancery Division concluded the BIPA Act violation class suit after plaintiff failed to file a reconsideration motion timely. On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a Chamberlain student, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The plaintiff claimed that Chamberlain's use of Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student examinations, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claimed that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students' biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and informed consent. The plaintiff also alleged that Chamberlain lacked a legally compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. The potential class purportedly included all students who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20, 2021. The plaintiff and the putative class sought damages in excess of $50,000, attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also sought an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that plaintiff's lawsuit is expressly preempted by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. On February 1, 2023, the Court granted Chamberlain's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. On March 3, 2023, plaintiff filed an appeal. On September 14, 2023, plaintiff's appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff had until October 5, 2023 to file for reconsideration of the dismissal. Plaintiff failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration. This matter is concluded. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ALASKA: Kovol Appeals Partial Dismissal of Foster Care Reform Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants KIM KOVOL, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 28, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Jeremiah M., Hannah M. and Hunter M. by their next friend Lisa Nicolai; Mary B. and Connor B. by their next friend Charles Ketcham; David V., George V., Lawrence V., Karen V., and Damien V. by their next friend Michelle Caldwell; and Rachel T., Eleanor T. and Gayle T. by their next friend Rebecca Fahnestock, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADAM CRUM, Director, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, in his official capacity; KIM GUAY, Director, Office of Children's Services, in her official capacity; ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES; and ALASKA OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-JMK, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. This is a putative class action brought by 14 children who are in the custody of Alaska's Office of Children's Services on May 20, 2022. The Defendants are (1) the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services; (2) Adam Crum, the director of DHSS; (3) OCS; and (4) Kim Guay, the director of OCS. DHSS is "the principal human services agency of the government of the state of Alaska," and OCS is the subdivision of DHSS that is "responsible for the safety and welfare of children in foster care in Alaska." Ms. Kim Kovol is also named as Defendant in her official capacity as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Family and Community Services. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek wide-ranging reform of Alaska's foster care system, alleging that it has become so riddled with dysfunction that it harms the children it is designed to protect. The Plaintiffs assert that the structural failures within Alaska's child welfare system violate their federal statutory and constitutional rights. These failures include high caseworker turnover and unmanageable caseloads, which together "prevent OCS from adequately supervising and providing services to the children in its protective custody." The Plaintiffs further allege that foster children in OCS' custody are subjected to frequent destabilizing placement changes. On August 26, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On September 28, 2023, Judge Joshua M. Kindred entered an Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court sua sponte certified the order for immediate interlocutory appeal. Should Plaintiffs wish to file a second amended complaint, they shall do so within 60 days of the Order, ruled the Court. The appellate case is captioned as M., et al. v. Kovol, et al., Case No. 23-2726, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 12, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners KIM KOVOL, Alaska Department of Family and Community Services, in her official capacity, et al., are represented by: Katherine Demarest, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP 1031 W 4th Avenue Suite 600 Anchorage, AK 99501 Plaintiffs-Respondents JEREMIAH M., et al., are represented by: James J. Davis, Jr. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 - and - Mr. Mark Regan, Esq. DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF ALASKA 3330 Arctic Boulevard Suite 103 Anchorage, AK 99503 - and - Elena Romerdahl, Esq. Danielle Ryman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1029 West Third Avenue Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501-1981 ALLIED WASTE: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00099 (S.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting the joint motion to continue hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The hearing on motion for class certification is continued to Nov. 15, 2023, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. -- Counsel and the parties may appear in person or may appear by videoconference. -- The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconferencing information to counsel prior to the hearing. The nature of suit states Contract Diversity Action. Allied offers waste management services for non-hazardous solid waste.[CC] ASTRA SPACE: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Astra Space, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated securities suit captioned "In re Astra Space Inc. (formerly Holicity Inc.) Securities Litigation" in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On February 9, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York styled "Artery v. Astra Space, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-00737. On November 14, 2022, this was consolidated into a single action. On December 14, 2022, this was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Case No. 3:22-cv-08875. On December 28, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the cxompany and several of its current and former officers and directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements concerning the company's projected launch cadence and payload capacity goals. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities between February 2, 2021 and December 29, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 28, 2022. Astra Space, Inc. designs, tests, manufactures and operates the next generation of launch services and space products and services to enable a new generation of global communications, earth observation, precision weather monitoring, navigation, and surveillance capabilities. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 14, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IA BROWN. an individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRAIG CAMERON, an individual; HEARX WEST, INC., A California corporation; STEVE MAHON, an individual; TINO SCHWEIGHOEFER, an individual; HEARX WEST LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WS AUDIOLOGY (CALIFORNIA), PC, A California professional corporation; SIVANTOS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04271-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order to continue dates for class certification motion and associated dates by 90 days: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued from November 16, 2023, to February 14, 2024; 2. The jury trial in this matter is continued from July 9, 2024 to October 8, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.; 3. The other dates in this case are re-set in accordance with the Second Amended Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates set forth in the attached chart; and 4. The parties shall comply with the Court's Scheduling and Case Management Order, except to the extent modified. Audiology was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40jKym0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite D, PMB 325 Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 Facsimile: (866) 794-5741 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Holdings LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Reckstin Family Trust securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) Baker Hughes, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. BARKBOX INC: Appeals Rulings in Farmer Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- BARKBOX, INC. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Amber Farmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARKBOX, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01574-SSS-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiff on September 1, 2022 for Defendant's alleged violation of the Automatic Renewal Law with regards to their automatic renewal and recurring subscription plans. BarkBox offers a one-month plan, a 6-month plan and a 12-month plan, wherein all plans automatically renew. BarkBox does not provide clear and conspicuous disclosures or obtain affirmative consent before enrolling consumers for recurring subscription plans. Consumers like Plaintiff are being tricked into signing up for recurring plans, wrongly thinking that they are only signing up for the stated term (for example, for 6 months). Consumers are then wrongly charged for recurring shipments that are "unconditional gifts" under the law, says the suit. On November 4, 2022, the Defendant filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint and to compel arbitration. On October 6, 2023, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes entered an Order denying Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as BarkBox, Inc. v. Farmer, Case No. 23-2730, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 20, 2023; -- Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 18, 2023; -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] Defendant-Appellant BARKBOX, INC. is represented by: Lisa Bugni, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Matthew V.H. Noller, Esq. KING & SPALDING 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 - and - Kelly L. Perigoe, Esq. KING AND SPALDING, LLP 633 W 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Plaintiff-Appellee AMBER FARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER LLP Telephone: (310) 656-7066 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 BIG PICTURE: Martorello Appeals Ruling in Williams Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATT MARTORELLO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Lula Williams, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on June 22, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Aug. 2, 2021, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit. On Sept. 22, 2023, Judge Robert E. Paynet entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, as representatives of the Certified Class and against Defendant Matt Martorello as follows: (1) For relief under Count Two of the Class Action Complaint, Matt Martorello shall pay damages to the Plaintiffs, as representatives of the Certified Class, in the amount of $43,401,817.47 with interest at the federal judgment rate of 5.35% per annum from July 7, 2023 until paid in full (none of which may be setoff based on any prior settlement of any part of the Plaintiffs' Class Claims); and (2) For relief under Count Three of the Class Action Complaint, Matt Martorello shall pay damages to the Plaintiffs, as representatives of the Certified Class, in the amount of $43,401,817.47 with interest at the federal judgment rate of 5.35% per annum from July 7, 2023 until paid in full (none of which may be set off based on any prior settlement of any part of the Plaintiffs' Classes' claims). It is further ordered that, upon motion of the Plaintiffs and agreement of Matt Martorello, Counts One, Four, and Five of the Class Action Complaint are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. It is further ordered that, upon agreement of the parties, the time for filing a bill of costs and petition for attorneys' fees shall be extended until 90 days after final resolution of any appeal. The appellate case is captioned Lula Williams v. Matt Martorello, Case No. 23-2097, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 20, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LULA WILLIAMS, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, are represented by: Elizabeth Anne Adams, Esq. Jennifer R. Murray, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 - and - John G. Albanese, Esq. Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street, NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5997 (612) 594-5933 - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 - and - Michael Allen Caddell, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7570 (703) 424-7573 (703) 424-7571 - and - Drew David Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 626 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER 919 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 782-9430 - and - Matthew W. H. Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Defendants-Appellants MATT MARTORELLO, et al. are represented by: David Neal Anthony, Esq. Timothy James St. George, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP P.O. Box 1122 Richmond, VA 23218 Telephone: (804) 697-5410 (804) 697-1254 - and - Alicia Marie Clough, Esq. Bernard R. Given, II, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2000 (310) 282-2235 - and - Steven D. Gordon, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 800 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 955-3000 - and - John Benjamin Rottenborn, Esq. WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC Wells Fargo Tower 10 South Jefferson Street P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038 - and - Bethany Danielle Simmons, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000 - and - Karen M. Stemland, Esq. WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK, PLC 123 East Main Street P.O. Box 2496 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 220-6826 - and - John David Taliaferro, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 618-5015 BOSTON BEER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Boston Beer Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 14, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by an individual shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and three of its officers. The complaint alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021. The plaintiff claimed that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On October 8, 2021, a nearly identical complaint was filed against the Company by an individual shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court consolidated the two actions and on December 14, 2021 appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2022. The Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in the previously reported class action alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was granted by the Court on December 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 2023 and filed its opening brief on April 11, 2023. The Company's response was filed on July 10, 2023 and the plaintiff filed its reply on August 1,2023. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. The Boston Beer company, Inc. and certain subsidiaries are engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. C.R. ENGLAND: Deadline to File Remand Bid Set for Nov. 27 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CANTU, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-02126-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order granting joint stipulation to: (1) set briefing schedule and hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand, (2) extend defendant's time to respond to complaint, and (3) provide Relief from l.r. 23-3. The briefing and hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand shall proceed as follows: A. Plaintiff's Deadline to File Nov. 27, 2023 Remand Motion: B. Defendant's Opposition to Remand Dec. 13, 2023 Motion: C. Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Dec. 22, 2023 Remand Motion: D. Hearing on Remand Motion: Jan. 8, 2024 C.R. England, Inc. provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QnGxIF at no extra charge.[CC] CONNECTICUT: Horelick Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs APRIL HORELICK, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 7, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled APRIL HORELICK, as Parent and Natural Guardian of C.H. and Individually; NICOLE HOFFMAN, as Parent and Natural Guardian of J.P. and Individually; DOREEN PINKERTON, as Parent and Natural Guardian of M.G. and Individually; JESSICA ROTANTE, as Parent and Natural Guardian of H.P. and Individually, CARA VITALE, as Parent and Natural Guardian of J.V. and W.V., and Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NED LAMONT, in his official capacity As Governor; CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; EAST HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; NORTH HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; NORWALK PUBLIC SCHOOLS; SHELTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CHARLENE RUSSELLTUCKER, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of Education, ERICA FORTI, in her official capacity as Superintendent; PATRICK STIRK, in his official capacity as Superintendent; DR. ALEXANDRA ESTRELLA, in her official capacity as Superintendent; KENNETH SARANICH, in his official capacity as Superintendent; and, DR. TAMU LUCERO, in her official capacity as Superintendent, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-1431-MPS, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This case, filed on October 29, 2021, arises from Connecticut's closure of public schools to in-person instruction as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs, who are students with disabilities and their parents, argue that the closures violated their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other federal and state laws. The Defendants, who are various state and local officials sued in their official capacities, the Connecticut Department of Education, the Connecticut State Board of Education, and several local public school districts, moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. They argued that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims; (2) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the IDEA; and (3) Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Plaintiffs' claims. They also argue that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 7, Judge Michael P. Shea entered an Order dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the threat of future injury is speculative, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, ruled the Court. The Plaintiffs also failed to meet the IDEA's exhaustion requirement, a failure that bars all of Plaintiffs' causes of action. Finally, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claim, RICO claim, ADA claim, and state law claims as to State Defendants, it added. Judge Shea dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Horelick v. Lamont, Case No. 23-7320, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants APRIL HORELICK, as Parent and Natural Guardian of C.H., et al., and individually on behalf of all others similarly situated are represented by: Rory Jude Bellantoni, Esq. BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP, LTD. 300 East 95th Street Suite 130 New York, NY 10128 Defendants-Appellees NED LAMONT, in his Official Capacity as Governor, et al., are represented by: Darren P. Cunningham, Esq. CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Office of the Solicitor General 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 - and - Julia Vacek Wilde, Esq. SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 - and - Ryan Patrick Driscoll, Esq. BERCHEM, MOSES & DEVLIN, P.C. 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 - and - Johanna Zelman, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP CityPlace II 185 Asylum Street, Suite 820 Hartford, CT 06103 DESKTOP METAL: Zhou Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SOPHIA ZHOU, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Sophia Zhou, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DESKTOP METAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-12099-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding its subsidiary EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures. On July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021, through November 15, 2021. On April 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on December 19, 2022. On Feb. 28, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Indira Talwani on Sept. 20, 2023. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' general allegations are insufficient to support a claim. Accordingly, the Court entered judgment dismissing the case on Sept. 21, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Zhou v. Desktop Metal, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1843, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on October 19, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appearance form, Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order form were due on November 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SOPHIA ZHOU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL & SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3052 (510) 725-3000 - and - Raffi Melanson, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Sq., 5th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 - and - Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 (401) 862-1259 - and - Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE LLC 18 Grove St., Ste. 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Telephone: (781) 453-0100 - and - Dean Paul Ferrogari, Esq. Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Brenda Szydlo, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Defendants-Appellees DESKTOP METAL, INC., et al., are represented by: Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 - and - Kristin N. Murphy, Esq. Allison Strittmater O'Hara, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Dr., Ste. 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 540-1235 - and - William Jason Trach, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon St., 27th Fl. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 880-4514 FCA US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Thompson Extended to Oct. 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-09815-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order extending deadlines for Fact Discovery and Class Certification Pending Mediation as follows: Description of Event New Deadline Deadline for Opposition to Motion Jan. 8, 2024 to Dismiss the SAC Deadline for Defendant's Reply Jan. 29, 2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss the SAC Feb. 15, 2024 Deadline for fact discovery May 17, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiff to provide June 14, 2024 moving party's portion of the class certification brief, with initial expert witness disclosures and reports Deadline for Defendant to provide Aug. 16, 2024 opposing party's portion of the class certification brief, with initial expert witness disclosures and reports complete expert discovery Deadline to file joint motion for Oct. 15, 2024 class certification FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47dkmMm at no extra charge.[CC] FLO HEALTH: Seeks to File Materials Under Seal ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim motion to seal and to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. The Defendants move to provisionally file under seal Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and related materials. The parties stipulated to a modified sealing procedure in connection with class certification briefing and any related filings. The Defendants seek to provisionally seal the following materials: Document Portion to Be Designating Parties Filed Under Seal Defendants' Joint Entire document Plaintiffs and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Defendants Motion for Class Certification Appendix of Evidence in Entire document Plaintiffs and Support of Defendants' Defendant Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Flo develops an AI-powered health platform that includes cycle predictions, personalized daily health insights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45WzXi7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Ashley Rogers, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Joseph R. Rose, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7503 Facsimile: (213) 229-6503 E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Benjamin M. Sadun, Esq. Brenda R. Sharton, Esq. DECHERT LLP One International Place 100 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 728-7100 Facsimile: (617) 426-6567 E-mail: brenda.sharton@dechert.com - and - Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. Yuhan Alice Chi, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP One Front Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 Facsimile: (415) 858-7599 E-mail: BHur@willkie.com - and - Jason J. Kim, Esq. Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. John J. Delionado, Esq. Samuel A. Danon, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: AMortimer@HuntonAK.com FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order seeking a short continuance of the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion, from November 3, 2023, to December 1, 2023: On July 25, 2023, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order, setting -- among other deadlines – the deadline for class discovery for August 31, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification for October 13, 2023. -- On August 22, 2023, the Court extended the class discovery deadline at the joint request of the parties for the sole and limited purpose of accommodating the deposition of Ford's former employee, Tom Nilles, on September 6, 2023. -- On October 6, 2023, the parties moved for a short continuance of the plaintiffs' class certification motion deadline from October 13 to November 3, 2023, because Ford had identified an issue with the incompleteness and inaccuracy of data it had earlier produced regarding U.S. purchases of the putative class vehicles, and it was working to provide Plaintiffs with corrected data. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SpuFIX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Wright, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E Guasti Rd 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 345-8110 The Defendant is represented by: Kelsey M. Larson, Esq. Randall W. Edwards, Esq. Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: redwards@omm.com alaurendeau@omm.com FRESH MARK: Court OK's Settlement in McElroy Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINE MCELROY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. FRESH MARK, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00287-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order approving the parties' joint motion for approval of settlement. Accordingly, and pursuant to the parties' settlement, the Court: (1) Approves the settlement documents attached to the Joint Motion as Exhibits A-B, and orders that the settlement be implemented according to the terms and conditions of the directed Agreement; (2) Approves the service award to representative plaintiff Antoine McElroy in recognition of his service in the action, and orders that such payment be made in the manner, and subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) Approves the payment of attorney's fees and expense reimbursements to plaintiffs' counsel as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and orders that such payments be distributed in the manner, and subject to the terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (4) Approves the appointment of Simpluris as the settlement administrator and the disbursement of costs associated with the settlement administration; and (5) Dismisses the claims of the representative plaintiff, opt-in plaintiffs, and eligible settlement participants who elect to participate in the Settlement Agreement by signing and returning a consent and release form and enters final judgment dismissing them from the action. The settlement also provides that $20,000.00 of the maximum eligible settlement about will be paid to McElroy, in addition to his individual payment, for his service as the representative plaintiff and for executing a general release of claims. Additionally, the settlement provides for attorney's fees in the amount of $1,241,666.66, which is roughly one-third of the maximum settlement amount. Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides for an award of $45,500.00 for the cost of settlement administration through a third-party settlement administrator. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff McElroy) initiated this action against Fresh Mark alleging that Fresh Mark did not pay McElroy and other alleged similarly situated employees1 overtime for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Fresh Mark denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Fresh Mark offers bacon, ham, dry sausages, hot dogs, and other meat products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40mFnBZ at no extra charge.[CC] GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Hearing on Settlement OK Set for Feb. 26, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Goosehead Insurance Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware scheduled February 26, 2024 hearing to approve the proposed settlement of Dollens stockholder class suit. On November 10, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint for declaratory relief, captioned Mickey Dollens v. Goosehead Insurance, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-1018-JTL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Dollens Action"). On August 8, 2023, the parties to the Dollens Action entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve the Dollens Action. On October 13, 2023, the Court entered an amended scheduling order that provisionally certified, for settlement purposes only, a non-opt out class, authorized notice to be provided to class members, stayed the Dollens Action pending a hearing on the proposed settlement, issued an injunction against the commencement or prosecution of any action by any class member asserting any of the claims subject to the proposed settlement of the Dollens Action, and scheduled a hearing for February 16, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time to, among other things, consider whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE, INC. operates as an insurance agency. The Company offers home, auto, motorcycle, umbrella, flood, landlord, life, business, commercial auto, product liability, and recreational insurance services. Goosehead Insurance serves customers in the United States. [BN] GRINDR INC: Data Privacy Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------- Grindr Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that following a case management conference held on March 6, 2023, the parties in a data privacy dispute are coordinating on next steps in the litigation, including to schedule a possible mediation. In December 2020, Grindr was named in a statement of claim and petition for certification of a class action in Israel (Israeli Central District Court). The statement of claims generally alleges that Grindr violated users' privacy by sharing information with third parties without their explicit consent. The petitioner asserts several causes of action under Israeli law, including privacy breaches, unlawful enrichment, and negligence, as well as causes of action under California law, including privacy violations under the California Constitution and California common law, negligence, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The statement of claims seeks various forms of monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, in addition to certification as a class action. In June 2021, the petitioner attempted service of the statement of claims and the associated filings (all in translated form as required under applicable law) on Grindr. In November 2021, Grindr filed an initial response to the plaintiff's Statement of Claim challenging the effectiveness of service. The plaintiff then filed opposition to Grindr's service-related motion, raising a series of technical challenges. During the Israeli court hearing in January 2022, the Israeli court directed the plaintiff to start the service process from the beginning by seeking court permission to pursue international service on Grindr. On February 8, 2022, the Court formally permitted the plaintiff, in ex parte, to serve the company outside the jurisdiction. On March 30, 2022, Grindr received a package via U.S. Mail with the case documents. Grindr's local Israeli counsel prepared a motion seeking the court's preliminary ruling on the question of applicable law. On July 5, 2022, the company filed a motion to determine the governing law. On December 22, 2022, Grindr filed its response over the class certification, which opposes class certification and included both employee and expert opinions. Grindr Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and manages and operates the Grindr app, a global LGBTQ social network platform serving and addressing the needs of the LGBTQ queer community. The Grindr app is available through Apple’s App Store for iPhones and Google Play for Android. The Company offers both a free, ad-supported service and a premium subscription version. GWG HOLDINGS: Scura Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Beneficient Company Group, L.P. (BCG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice. On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued the company, certain members of its board of directors (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG Holdings (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO Technologies Inc. and Emerson Equity LLC. The Beneficient Company Group acquired shares in GWG Holdings, Inc. in April 2019. The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG Holdings' investors, and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG Holdings' "L" Bonds or preferred stock of GWG Holdings between December 23, 2017, and April 20, 2022. The suit alleges that BCG, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. The complaint does not allege the total amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs. On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Beneficient, a Nevada corporation, is a technology-enabled financial services holding company (including its subsidiaries, but excluding its Non-Controlling Interest Holders) that provides simple, rapid, cost-effective liquidity solutions and trust products and services to participants in the alternative assets industry through its end-to-end online platform, "Ben AltAccess." HERITAGE VALLEY: Robinson Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steve Robinson and Rosanne Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heritage Valley Health System, Inc., Case No. 11286-2023 was removed from the Court from the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01847-CB. This case is one of numerous copycat actions being filed against healthcare providers throughout the nation.1 As in this complaint and the others filed against Heritage Valley, Plaintiffs allege generally that the defendant healthcare providers engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded their privacy by installing third-party source code for website analytics on their public websites.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-8386 Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com - and - Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq. 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4074 Phone: (513) 929-3400 Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Ziobro Sues Over Unlawful Representations ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Ziobro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01268 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought to recover damages against the Defendant's false, unlawful and/or misleading representations and omissions of their Reese's Peanut Butter Cups sweepstakes. The Defendants manufactures and promotes Reese's Peanut Butter Cups by enticing consumers "who Could Win $25,000" in connection with its eponymous Reese's University. Though beneath the possible prize, the label states, "See Details Inside," entrants are compelled to buy the Reese's to learn more. According to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("FDACS"), charging a fee or price to enter a contest is prohibited, because "Real sweepstakes are free and by chance. It's illegal to ask you to pay or buy something to enter." To deter unlawful, harmful and deceptive gambling practices and habits, the law requires a contest to prominently provide an alternate means of entry ("AMOE") without requiring payment. Often referred to as "No Purchase Necessary" or NPN, this option, i.e., to send a postcard with your name and address, distinguishes a legitimate sweepstakes from an unlawful lottery and gambling. Though the "Details Inside" disclose "NO PURCHASE IS NECESSARY," learning this requires payment to Hershey via third party retailers selling Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. The operation of this apparently unlawful Reese's University Sweepstakes was first noticed by "MrConsumer," born Edgar Dworsky, on his consumer-oriented websites of ConsumerWorld.Org and MousePrint.Org In requiring purchase of the Product and rendering it difficult to impossible for non-purchasers to gain entry to the sweepstakes, purchasers are misled to buying Reese's Peanut Butter Cups they otherwise would not have or paid more money for those they did buy. Even if NPN instructions were inconspicuously buried in fine print on the bottom or back of packages or boxes of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, they would not be equally prominent to other methods of entry. By placing non-purchasers at a disadvantage relative to purchasers, Reese's University sweepstakes has all the hallmarks of an unlawful gaming contest. As a result of the false, unlawful and/or misleading representations and omissions with respect to winning the identified contest, the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are sold at a premium price, approximately not less than $2.29 per 1.5 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading, false and/or unlawful way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Great Value "Raw Honey" from Walmart on June 13, 2022. The Hershey Company manufactures and promotes Reese's Peanut Butter Cups by enticing consumers "who Could Win $25,000" in connection with its eponymous Reese's University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Matthew G. Norgard, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (312) 606-0500 Email: clint@krislovlaw.com mnorgard@krislovlaw.com - and - Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq. KENT HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES 1056 Gage St., # 200 Winnetka, IL 60093 Phone: (847) 446-2430 Email: Heitzinger.law@gmail.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412 Great Neck, New York 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7084 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com HILCORP ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Colton Suit to 10th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- HILCORP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LP is taking an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gregg B. Colton, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hilcorp Energy Development LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00149-ABJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property. On Nov. 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, which the Plaintiffs moved to oppose on Nov. 28, 2022. On Aug. 2, 2023, a motion was filed to certify class. On Oct. 11, 2023, the Court granted the motion to certify class and denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The Order was entered by Judge Alan B. Johnson. The appellate case is captioned Hilcorp Energy Development LP v. Colton, et al., Case No. 23-709, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 20, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Cindy H. Colton, Gregg B. Colton, and Hilcorp Energy Development LP's notice of appearance is due on November 3, 2023; -- Hilcorp Energy Development LP's disclosure statement was due November 3, 2023; and -- Gregg B. Colton and Cindy H. Colton's miscellaneous response was due on October 30, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents GREGG B. COLTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: George Barton, Esq. Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 (913) 563-6253 - and - Travis W. Koch, Esq. Kelly Shaw, Esq. KOCH LAW P.O. Box 2660 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Defendant-Petitioner HILCORP ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LP is represented by: James Stephen Barrick, Esq. Gregg Charles Laswell, Esq. HICKS THOMAS 700 Louisiana, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 547-9120 - and - Amanda M. Good, Esq. Lindsay A. Woznick, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK 511 West 19th Street, Suite 100 P.O. Box 394 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (307) 426-4100 HOME DEPOT: Wins Summary Judgment v. Collins --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all members of the public similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00847-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: 1. Granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and 2. Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff asks the Court to use the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to add a substantive duty on the part of Home Depot to no longer require a receipt for returns for its Pro Xtra customers, which, as a matter of law, the Court cannot do. Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because when he complained to Home Depot in August 2021 about his experience with returning items, "Defendant 'blacklisted' [him] from returning any items to Defendant for a period of six months, with or without a receipt. The Plaintiff Collins filed this putative class action against Home Depot, alleging claims for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) consumer fraud and deceit, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress, concerning Defendant's return policy for items purchased at its stores. Home Depot operates home improvement retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tT33BD at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA MOTOR: Spencer Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 31, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L Nunley entered an order granting the parties' stipulation. -- The Plaintiff shall have until Jan. 31, 2024, to file his motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Honda is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and power equipment.[CC] I LOST MY DOG: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I Lost My Dog, LLC. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. I Lost My Dog, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08038 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Lost Dog -- https://www.ilostmydog.com/ -- provides original artwork including hand-drawn type maps, illustrations & vintage-inspired posters in Rockville Centre, New York.[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 INSURANCE COMPANY: W.E.B Production Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as W.E.B Production & Fabricating, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, Case No. 2023CH08137 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15379 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of Contract. ICW Group -- https://www.icwgroup.com/ -- is a leading national insurance carrier offering workers' compensation and earthquake insurance, as well as automobile coverage for individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Michael Milton Liskow, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (561) 232-6002 Email: mliskow@4-justice.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Catherine Eggmann, Esq. Mark L. Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 876-2818 Email: emily.eggmann@dentons.com mark.hanover@dentons.com INTEGON GENERAL: Greenwald Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Kenneth Greenwald, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Integon General Insurance Corporation, Case No. 230902133 was removed from the Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04119 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Intego -- https://nationalgeneral.com/ -- is an innovative insurance agency focused on providing micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) with the best insurance products from the most trusted and reliable insurance providers in the industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: A. Christopher Young, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4190 Email: christopher.young@troutman.com JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Gregory Suit Transferred to D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Gregory, Ayomiposi Asaolu, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Health System, Case No. 1:23-cv-01854 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12493-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Johns Hopkins University -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com The Defendants are represented by: James D. Houghton, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2001 M St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-4103 Phone: (202) 349-8000 Fax: (202) 349-8080 Email: jhoughton@orrick.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Phone: (206) 883-2542 Fax: (206) 883-2699 Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com - and - Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Hunter Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pamela Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Health System, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01854 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12493-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Johns Hopkins University -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com - and - Courtney Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, MD 20006 Phone: (202) 827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James D. Houghton, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2001 M St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-4103 Phone: (202) 349-8000 Fax: (202) 349-8080 Email: jhoughton@orrick.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Phone: (206) 883-2542 Fax: (206) 883-2699 Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com - and - Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Means Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Daryl Means, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA), Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline LLC; Reckitt Benckiser LLC; Bayer Healthcare LLC; The Procter & Gamble Company; Walgreen Co.; Target Corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; DOES 1-20, Case No. 2023LA001311 was removed from the Circuit Court for Madison County, State of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03494. The Complaint alleges five causes of action, collectively, against Defendants: Violation of the Consumer Fraud Deceptive Business Practices Act; Negligent Misrepresentation; Breach of Express Warranty; Strict Liability Design and Manufacturing Defect; and Fraudulent Misrepresentation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Roberts, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606-0089 Phone: (312) 368-2167 Fax: (312) 251-2859 Email: Eric Roberts@us.dlapiper.com KANSAS CITY LIFE: Files 8th Circuit Appeal in Meek Suit ------------------------------------------------------- KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Meek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kansas City Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00472-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendant for breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts that it charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excesse of amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance policies. On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was GRANTED IN PART. The class was certified as to only Counts IIV, which seek monetary damages; it was not certified as to Count V, which seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Christopher Meek was appointed as class representative, and Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP was appointed as class counsel. The parties were directed to meet and confer to determine whether either party wishes to attempt to immediately appeal the order. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs damages expert, was DENIED. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, were GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on Counts I, II and III, but only as to liability, Defendant was granted summary judgment on Count IV, and neither party's arguments regarding the statute of limitations was adopted. The issues of damages and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations remain to be resolved at trial. On July 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, motion for additur and a motion to alter or amend judgment. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for decertification of the class and to alter or amend the judgment and a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Count I. On Sept. 27, 2023, Judge Beth Phillips granted the Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment and denied his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, motion for additur. Further, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for decertification of the class and to alter or amend the judgment and its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Count I. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Meek v. Kansas City Life Ins. Company, Case No. 23-3334, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 19, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before November 28, 2023; -- Appendix is due on December 8, 2023; -- Appellant Kansas City Life Insurance Company is due on December 8, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. John J. Schirger, Esq. MILLER & SCHIRGER Suite 1570 4520 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 - and - David A. Hickey, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Bradley Wilders, Esq. STUEVE & SIEGEL Suite 200 460 Nichols Road Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Defendant-Appellant KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: James Randolph Evans, Esq. SQUIRE & PATTON One Atlantic Center, Suite 3150 1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 - and - Adam Fox, Esq. Hannah J. Makinde, Esq. SQUIRE & PATTON 31st Floor 555 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Traci Lynn Martinez, Esq. SQUIRE & PATTON 2000 Huntington Center 41 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-2807 - and - Lauren Tallent Rogers, Esq. John W. Shaw, Esq. BERKOWITZ & OLIVER Suite 1200 2600 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 KENNETH JAY LANE: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenneth Jay Lane, Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kenneth Jay Lane, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09459 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kenneth Jay Lane -- https://kennethjaylane.com/ -- has been designing innovative and imaginative fashion jewelry with one vision in mind- the everyday woman.[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 KOHLS INC: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohls, Inc., doing business as: Kohls.com, Case No. 37- 22-00051963-CU-CR-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01988-AJB-KSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Kohl's -- https://www.kohls.com/ -- is an American department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 547-4916 Fax: (213) 547-4901 Email: bwahlquist@kelleydrye.com LEGACY SAFETY: Woodard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Glendale Woodard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legacy Safety & Consulting, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00942 (D.N.M., Oct. 25, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working for Defendant, and while paying on a day rate basis. Although Defendant at all times misclassified Plaintiff and similarly situated Safety Technicians as independent contractors paid pursuant to IRS Tax Form 1099, as a matter of economic reality under the FLSA, they were Defendant's employees and entitled to overtime premium pay in the amount of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over forty per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a Safety Technician employed by Defendant in connection with its safety-related services enterprise. Legacy is a safety services company that, among other business activities, provides safety-related services and training in industrial settings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com MAHIR FLORAL: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mahir Floral and Events Design, Inc. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mahir Floral and Events Design, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08039 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mahir Floral and Events Design, Inc. -- https://mahirfloralevents.com/ -- is a florist in New York, sleek, contemporary providing inventive, modern floral arrangements, plus unique plants & gifts.[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 MAXIMUS INC: Valiente Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-23281 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12487-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Maximus Inc. -- https://maximus.com/ -- is an American government services company, with global operations in countries including the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Charles Wright, Esq. The Wright Law Office, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com MERCK & CO: Files 3rd Circuit Appeal in Mumps Vaccine Case ---------------------------------------------------------- MERCK & CO INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in In Re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-03555, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a consolidated putative antitrust and consumer protection class action. On June 25, 2012, Chatom Primary Care P.C., Andrew Klein, M.D., and John I. Sutter, M.D., filed the complaint against Defendant Merck alleging monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, and various state consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of a mumps containing vaccine from Merck. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2012. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Nov. 19, 2012. After a ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, discovery commenced in October 2014. The parties engaged in extensive discovery over a protracted period of time. The Defendant began rolling productions on Oct. 31, 2014. The discovery included, inter alia, Merck's production of nearly 144,000 documents, depositions of 24 current and former Merck employees, and third party discovery. After multiple joint requests for extension of the scheduling deadlines, fact discovery closed on June 1, 2017. On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to add a claim for attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Defendant opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that the Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking leave to add a new cause of action after the close of fact discovery, thereby prejudicing Merck's ability to defend against the new claim. On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court agreed with the Defendant, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's decision focused on the Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking leave to amend, which would prejudice Merck if a new claim was added after fact discovery closed. The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Oct. 30, 2017, Order. On March 13, 2018, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II issued an Order remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for an in-depth analysis of the extent to which the Defendant would be prejudiced by amendment, and the extent to which undue delay was the basis for the Court's ultimate decision not to grant the Plaintiffs' motion. On Jul 27 2023, the Honorable Chad F. Kenney ruled that Merck's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; judgment was entered in favor of defendant Merck on Count II and count II is dismissed in full and with prejudice; Merck's motion to exclude evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann and Daubert is denied; the accompanying memorandum shall remain under seal for seven days; any party or non-party seeking to preclude public access to the accompanying memorandum must show particularized good cause in a memorandum not exceeding five pages no later than 12:00 pm on August 3, 2023. On Aug 3 2023, the Court filed a redacted memorandum of the July 27 Order. The appellate case is captioned In Re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, et al., Case No. 23-8046, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 20, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents CHATOM PRIMARY CARE PC, et al., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER 24 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 201 Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 - and - Eamon O'Kelly, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 484-3900 - and - Hollis L. Salzman, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Defendant-Petitioner MERCK & CO INC. is represented by: Sally W. Bryan, Esq. Kathleen S. Hardway, Esq. Dino S. Sangiamo, Esq. VENABLE 750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7704 (410) 528-2842 (410) 244-7400 - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. R. Brendan Fee, Esq. Zachary M. Johns, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5699 (215) 963-5000 (215) 963-5340 - and - Jessica L. Ellsworth, Esq. Neal K. Katyal, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US 555 Thirteenth Street NW Columbia Square Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5886 (202) 637-5528 META PLATFORMS: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Rose, Jeremy Lebman, Patricia Hervey, Don Defrancia, Stephanie Ray, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-08180 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 26, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05500-SI to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-4675 Phone: (212) 446-4786 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Email: tfriedman@kirkland.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth K. McCloskey, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER 555 Mission Street Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 393-4622 Fax: (415) 801-7389 Email: EMcCloskey@gibsondunn.com - and - Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. Kyle Wong, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 693-2000 Email: clebel@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com MFS SUPPLY LLC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MFS Supply LLC. The case is styled as Terrence Shanahan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MFS Supply LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00475-MDN (D. Neb., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MFS Supply -- https://www.mfssupply.com/ -- provides nationwide distribution of lockboxes, REO supplies, and cabinetry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW FIRM 3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Phone: (650) 781-8000 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Hale Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Milliman Solutions LLC, Milliman Inc doing business as: Milliman Intelliscript Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-01206 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12492-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Milliman Solutions LLC -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker services for a range of insurance types.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG GROSSMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Andrew Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM LLC 5301 Canal Blvd., Ste. A New Orleans, LA 70124 Phone: (985) 783-6789 Email: alemmon@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig J. Mariam, Esq. Michael J. Dailey, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5000 Fax: (877) 306-0043 Email: cmariam@grsm.com mdailey@grsm.com - and - Lara Garner, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (SEATTLE) 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (619) 230-7733 Email: lsgarner@grsm.com MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Soto Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Milliman Solutions LLC, Milliman Inc doing business as: Milliman Intelliscript Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-01236 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12490-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Milliman Solutions LLC -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker services for a range of insurance types.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandi S. Spates, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP (MO-NA) 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: spates@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Mark Desanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC (PA) 1818 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3046 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdesanto@bm.net The Defendants are represented by: Craig J Mariam, Esq. Michael J. Dailey, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5000 Fax: (877) 306-0043 Email: cmariam@grsm.com mdailey@grsm.com - and - Lara Garner, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (SEATTLE) 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (619) 230-7733 Email: lsgarner@grsm.com MORPHE LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morphe LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marc Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Morphe LLC, Forma Beauty Brands LLC, Forma Brands LLC, Case No. 23STCV26421 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Morphe Cosmetics -- https://eu.morphe.com/ -- also known as Morphe Brushes, legally known as Morphe Holdings, is a Los Angeles cosmetics and beauty manufacturer founded in 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS: Leandre Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Pierre Leandre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Credit Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04922-VMC-RGV (N.D. Ga., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Credit Systems -- https://www.nationalcreditsystems.com/ -- is a collection agency that provides debt recovery services for apartment owners, managers and companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Robert William Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ. 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 328-3100 Fax: (434) 328-3101 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com NEW YORK: B. B. Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------- B. B., a minor, by his Next Friend Joy Rosenthal, et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled B. B., a minor, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kathy Hochul, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06229, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. B.B. is appealing the judgment entered by the Court on September 14, 2023, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); and dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The appellate case is captioned B. B. v. Hochul, Case No. 23-7401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 18, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants B. B., a minor, by his Next Friend Joy Rosenthal, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Hayden Adam Coleman, Esq. DECHERT LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 - and - Lisa Freeman, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY EMPLOYMENT LAW Unit 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 Defendants-Appellees KATHY HOCHUL, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, et al., are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 NOVOCURE LTD: Continues to Defend LUNAR Data Omission Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- NovoCure Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the LUNAR clinical trial data omission class suit. In June 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Executive Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares of the Company from January 5, 2023 through June 5, 2023, allege material misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's public statements with respect to the results from its phase 3 LUNAR clinical trial. The Company believes that the action is without merit and plans to defend the lawsuit vigorously. NovoCure Limited is a commercial stage oncology company developing a profoundly different cancer treatment centered on a proprietary therapy called Tumor Treating Fields, the use of electric fields tuned to specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell division.[BN] OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oklahoma Christian University, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Oklahoma Christian University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09411 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oklahoma Christian University -- https://www.oc.edu/ -- is a private Christian university in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Carbonite Class Suit in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Open Text Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that Company continues to defend itself from the Carbonite class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 1, 2019, prior to the Company's acquisition of Carbonite Inc. (Carbonite), a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS) (the Luna Complaint). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite’s Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna Complaint, the Securities Actions). On November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the Securities Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel. On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10, 2020. On October 22, 2020, the district court granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Actions. On November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On December 21, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the Securities Actions to the district court for further proceedings. The parties have completed discovery. On July 14, 2023, the district court certified the lead plaintiff's proposed class. The defendants have filed a motion for class decertification and a motion for summary judgment, both of which are pending. The defendants remain confident in their position, believe the Securities Actions are without merit, and will continue to vigorously defend the matter. Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and sharing business information from various devices. The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada. OTIS WORLDWIDE: 2nd Cir. Concludes Darnis Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- OTIS Worldwide Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the Darnis class suit after it enters judgment in favor of the defendants, upholding the decision of the trial court. On August 12, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit, (Geraud Darnis et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation et al.), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Court") against Otis, RTX, Carrier Global Corporation ("Carrier"), each of their directors, and various incentive and deferred compensation plans in connection with the separation of Otis and Carrier from UTC (the "Separation") in April 2020. On September 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the three company defendants only. The named plaintiffs are former employees of UTC and its current and former subsidiaries, including Otis and Carrier. They seek to recover monetary damages, as well as related declaratory and equitable relief, based on claimed decreases in the value of long-term incentive awards and deferred compensation under nonqualified deferred compensation plans allegedly caused by the formula used to calculate the adjustments to such awards and deferred compensation from RTX, Carrier, and Otis following the spin-offs of Carrier and Otis and the subsequent combination of UTC and Raytheon Company. On September 30, 2022, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, the Court dismissed the class action in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on October 26, 2022. On August 24, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals entered judgment in defendants' favor, upholding the trial court’s decision. This action is concluded. Otis Worldwide Corp is an elevator and escalator manufacturing, installation and service company based in Connecticut. OVATIONS FOOD: Cooks Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Paris Cooks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OVATIONS FOOD SERVICES LP d/b/a SPECTRA FOOD SERVICES & HOSPITALITY, Case No. GD-23-010599 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01858-DSC. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler S. Setcavage, Esq. Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Email: tyler@quinnlogue.com matt@quinnlogue.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Avenue, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Marla N. Presley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Liberty Center 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-232-0404 Email: marla.presley@jacksonlewis.com - and - Stephanie J. Peet, Esq. Daniel F. Thornton, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 267-319-7802 Email: stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com daniel.thornton@jacksonlewis.com PATHWARD N.A.: Kent Files Suit in D. South Dakota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathward, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Jacob Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pathward, N.A., Ipswitch, Inc., Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-04177-KES (D.S.D., Oct. 26, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Contract. Pathward -- https://www.pathward.com/ -- is a federally registered financial institution that provides solid banking infrastructure, proven technology resource partners and high-energy collaboration to help third-party partners deliver banking programs that meet their customers’ demands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Hruska, III, Esq. BACHAND & HRUSKA, P.C. PO Box 1174 206 W. Missouri Ave. Pierre, SD 57501 Phone: (605) 224-0461 Email: ehruska@pirlaw.com PENSION BENEFIT: Collins Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melainee Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, The Berwyn Group, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02045 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12488-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Pension Benefit Information -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- provides pension management service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon P. Jack, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4784 Email: bjack@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Bryan L Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA 17 Washington Ave N Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55401-2048 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2921 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jason Matthew Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N PCH Blvd., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 335-2001 Email: jason@wukolaw.com - and - Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: lori@justice4you.com - and - Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 767-3613 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com The Defendant is represented by: Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Paulyne Gardner, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: cmccarron@mullen.law pgardner@mullen.law - and - Emily Liebman, Esq. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PENSION BENEFIT: Ellis Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Renaldo Ellis and Michael Standefer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Berwyn Group, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02139 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12506-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Pension Benefits Information (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is a third-party vendor utilized by thousands of entities to verify information to prevent overpayments to retirees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com The Defendants are represented by: Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Paulyne Gardner, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: cmccarron@mullen.law pgardner@mullen.law - and - Emily Liebman, Esq. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PEPSI COLA BOTTLING: Poletti Appeals Arbitration Order in FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs TERENCE J. POLETTI, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled TERENCE POLETTI et al., Plaintiffs v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07603-VSB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 10, 2021. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2021, a first amended complaint on November 1, 2021, and a second amended complaint on November 16, 20213. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On November 30, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, along with a memorandum of law in support. On February 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On February 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint along with a memorandum of law in support of their motion and in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and a copy of the proposed third amended complaint and a mark-up. On February 25, 2022, the Defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to amend. The Defendants filed the First Motion to Compel and the Second Motion to Compel Arbitration on September 16, 2022. On November 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs opposed both motions. On December 12, 2022, the Defendants filed replies in support of the motions to compel. On March 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint through an Order signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick. On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. On September 6, 2023, Judge Broderic entered an Order granting Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and referring Plaintiffs' claims to arbitration. The case is therefore STAYED pending the completion of arbitration. The parties were directed to submit a joint status letter 120 days from the date of the Opinion & Order. The appellate case is captioned as Poletti v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company Of New York, Inc., Case No. 23-7337, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TERENCE POLETTI, et al., are represented by: Clifford Ryan Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: ctucker@saccofillas.com Defendants-Appellees Pepsi Cola Bottling Company Of New York, Inc., et al., are represented by: Patrick G. Brady, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 642-1900 E-mail: pbrady@ebglaw.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: 2nd Trial of Antitrust Suit Set for March 4, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pilgrim's Pride Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois set the second trial for Broiler Chicken Antitrust class suit on March 4, 2024. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of federal class action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Illinois Court") against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws and styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 ("Broiler Antitrust Litigation"). The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: the direct purchasers ("Broiler DPPs"), the commercial and institutional indirect purchasers ("Broiler CIIPPs"), and the end-user consumer indirect purchasers ("Broiler EUCPs"). Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities ("Broiler DAPs") naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, though some added allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. On May 27, 2022, the Illinois Court certified each of the three classes. On June 30, 2023, the Illinois Court issued its summary judgment order that dismissed certain claims against PPC but denied dismissal as to the supply reduction claims from 2008-2012. PPC has entered into agreements to settle all claims made by the Broiler DPPs, Broiler CIIPPs, and Broiler EUCPs, for an aggregate total of $195.5 million, each of which has received final approval from the Illinois Court. PPC continues to defend itself against the Broiler DAPs as well as parties that have opted out of the class settlements (collectively, the "Broiler Opt Outs"). PPC will seek reasonable settlements where they are available. To date, PPC has recognized an expense of $537.4 million to cover settlements with various Broiler Opt Outs. For the nine months ending September 24, 2023, $23.0 million has been recognized by PPC in Selling, general and administrative expense ("SG&A expense") in the Consolidated Statements of Income. The Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction of output, and the first trial began on September 12, 2023. PPC has settled with all plaintiffs in the first trial. A second trial is set for March 4, 2024 with the Broiler CIIPPs, who PPC has settled with. Trials with the Broiler EUCPs and other Broiler DAPs are not yet scheduled. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a chicken producer based in Colorado. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan Suit Fully Briefed -------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the renewed Hogan class suit complaint dismissal motion is being briefed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 20, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of certain PPC stockholders, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ("Colorado Court") against PPC and its named executive officers styled as Hogan v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-02611 ("Hogan Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler chicken market as alleged in the Broilers Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, and (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Colorado Court granted on procedural grounds on April 19, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for amended judgment, which the Colorado Court denied on November 29, 2021. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2021, and the appeal was opened in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On July 13, 2023, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Colorado Court decision and remanded to consider the complaint on the merits. PPC has filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint in the Colorado Court that is currently being briefed. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a chicken producer based in Colorado. PURFOODS LLC: Avant Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Billy Avant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PurFoods LLC doing business as: Mom's Meals, Case No. 4:23-cv-04830 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00427-RGE-SBJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PurFoods LLC doing business as Mom's Meals -- https://www.momsmeals.com/ -- provides fully-prepared, refrigerated meals directly to homes nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: William English Whitney, III, Esq. GALLIVAN WHITE BOYD (COLA) PO Box 7368 1201 Main Street, Suite 1200 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 724-1755 Email: wwhitney@gwblawfirm.com - and - Ronald K Wray, II, Esq. GALLIVAN WHITE BOYD (GRE) 55 Beattie Place, Suite 1200 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 271-9580 Fax: (864) 271-7502 Email: rwray@gwblawfirm.com R&M CAPITAL GROUP: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R&M Capital Group, Inc. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. R&M Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08048 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. R&M Capital Group, Inc. -- https://rmcapitalgroupinc.com/ -- offers factoring for trucking companies with same--day funding, no long-term contracts, or hidden fees.[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 RALPHS GROCERY: Grimes Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lyvette Grimes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Case No. 23STCV19687 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09086. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a putative class of California consumers for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a claim for breach of express warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Peter K. Bae, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com peterbae@dwt.com REFLEX PERFORMANCE: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reflex Performance Resources, Inc. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reflex Performance Resources, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08042 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reflex Performance Resources Inc. is a global sourcing company that specializes in the manufacturing and sale of Activewear Apparel.[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 RIDGECREST SHS PAYROLL: Pepper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ridgecrest SHS Payroll, LLC. The case is styled as Angelica Pepper, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ridgecrest SHS Payroll, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-103603 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 26, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Ridgecrest SHS Payroll, LLC -- https://shspayroll.com/ -- is a California Limited-Liability Company include payroll software, payroll taxes, time & attendance, pre-tax benefits, compliance and workers comp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com SCHELL & KAMPETER: Monteleone Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schell & Kampeter, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Monteleone, Individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0011330 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Schell & Kampeter, Inc., doing business as Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. -- https://www.diamondpet.com/ -- manufactures and markets animal food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW, APC 1875 Century Park E. Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-556-4811 Fax: 310-943-0396 Email: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com SHOES ON FIRST: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoes on First, Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shoes on First, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09462 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shoes on First, Inc. is in the apparel, piece goods, and notions merchant wholesalers, merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods, wholesale trade, and shoes industry.[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 SIT MEANS SIT: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sit Means Sit, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sit Means Sit, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09422 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sit Means Sit Dog Training -- https://sitmeanssit.com/ -- is largest and most successful dog training company in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com SOLV ENERGY: Turner Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Turner, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v. SOLV ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00041149 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01966-LAB-DDL. The Complaint contains one cause of action to Violation of Labor Code ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties for Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; and Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. James Payer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com jpayer@littler.com - and - Rachael Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: rlavi@littler.com SPB HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victorino Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. SPB HOSPITALITY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRAFT BREWERY GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, GORDON BIERSCH GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive; Case No. 23STCV23068 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09112. The Complaint purports to state causes of action against Defendants for violation of the Federal WARN Act, violation of the California Worker's Adjustment and Retraining Notification, PAGA Penalties ("PAGA"), and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory S. Glazer, Esq. Alia L. Chaib, Esq. HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP 233 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 255-0705 Facsimile: (310) 255-0986 Email: gglazer@hkemploymentlaw.com achaib@hkemploymentlaw.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Petris Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Petris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01867-WSS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Sportsman's Warehouse -- http://www.sportsmans.com/-- is an American outdoor sporting goods retailer which operates in 29 states across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: sas@chimicles.com SPOTON TRANSACT: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spoton Transact, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Latisha Taylor, an individual, on behalf of, herself and all others similarly situated v. Spoton Transact, LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. CGC23610033 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class Action Complaint)." SpotOn -- https://www.spoton.com/ -- provides mobile payment technology and a management system for restaurants and small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com STELLANTIS NV: Singh Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anshuman Singh, Theresa Clark, Jeremy Erskine, Michael Lindgren, Jeffrey Monheit, Mackenzie Pirie, Amy Schachow, Joshua Taylor, Mike Chavez, Joshua Miller, Jillian Kavanagh, Matthew Raque, Jennifer Berner, Fr. William Nevitt, Gabriel Morrison, Mike Bennett, George Souders, Renee Miller, Chad Altschafl, Michael McGowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stellantis N.V., FCA U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00452 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01227-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Stellantis N.V. -- https://www.stellantis.com/en -- is a multinational automotive manufacturing corporation formed from the merger of the Italian–American conglomerate Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and the French PSA Group.[BN] STERLING JEWELERS: Brazil Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Brazil, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC., doing business as Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, a business; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. SCV0050989 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Placer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-01094. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Sterling for: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages at the Correct Legal Rate; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the Correct Legal Rate; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Unfair Business Practices; Whistleblower Retaliation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 526-7903 Facsimile: (949) 526-7903 Email: tnmccormick@vorys.com TMX FINANCE CORPORATE: Nicholas Suit Removed to D. Nevada --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melvin Nicholas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. A-23-878564-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01749-CDS-NJK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. -- https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM, LLC. 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Phone: (702) 880-5554 Email: Ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com gavalos@freedomlegalteam.com - and - Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW 8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Phone: (702) 337-2322 Fax: (702) 329-5881 Email: mk@kindlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Malani Dale Kotchka-Alanes, Esq. LEWIS ROCA 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: (702) 949-8258 Email: mkotchkaalanes@lewisroca.com UNITED SERVICES: Marchek Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff JEREMY MARCHEK filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jeremy Marchek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Services Automobile Association, a Texas Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00087, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Jeremy Marchek sued his insurer, Defendant United Services Automobile Association, alleging that it systematically underpays its policyholders following a "total loss" to a vehicle. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the proper interpretation of the policy requires Defendant to include, as part of the payment following a total loss, sales tax and transfer fees, costs that a policyholder incurs when purchasing a replacement vehicle. On May 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a MOTION to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim which the Court granted on February 1, 2022 through an Order entered by District Judge Paul L. Maloney. The Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration on March 1, 2022. On September 19, 2023, Judge Maloney entered an Order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend the complaint. He also denied as moot Plaintiff's June 9, 2023 motion for status conference. The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Marchek v. USAA, Case No. 23-1908, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Oct. 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEREMY MARCHEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBURG LAW 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Defendant-Appellee UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas Corporation, is represented by: Elise Hyejin Yu, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF 350 S. Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1556 UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Graves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Protection Service LP. The case is styled as Debra Graves, individually and on behalf of others persons similarly situated and aggrieved v. Universal Protection Service LP, d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2023-0011294 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 26, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Wrongful Termination." Universal Protection Service was a private security company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Ave. Ste. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497 Phone: 310-531-1900 Fax: 310-531-1901 Email: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com USA MINISO: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Miniso Depot, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USA Miniso Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09478 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MINISO -- https://minisousaonline.com/ -- offers high quality household goods, cosmetics, food, and toys at affordable prices.[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 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Harrison Files Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool Corporation. The case is styled as Randall Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01231-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 274-2180 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Morrison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Men's Christian Association Of San Francisco. The case is styled as Yi Morrison, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young Men's Christian Association Of San Francisco, Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610007 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 26, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." The Young Men's Christian Association Of San Francisco (YMCA) -- http://www.ymcatrivalley.org/-- is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,980 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of September 30, 2023, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,980 individual claimants, compared to approximately 4,028 individual claimants with actions pending December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 3M Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million. In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company appealed. In 2019, the Company settled a substantial majority of the then-pending coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case mentioned above, and the appeal was dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff appealed the verdict. In May 2022, the First Division intermediate appellate court in Washington affirmed in part and reversed in part 3M's trial victory, concluding that the trial court misapplied Washington law in instructing the jury about factual causation. The Washington Supreme Court declined to review the matter. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust; that increase represents a substantial majority of the growth in case numbers referred to above. The rate of coal mine dust-related case filings decelerated in 2022 and has stayed significantly lower than in 2021. 3M moved two cases involving over 400 plaintiffs to federal court based on, among others, the Class Action Fairness Act. The federal district court remanded the cases to state court. In March 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted 3M's petition to review the remand order, and in April 2023 reversed the district court's remand order; accordingly, those cases will remain in federal court. "As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. In October 2019, the court granted the State's motion to sever its unfair trade practices claim, which seeks civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under the state's Consumer Credit Protection Act relating to statements that the State contends were misleading about 3M's respirators. In the first quarter of 2023, a bench trial for the unfair trade practices claims was continued indefinitely. An expert witness retained by the State has recently estimated that 3M sold over five million respirators into the state during the relevant time period, and the State alleges that each respirator sold constitutes a separate violation under the Act. 3M disputes the expert's estimates and the State's position regarding what constitutes a separate violation of the Act. 3M has asserted various additional defenses, including that the Company's marketing did not violate the Act at any time, and that the State's claims are barred under the applicable statute of limitations. No liability has been recorded for any portion of this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia as to key issues, and the assertions of claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a factfinder may allocate to each defendant if the case were ultimately tried." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://shorturl.at/mqrx5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $48MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves totaled $48 million and $51 million as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. PPG Industries states, "As of September 30, 2023, the Company was aware of certain asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. The Company is defending these asbestos-related claims vigorously. The asbestos-related claims consist of claims against the Company alleging: exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by the Company or its subsidiaries ("Products Claims"); personal injury caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by the Company ("Premises Claims"); and asbestos-related claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired in 2013 ("Subsidiary Claims"). "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed, dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://shorturl.at/DIJQR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Receives A&E Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Travelers Companies, Inc., in the ordinary course of its insurance business, has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos- and environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is defending asbestos- and environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and comprehensive resolution strategies to manage asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on future loss development for claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development could be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as future changes, if any, in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's current insurance reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or changes in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods. The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in bankruptcy, over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder with open claims at least annually. Among the factors the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. In the third quarter of 2023, the Company completed its annual in-depth asbestos claim review, including a review of policyholders with open claims and litigation cases for potential product and "non-product" liability. The number of policyholders with open asbestos claims and net asbestos payments was relatively flat compared to 2022. Payments on behalf of these policyholders continue to be influenced by an increase in severity for certain policyholders and a high level of litigation activity in a limited number of jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious asbestos-related injury, primarily mesothelioma, continue to target defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://shorturl.at/chst3 ********* 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 ***