/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231116.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 230 Headlines ADVOCATE AURORA: Data Breach Claimants May Claim until Mid-Jan 2024 AEGEAN MARINE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit AEGEAN MARINE: Gianniotis Dismissed From Securities Litigation AEGEAN MARINE: Lead Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees AEGEAN MARINE: Melissanidis Dismissed From Securities Litigation ALASKA AIRLINES: Faces Passengers' Class Suit Over Diverted Flight ALDI INC: Cordaro Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Cocktails AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Raynaldo Suit AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Alleges APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit APA CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ortmann Class Suit BAR LUNATICO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit BEST BAGEL & COFFEE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BEST BUY LIQUORS: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BETTER THAN PANTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE: Greeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOOT BARN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Labor-Related Suit CAMPING WORLD: Hearing on Cybersecurity-Related Suit Set for Dec. 5 CAVA GROUP: Faces Hamman PFAS-Related Suit in California CEP AMERICA: Faces $20 Million 401(k) Excessive Fees Class Suit CHRISTIAN DIOR: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Slaten Complaint CLARK COUNTY, NV: Faces Parents' Class Suit Over Cyberattack COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in NY CORDOBA MINERAL: Faces Suit Over Alacran Mining Operations DCG NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Contract Price, All State Says DEL MONTE FOODS: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Bryan Complaint DERMTECH INC: Continues to Defend Bagheri Class Suit in California DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Agarwal Securities Suit DMS HEALTH: Boyd Files Suit in D. North Dakota DOCUSIGN INC: Must Oppose Weston Class Cert Bid by Jan. 19, 2024 DXC TECHNOLOGY: CSC Class Suit Trial Set for September 2025 ELI LILLY & CO: Painters Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing ENGAGESMART INC: Continues to Defend Franchi Class Suit ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing FCA US: Wins Summary Judgment vs Zuehlsdorf FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit FRESENIUS MEDICAL: E.D. Washington Dismisses Laughlin Labor Suit FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Shumacher Class Suit Due Dec. 15 FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Berkelhammer Class Suit GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in McMillian Consumer Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal GEORGIA POWER CO: Continues to Defend Turnage Class Suit GEORGIA POWER: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit GIGCAPITALACQUISITIONS LLC: Delman Sues Over Lightning Merger GLEN MILLS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal GOODRX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement in Hodges Gets Initial Nod GRAND CANYON: Continues to Defend HRS Class Suit in Delaware HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Flora Class Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Lynn Suit HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Fasteners HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Suit Over Oral Nasal Decongestants HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit INTRUSION INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Action IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit JEFF SANDY: Rose Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Record JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024 JSW STEEL: Seeks to Modify FLSA Collective in Polen Lawsuit KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit LASERSHIP INC: West Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Tossed LEGACY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 15, 2024 LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit LYFT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $38M Over Wage Theft MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Video Hearing on Notice Set for Dec. 5 MCKESSON CORP: Appellate Court Ok'd TCPA Class Decertification Suit MCLAREN HEALTH: E.D. Michigan Prohibits Filings in Norwood Suit MDL 2818: Class Cert Bid in Air Conditioning Suit in Abeyance MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Robinson Suit Gets Initial Nod MESOBLAST LIMITED: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit MITEK SYSTEMS: BIPA Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cochran Sues Over Debt Collection Practices NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued by 45 Days NEVADA: Williams Must File Signed 1st Amended Complaint by Dec. 26 NEW BRUNSWICK, CA: Court OKs $17M Deal in Sexual Assault Suit NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit Over New-Born Screening Program NORTHERN GENESIS: Schachter Sues Over Drop in Share Price OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Nelnet's Bid to Dismiss Carr Suit Partly Granted OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Amended Carr Suit ORIGIN MATERIALS: Court Consolidates Soto & Jones Securities Suits PARKER-HANNIFIN: Court OKs Settlement of Data Breach Suit PBF ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in Calif. PEACEHEALTH: $7.35MM Class Settlement in Davies Suit Has Final OK PENNSYLVANIA: Bid for Summary Judgment in Alford v. Baylor Granted PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit POLISHED.COM INC: Faces Maschhof Shareholder Suit Over IPO PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024 PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Dlamini Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice QUALCOMM INC: Class Status Bid in Shah Partly OK'd QUALVOICE LLC: Settlement in Frederick Suit Has Final Approval QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson's Bid to Strike Five Defenses Denied ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Signs Pension Class Deal for $900,000 RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Privacy Suit in Florida Court SCIVAC LTD: Vaccine Product Litigation Stayed in Israeli Court SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Partial Dismissal of Dennee Suit Under Appeal SMITTY'S: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Class Suit SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal SOUTHERN CO: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit SPLUNK INC: Plaintiff Files Bid for Initial OK of Settlement STABLE ROAD: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit STABLE ROAD: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over Merger STABLE ROAD: To Settle Shareholder Suit STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Nguyen Bid to Certify Class STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard, et al., Seek Class Certification STRIDE INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit SUMMIT MEDICAL: Bid for Partial Judgment in Wiley Suit OK'd in Part UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Suit for $290M Over Wage Theft UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh VPPA Suit UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit in California UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Files Suit in S.D. New York UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Suit Filed in S.D. New York UNITED HELPERS: Class Action Discovery in Groulx Due March 25, 2024 UNITED STATES: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Dismissed UPS STORE: Court Denies Bid to Invalidate Class Suit Waiver VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Levine Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bids to Dismiss Tijerina Suit Granted in Part WELLS FARGO: $3.75-Mil. Class Settlement in Chang Suit Has Final OK WILLIAM BURNS: Brewer Files Suit in S.D. New York ZALKIN LAW FIRM: Deats Suit Removed to S.D. California ZUFFA LLC: Court Rejects Revocation Antitrust Class Status ********* ADVOCATE AURORA: Data Breach Claimants May Claim until Mid-Jan 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Volpenhein of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that millions of patients of Advocate Aurora Health in Wisconsin and Illinois have until mid-January to take part in a $12.2 million legal settlement over the unauthorized disclosure of their health information. In August, Advocate Aurora Health, the health care system now part of North Carolina-based Advocate Health, reached a settlement in a federal class action lawsuit involving millions of patients whose health information was shared with Facebook and other outside companies without their permission. The data breach, which occurred over five years from 2017 to 2022, affected as many as 3 million people who sought care from Advocate Aurora's hospitals, clinics and other health care sites in Wisconsin and Illinois, according to the complaint filed in the lawsuit. Because of the breach, the health information of millions of patients may have been shared with companies like Facebook and Google, which then used that data to target ads to patients. Information that may have been shared included: -- Dates, times and locations of patients' medical appointments -- Types of appointments or procedures sought by patients -- The names and specialties of patients' doctors -- Communications between patients and others in the MyChart patient portal Other personal information. In a statement, Aurora Health Care, which is part of Advocate Health, said it settled the lawsuit to avoid a lengthy and costly court dispute and that an internal investigation found "no evidence of misuse or fraud" related to the disclosure of personal health information. "We take patient privacy very seriously, employ robust internal controls to protect patient data and are committed to compliance with all laws applicable to our operations," the statement said. The tracking pixels have been the subject of a slew of lawsuits against health care systems in recent months over similar violations of data privacy and the unauthorized disclosure of patients' health information. Froedtert Health also was sued and entered into a settlement, first reported by the Wisconsin Law Journal, over its alleged use of tracking pixels on its website and other web platforms that compromised patients' health information. The flood of lawsuits began after a nonprofit news organization, The Markup, in collaboration with news outlet STAT, published an investigation in June 2022 that found dozens of hospitals' websites across the country were sharing patients' sensitive health information with Facebook through the company's tracker, Meta Pixel. Froedtert Hospital was one of the hospitals examined by The Markup and found to be sharing health information with Facebook. Those affected by the Advocate Aurora breach are entitled to a piece of the settlement, up to $50 each, though the per-person payment could end up being a lot less, depending on how many people submit a claim for payment. In Advocate Aurora's case, the $12,225,000 settlement was preliminarily approved by a judge in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin in August. The settlement will go before the judge for final approval next year, after everyone affected by the data breach has been notified of the settlement and given the opportunity to make a claim for payment, object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement. The class action lawsuit was filed last year after Advocate Aurora Health notified patients in October 2022 that their personal information may have been disclosed to outside companies without their knowledge and that the health system had disabled or removed the tracking pixels from its websites and patient portals. Advocate Aurora Health is now part of Advocate Health, one of the largest health systems in the nation that was created late last year when the Wisconsin and Illinois-based system merged with North Carolina-based Atrium Health. Who is part of the settlement in the class action lawsuit against Advocate Aurora? About 2.5 million people have been identified as members of the class action, whose health information was or may have been disclosed to Facebook and other outside companies without their authorization. Those whose information was disclosed include people who visited Advocate Aurora's website, who used the system's LiveWell app or who used their Advocate Aurora MyChart account between October 24, 2017 and October 22, 2022. I was affected by Advocate Aurora's breach. How do I get the settlement money? To be part of the settlement, you must submit a claim by Jan. 18, 2024. You may submit a claim form online by visiting AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com or you may mail a paper claim form to Settlement Administrator - 175057, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324. When would I get my settlement money? You would receive your payment after the settlement is finalized and becomes effective, likely next year. A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for March 8, 2024. Payments would likely be mailed to people who filed a valid claim within two months of the effective date, according to court records. What do I give up by being part of the Advocate Aurora settlement? By being part of the settlement, you would release Advocate Aurora from any and all claims that relate in any way to the disclosure of your information through the health system's use of tracking pixels in this case. In other words, you would not be able to sue or be part of any other lawsuit or legal action against Advocate Aurora about or arising from the claims or issues in this lawsuit with respect to the alleged sharing of your personal or health information. How will the settlement money in the class action lawsuit against Advocate Aurora be divvied up? The settlement money will be split among patients affected by the data breach, the attorneys for the people who filed the class action, the firm administering the settlement and other costs. Only those patients who submit a valid claim for compensation may receive part of the settlement. Under the settlement agreement, the attorneys in the case may seek up to 35% of the settlement money, or nearly $4.28 million. The federal district judge overseeing the case will ultimately decide how much of the settlement the attorneys on the case receive. They also may seek litigation expenses of up to $30,000. The 10 patients who filed the class action and are named in the lawsuit may receive up to $3,500 each from the settlement. The firm administering the settlement is called Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC. Following the payment of administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses and other costs, the remaining settlement money will be split evenly among all of the affected patients who filed a valid claim for compensation with the settlement administrator. What if I have an objection to the settlement or want to opt out? If you want to object to the settlement or part of it, you must file a letter or a legal brief with the court explaining your objections by Dec. 19. For more details on filing an objection, visit AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com and click on the FAQs tab. You may still file a claim to receive a payment from the settlement even if you file an objection. If you want to opt out of the settlement, you must mail a request for exclusion to the settlement administrator by Dec. 19. For more details on how to opt out of the settlement, visit AdvocateAuroraSettlement.com and click on the FAQs tab. [GN] AEGEAN MARINE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation in the lawsuit titled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application and all matters related thereto, including all members of the Settlement Class, who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the Action and the Settlement Class. Settlement Class means the class defined: (1) in paragraph 1.46 of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis, dated April 21, 2023; and (2) in paragraph 1.46 of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis, dated April 21, 2023. Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising them of the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation. The Court finds and concludes that the formulas in the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants that are described in the Detailed Notice, which was disseminated to all Settlement Class Members, provide a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds from the Gianniotis Net Settlement Fund and the Melissanidis Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the formulas in the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation set forth in the Detailed Notice is, in all respects, fair and reasonable, and the Court approves the Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6eyws3 from PacerMonitor.com. AEGEAN MARINE: Gianniotis Dismissed From Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice relating to Spyros Gianniotis in the lawsuit titled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis ("Gianniotis") and Providing for Notice ("Notice Order") dated June 1, 2023, on the application of the Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems and Gianniotis, to determine (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Gianniotis, dated April 21 2023, (the "Gianniotis Stipulation" or the "Gianniotis Settlement") are fair, reasonable and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, against Gianniotis in the Action, and should be approved; (ii) whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice in favor of Gianniotis and as against all Persons or entities, who are members of the Settlement Class herein who have not requested exclusion therefrom; and (iii) whether final judgment should be entered as to the claims against Gianniotis. Judge Buchwald finds that due and adequate notice have been given to the Settlement Class as required in the Notice Order. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Settlement Class defined as: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. ("Aegean") securities or sold Aegean put options between Feb. 27, 2014, through Nov. 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants; (b) Persons who have been dismissed from this Action ("Dismissed Defendants") and their affiliates or subsidiaries; (c) present or former officers, directors, partners or controlling Persons as of April 30, 2018, of Aegean, its subsidiaries or its affiliates, any Defendant or any Dismissed Defendant, and their immediate family members; (d) the directors' and officers' liability carriers and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof of any Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean; (e) any entity in which any Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean has or has had a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors or assigns of any Person or entity described in the preceding categories. Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any Settlement Class Member that validly and timely requested exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court. A copy of the valid exclusions is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds, solely for the purposes of the Gianniotis Settlement (and without an adjudication of the merits), that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court affirms its determination in its Notice Order that Utah Retirement Systems is appointed as Class Representative. Judge Buchwald notes that notice of the pendency of the Action as a class action and of the proposed Gianniotis Settlement was given to all Settlement Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort. Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23, the Court finds that due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising them of the Gianniotis Settlement, and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the Gianniotis Settlement. Thus, Judge Buchwald holds, it is determined that all Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Gianniotis. No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Gianniotis Settlement. The Court approves the Gianniotis Settlement as set forth in the Gianniotis Stipulation, and finds that the Gianniotis Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the Gianniotis Settling parties and their respective counsel have complied in all respects with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with the commencement, maintenance, prosecution, defense and settlement of the Action. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is dismissed on the merits with prejudice as against the Gianniotis Released Parties only and without costs except for the payments expressly provided for in the Gianniotis Stipulation. Upon the Effective Date of the Gianniotis Settlement, and as provided in the Gianniotis Stipulation, the Lead Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, and any other Person claiming (now or in the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether the Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Member ever seeks or obtains any disbursement from the Gianniotis Settlement Fund by any means, including by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form) will be deemed to have fully, finally and forever released, relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged all Gianniotis Released Claims. Any plan of allocation submitted by Lead Counsel or any order entered regarding any attorneys' fee and reimbursement of costs and expenses application will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Gianniotis. In the event that the Gianniotis Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the terms of the Gianniotis Stipulation or in the event that the Gianniotis Settlement Fund, or any portion thereof, is returned to Gianniotis or any insurer who might pay on their behalf, then this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Gianniotis will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Gianniotis Stipulation, and will be vacated to the extent provided by the Gianniotis Stipulation. As a material condition of the Gianniotis Settlement, the Court permanently bars, enjoins and restrains as follows: Lead Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns and any other Person claiming (now or in the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Members ever seeks or obtains any disbursement from the Gianniotis Settlement Fund by any means, including without limitation by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form), will be deemed to have fully, finally and forever released, relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged all Gianniotis Released Claims. Without further Order of the Court, the parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Gianniotis Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzmakj9 from PacerMonitor.com. AEGEAN MARINE: Lead Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awards the Lead Plaintiff's Counsel fees in the amount of $2,987,499.75 plus interest and costs in the lawsuit styled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came for hearing before the Court on Oct. 19, 2023 (the "Final Approval Hearing") on Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in this action and an award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4) (the "Fee and Expense Application"). The Court found the Individual Defendants Settlements reached in this Action to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Judge Buchwald notes that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as in the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Individual Defendants Settlements; and (II) Final Approval Hearing For The Individual Defendants Settlements, The Individual Defendants Plan of Allocation and Motion For Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Detailed Notice"). The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this application and all matters related thereto, including all members of the Settlement Class, who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the ligation and the Settlement Class. "Settlement Class" means the class defined: (1) in paragraph 1.46 of the April 21, 2023 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Spyros Gianniotis ("Gianniotis Stipulation"); and (2) in paragraph 1.46 of the April 21, 2023 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis (the "Melissanidis Stipulation"). Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all Persons and entities who are Settlement Class Members advising them of the Fee and Expense Application and of their right to object to thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons and entities who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the Fee and Expense Application. The Court finds that the Notice to the Settlement Class of the Fee and Expense Application met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(7); due process; and any other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all Persons and entities entitled thereto. No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Fee and Expense Application. In connection with the Individual Defendants Settlements, the Court awards Lead Plaintiff's Counsel fees in the amount of $2,987,499.75 plus interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Gross Settlement Funds until the fee is paid, and reimbursement of Counsel's expenses in amount of $78,303.88. The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is appropriate and is fair and reasonable under both the "percentage-of-recovery" method and using the lodestar cross-check, particularly given the substantial risks of non-recovery, the substantial time and effort involved, and the results obtained for the Settlement Class in connection with these Individual Defendants Settlements. The award of attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid to Lead Counsel from the Gross Settlement Funds upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations. The "Gross Settlement Funds" refers to $11,949,999 settlements, including the $11 million settlement with Spyros Gianniotis ("Gianniotis") (the "Gianniotis Settlement" or "Gianniotis Settlement Fund") and the $9,949,999 settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis ("Melissanidis") (the "Melissanidis Settlement" or "Melissanidis Settlement Fund") (Gianniotis and Melissanidis are referred to collectively as, the "Individual Defendants" and the Melissanidis Settlement and Gianniotis Settlement are referred to collectively as, the "Individual Defendants Settlements"). In accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement System is awarded $5,000 for reimbursement of their expenses in the representation of the Settlement Class. Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the subject matter of this Action and over all parties to the Action, including the administration and distribution of the Gianniotis Net Settlement Fund and Melissandis Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/445j4d87 from PacerMonitor.com. AEGEAN MARINE: Melissanidis Dismissed From Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice relating to Dimitris Melissanidis in the lawsuit styled IN RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Dimitris Melissanidis and Providing for Notice ("Notice Order") dated June 1, 2023, on the application of the Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems and Melissanidis, to determine (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Melissanidis, dated April 21, 2023, (the "Melissanidis Stipulation" or the "Melissanidis Settlement") are fair, reasonable and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by the Lead Plaintiff on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, against Melissanidis in the Action, and should be approved; (ii) whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice in favor of Melissanidis and as against all Persons or entities who are members of the Settlement Class herein who have not requested exclusion therefrom; and (iii) whether final judgment should be entered as to the claims against Melissanidis. Judge Buchwald finds that due and adequate notice have been given to the Settlement Class as required in the Notice Order. The Court certifies a Settlement Class defined as: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. ("Aegean") securities or sold Aegean put options between Feb. 27, 2014, through Nov. 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants; (b) Persons who have been dismissed from this Action ("Dismissed Defendants") and their affiliates or subsidiaries; (c) present or former officers, directors, partners or controlling Persons as of April 30, 2018, of Aegean, its subsidiaries or its affiliates, any Defendant or any Dismissed Defendant, and their immediate family members; (d) the directors' and officers' liability carriers and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof of any Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean; (e) any entity in which any Defendant, Dismissed Defendant or Aegean has or has had a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors or assigns of any Person or entity described in the preceding categories. Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any Settlement Class Member that validly and timely requested exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court. A copy of the valid exclusions is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds, solely for the purposes of the Melissanidis Settlement (and without an adjudication of the merits), that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. Pursuant to Rule 23, and for the purposes of the Melissanidis Settlement only, the Court affirms its determination in its Notice Order that Utah Retirement Systems is appointed as Class Representative. Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23, the Court finds that due and adequate notice of these proceedings was directed to all Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members, advising them of the Melissanidis Settlement, and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all Persons and entities, who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect to the Melissanidis Settlement. Thus, it is determined that all Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis. No Settlement Class Member has filed objections to the Melissanidis Settlement. The Court approves the Melissanidis Settlement as set forth in the Melissanidis Stipulation, and finds that the Melissanidis Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the Melissanidis Settling Parties and their respective counsel have complied in all respects with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with the commencement, maintenance, prosecution, defense and settlement of the Action. Judge Buchwald holds that the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is dismissed on the merits with prejudice as against the Melissanidis Released Parties only and without costs except for the payments expressly provided for in the Melissanidis Stipulation. Upon the Effective Date of the Melissanidis Settlement, and as provided in the Melissanidis Stipulation, the Lead Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, and any other Person claiming (now or in the future) through or on behalf of them (regardless of whether Lead Plaintiff or any such Settlement Class Member ever seeks or obtains any disbursement from the Melissanidis Settlement Fund by any means, including by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form) will be deemed to have finally and forever released, relinquished, dismissed and forever discharged all Melissanidis Released Claims. Any plan of allocation submitted by Lead Counsel or any order entered regarding any attorneys' fee and reimbursement of costs and expenses application will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis. In the event that the Melissanidis Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the terms of the Melissanidis Stipulation or in the event that the Melissanidis Settlement Fund, or any portion thereof, is returned to Melissanidis or any insurer who might pay on their behalf, then this Final Judgment with Prejudice Regarding Melissanidis will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Melissanidis Stipulation, and will be vacated to the extent provided by the Melissanidis Stipulation. Without further Order of the Court, the parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Melissanidis Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rccs2j6 from PacerMonitor.com. ALASKA AIRLINES: Faces Passengers' Class Suit Over Diverted Flight ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amy-Xiaoshi DePaola of KGW reports that passengers who were aboard a flight diverted to the Portland International Airport when off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot Joseph Emerson allegedly tried to shut down the engines midflight have filed a class action lawsuit against Alaska Airlines and its affiliate, Horizon Air. A Washington-based law firm filed the lawsuit on November 2, 2023 on behalf of three passengers: two people from San Francisco and a person from King County, Wash. The complaint alleges emotional and monetary damages. The lawsuit lambasts the airlines for an alleged lack of rigorous screening and standards for pilots and those in the jump seat, as well as "self-serving" public statements that the complaint says tried to downplay the incident. The failure to prevent Emerson from being in the cockpit breached a duty of care to its passengers, the lawsuit claims. Emerson had been riding in the cockpit jump seat on a flight from Everett to San Francisco when he allegedly attempted to activate the fire suppression systems in both engines, which would have caused them to shut down. When the plane was about halfway between Astoria and Portland, Emerson declared "I'm not okay," according to court documents -- throwing his headset across the cockpit and attempting to pull the two red handles that would activate the fire suppression system. The two pilots prevented him from shutting down the engines, investigators say, and he was subdued and removed from the cockpit. Emerson was then arrested after the flight landed at Portland International Airport. Alaska Airlines said in a statement that gate agents and the flight crew did not notice any signs of impairment that would have prevented Emerson from getting on the plane. He had also passed all of his mandated FAA medical certifications. According to the Cockpit Access Security System (CASS), which determines who can sit in a jump seat, Emerson was eligible to be there as a current Alaska Airlines captain. Alaska Airlines has since relieved him of all duties. Though Emerson told police he had taken psychedelic mushrooms for the first time several days prior, Emerson gave no indication that anything was wrong during the first half of the flight, even engaging the two on-duty pilots in casual conversation, according to a probable cause affidavit. Emerson's attorney has also stated that the pilot wasn't under the influence of any intoxicants on the plane. Emerson also told police that during the time, "It seemed like the pilots weren't paying attention to what was going on," court documents say. Despite Alaska Airlines' assertions, the lawsuit maintains that the airlines' "lackadaisical reliance on the presumption of flightcrew safety . . . is inexplicable." If the airlines had screened Emerson more thoroughly, the lawsuit concludes, he "could not have been in position to nearly kill everyone aboard." The lawsuit cited concerns of "pervasive mental illness" among pilots; experts have said that many pilots avoid mental health care for fear of being grounded. It argues that Emerson's "self-described weeks-long struggle with mental health," as well as his lack of sleep and use of drugs, should have been known to the airline. To prevent similar incidents from happening again, the lawsuit asks that Alaska Airlines and Horizon be held accountable and "compel a forthright public explanation . . . why they did not apply rigorous pre-flight security screening." It also asks that the airlines tighten safety and screening standards for pilots, "who have the knowledge and access to initiate a mass tragedy with their bare hands." KGW contacted Alaska Airlines regarding the lawsuit. "We have received the complaint and are reviewing it," the airline said in an email. "The pilots and flight attendants operating Flight 2059 responded without hesitation to ensure the safety of all onboard. We are incredibly proud and grateful for their skilled actions." State prosecutors have charged Emerson with 83 counts of second-degree attempted murder, one for each of the other passengers and crew on the plane, and one count of endangering an aircraft. Federal prosecutors have also charged him by criminal complaint with one count of interfering with flight crew members and attendants, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Emerson was arraigned last week at the Multnomah County courthouse, where he entered a plea of not guilty to all of the state charges. His next arraignment will be in late November. [GN] ALDI INC: Cordaro Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Cocktails ------------------------------------------------------ SARA CORDARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02491 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its peaches, pears, grapes, pineapple and cherries "In 100% Fruit Juice" under the Sweet Harvest brand. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the label made by the Defendant "In 100% Fruit Juice" is misleading because the fruit pieces shown on the packaging are served in a solution containing more than just juice but added water and the chemical additive of ascorbic acid. ALDI INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Raynaldo Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned RONALD RAYNALDO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SACAC"). The Plaintiffs filed the SACAC on Nov. 17, 2022. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims against Honda in the SACAC. They allege that Honda CR-Vs (model years 2017-2019) and Honda Accords (model years 2016-2019) ("Class Vehicles") have a common defect that causes parasitic draining. In its Sept. 20, 2022 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to identify the electrical components that allegedly caused parasitic draining. Parasitic draining is the depletion of a battery's power when the vehicle is turned off. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased defective vehicles from Honda. The Plaintiffs are Ronald Raynaldo, Richard Barrie, Fernanda Nunes Ferreira, George Jones, Robert Lizzul, Mithcell Bryon Pazanki, Harry Rapp, Dennis Woods, Dayane Tessinari, Brendan Sanger, and Jason Casey. The Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles suffered from issues, including failure to start and diminished reliability and safety. Honda's arguments as to why the SACAC should be dismissed largely mirror those it made in seeking dismissal of the previous Amended Class Action Complaint. They contend that (1) Plaintiffs still fail to plead a defect; (2) the statutory fraud claims are not adequately pled; (3) the Plaintiffs fail to allege breach of warranty; (4) the Plaintiffs are unable to maintain a claim under an implied warranty theory because they fail to adequately plead privity or an exception to that requirement; fail to show their cars are unmerchantable; and fail to show that any implied warranty survives beyond the duration of the express warranty; and (5) the Plaintiffs' equitable relief claims fail. In the SACAC, the Plaintiffs describe electronic systems or "modules" that work together to control the functions of the vehicle. At a high level, these electronic control units ("ECUs") communicate via the Controller Area Network ("CAN"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that problems associated with the Fast Controller Area Network ("F-CAN"), the network between the powertrain and units controlling the chassis functions, prevent the F-CAN from entering sleep mode. The result is that the F-CAN draws as much as 350mA even when the vehicle is off, more than seven times the amount it should be drawing. This causes various electrical units to draw too much battery power, which lowers the voltage of the battery, causing various malfunctions and ultimately battery failure. The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles suffer from an inherent defect. That alleged defect is that the vehicle fails to properly shut off, thereby, draining the battery. The defect impacts the vehicles' F-CAN, "which is a subnetwork of the vehicles' main CAN system." The CAN is how the ECUs communicate. According to the Plaintiffs, each new car purchased was covered by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW"). The warranty that they allege covered their vehicles included any repairs or replacement for "material or workmanship" defects. The Plaintiffs bring a total of 23 claims under the laws of Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, New York, Florida, Iowa, and California, as well as common-law claims. Those claims generally sound in fraud and are based on omission or concealment; are for breach of warranty; or are for unjust enrichment. They seek damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; and attorneys' fees and costs. The threshold question on this motion is whether the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a defect. The Court is persuaded that they have. Next, the Plaintiffs' claims can be grouped into two basic categories: those sounding in fraud and those based on breach of warranty. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled statutory fraud claims but have failed to adequately plead their concealment or omission claims sounding in fraud. The Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims are adequately pled for those plaintiffs, who allege that they experienced problems with their vehicles in connection with this alleged defect before the expiration of the warranty. The Plaintiffs' implied breach of warranty claims fail for not adequately alleging privity as required by various state laws. Judge Gilliam also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs fail to plead an inadequate remedy at law. The Judge opines that the Plaintiffs seeking only monetary compensation without identifying any future harm to be redressed may not seek equitable relief. The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed, at a minimum, because they fail to identify the law under which they seek relief. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Honda's motion to dismiss as follows: 1. Honda's motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims; 2. Honda's motion is granted without leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment or fraudulent omission claims; 3. Honda's motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim; 4. Honda's motion is granted with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claims; and 5. Honda's motion is granted without leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' equitable relief claims. To the extent the Plaintiffs can amend any claim as to which leave was granted consistent with their Rule 11 obligations, Judge Gilliam holds that any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days from the date of this Order, and the Plaintiffs may not add any new causes of action or defendants in any amended complaint. The Court is strongly of the view that serial pleading litigation is an inefficient and time-consuming use of Court and party resources, and the Plaintiffs need to plead their very best case, with adequate supporting factual allegations, as to any claims as to which leave has been granted. The Court is very unlikely to allow further leave to amend as to any claim not adequately pled in the next amended complaint, given that the Plaintiffs will have had multiple opportunities to state a claim by that point. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddu8adt from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FAIZAN AHMED; JAMAAL ALJAIDI; SYED HUSSANI; and ZUBAIR MOHAMMAD, individually on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15569 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drive testers. AMERICLOUD SOLUTIONS, INC. specializes in the Information Technology and Services area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron B. Maduff, Esq. BARRETT & FARAHANY 77 W Wacker Dr. Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 800-8581 Email: Aaron@justiceatwork.com APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ APA 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Kulp Minerals class suit in the Fifth Judicial District. On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial District. The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids. APA CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit --------------------------------------------- APA Corporation 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Plymouth County Retirement System class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action, alleges that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Ortmann Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ortmann shareholder class suit in the United States District Court of New York. On April 15, 2022, a purported shareholder class action complaint, Ortmann v. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., case no. 1:22-cv-02185, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eastern District of New York), naming us and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial guidance and commercial prospects in violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On June 2, 2022, the case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On February 20, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On May 22, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed their amended complaint. On October 20, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending ourselves in this action. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company focused on delivering therapies to treat targeted patient populations with a high unmet medical need that are impacted by autoimmune, kidney and rare diseases. BAR LUNATICO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bar Lunatico, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bar Lunatico, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08067-LDH-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bar Lunatico, LLC -- https://www.barlunatico.com/ -- is a musician-owned bar, restaurant and music venue in Bed-Stuy, BK.[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 BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Berry Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Torres securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On November 20, 2020, Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Securities Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Berry Corp. and certain of its current and former directors and officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the "Securities Act"), and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's 2018 IPO; or (ii) Berry Corp.'s securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the "Class Period"). In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company's business, operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that artificially inflated the Company's stock price, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its financial results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020. On November 1, 2021, the court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of the same putative class under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, that the Company and the individual Defendants made false and misleading statements between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 regarding the Company's permits and permitting processes. The amended complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but seeks to recover all damages sustained by the putative class as a result of these alleged securities violations, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 24, 2022 and on September 13, 2022, the court issued an order denying that motion, and the case moved into discovery. On February 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on April 14, 2023, the defendants filed their opposition; the plaintiffs filed their reply on May 26, 2023, and a hearing on the motion for class certification was set for August 23, 2023. On July 31, 2023, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding memorializing an agreement-in-principle to settle all claims in the Securities Class Action for an aggregate sum of $2.5 million. On September 18, 2023, the plaintiffs and Defendants executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 18, 2023, the Court granted that motion, issuing a preliminary approval order and scheduling a final settlement approval hearing for February 6, 2024. The parties will now move forward with the notice and approval process, which is expected to include, among other things, the February 6, 2024 final approval hearing, an opt-out process, and opportunities for class members to object to the settlement. The Defendants continue to maintain that the claims are without merit and admit no liability in connection with the settlement. Berry is an independent upstream energy company with a focus on onshore, low geologic risk, long-lived conventional reserves in the San Joaquin basin of California and the Uinta basin of Utah. BEST BAGEL & COFFEE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Bagel & Coffee, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Best Bagel & Coffee, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08082-DLI-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Best Bagel & Coffee, LLC -- https://bestbagelandcoffee.com/ -- is a bagel shop with straightforward, neighborhood outpost for grab-&-go bagels, sandwiches & java drinks.[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 BEST BUY LIQUORS: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Liquors, Inc. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Liquors, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08068-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Best Buy Liquors, Inc. -- https://bestbuyliquors.com/ -- is a wine store and supplier of globe-spanning spirits & wines sold in massive warehouse-like environs.[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 BETTER THAN PANTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Than Pants, LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Better Than Pants, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09508 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Better Than Pants, LLC -- https://www.betterthanpants.com/ -- offers catalog of thousands of funny, offensive, and sometimes just plain dumb t-shirts. High quality prints on heavyweight cotton tees shipped fast.[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 BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE: Greeley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Bottle Coffee, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rebecca Greeley, Mark Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Blue Bottle Coffee, LLC, Does 1 To 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610084 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc. -- http://bluebottlecoffee.com/-- is a coffee roaster and retailer once headquartered in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939-1709 Phone: 415-461-6400 Fax: 415-461-3900 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com BOOT BARN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Labor-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boot Barn Holdings Inc. 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 the California labor-related class suit settlement was paid on September 30, 2023. On February 27, 2020, one employee, on behalf of themself and all other similarly situated employees, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, which includes claims for penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement as per California Labor Law among other things. The Company reached a settlement for an amount that is not material to the consolidated financial statements, and all settlement amounts have been paid as of September 30, 2023. Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. is a lifestyle retail chain based in California. CAMPING WORLD: Hearing on Cybersecurity-Related Suit Set for Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings Inc. 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 the next hearing for the combined cybersecurity-related class suit is set for December 5, 2023. In December 2022, three putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries arising out of the Cybersecurity Incident. On March 30, 2023, the Company and plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve the putative class action complaints for an immaterial amount subject to the execution of a settlement agreement and court approval. On April 11, 2023, for purposes of effectuating the settlement reached with Company, the original complaints were dismissed and refiled as a combined state court complaint. On June 15, 2023, the parties executed the settlement agreement. On June 28, 2023, the plaintiffs' attorneys in the combined state court case filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. On August 10, 2023 the court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement hearing at which time the court requested additional information. On September 28, 2023, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement without prejudice. The next hearing date is December 5, 2023. Camping World Holdings, Inc. is a retailer of recreational RVs and related products and services. CAVA GROUP: Faces Hamman PFAS-Related Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- CAVA Group, 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 16, 2023, that it is currently facing charges in court relating to organic fluorine and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the packaging of its grain and salad bowls. In April 2022, the company was named as a defendant in a purported class action complaint "Hamman et al. v. Cava Group, Inc." that was filed on April 27, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on August 18, 2022. After an initial round of motion to dismiss briefing, the court granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss on February 8, 2023. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 1, 2023 seeking, among other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and medical monitoring. The complaint alleges that certain of its products are unfit for human consumption due to the packaging containing allegedly heightened levels of organic fluorine and unsafe PFAS, and that consumers were misled by certain marketing claims asserted by the company regarding the health and sustainability of its products. The complaint further alleges that the company products may have caused bodily injuries to the putative class members who consumed the company's products. On April 14, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On May 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the company responded to the opposition on June 30, 2023. As of the date hereof, this motion is pending. CAVA Group, Inc. is into consumer packaged goods consisting of the its proprietary dips, spreads and dressings. It also operates 279 fast-casual CAVA restaurants in 24 states and Washington D.C. CEP AMERICA: Faces $20 Million 401(k) Excessive Fees Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that a physician-owned healthcare group allegedly paid about $20 million in excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees to Charles Schwab Corporation for its 401(k) plan, according to a proposed class lawsuit. Two plan participants say CEP America LLC, which has done business as Vituity since 2018, forced the plan "into investments that benefited Schwab at the expense of the Plan" and approved plan payments to the company, according to their complaint filed on November 1, 2023 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. They brought the suit on behalf of people who participated in the plan at any point. [GN] CHRISTIAN DIOR: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Slaten Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled ALEXIS SLATEN, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN DIOR PERFUMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00409-JSC (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Christian Dior Perfumes on the grounds Dior deceptively labels and advertises the sun protection factor (SPF or sunscreen) benefits of certain cosmetic products. Before the Court is Dior's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Judge Corley opines that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior's products' labels are false or misleading to reasonable consumers because, after referencing the products' back labels, no reasonable consumer could interpret the front labels' "24H" representation as applying to the products' sunscreen. The Plaintiff, a California resident, bought Dior's Forever Foundation from a Macy's store in Daly City, California, for several years. The Plaintiff purchased Dior's Forever Foundation based on the product's labeling. Based on the label, the Plaintiff believed the product would provide cosmetic coverage and sun protection for 24 hours. However, the sun protection provided by the Dior Forever Foundation only lasts for two hours at most. Indeed, the drug facts label on the back of the product's packaging provides directions to "reapply at least every 2 hours," though the same instruction is not printed on the product bottle. Had the Plaintiff known the product would not provide 24-hour sun protection, she would not have purchased the product or, at least, would have paid less for the product. The Plaintiff also challenges the sun protection claims on Dior's Forever Skin Glow Foundation product packaging, which she alleges is substantially and stylistically similar to those made on the Forever Foundation packaging. Judge Corley says Dior's Forever Foundation's front label is ambiguous as to whether the "24H" representation applies to the cosmetic, that is, the foundation alone, or also to the product's sun protection benefits. As the Court previously concluded, "24H" might mean both the cosmetic and sun protection benefits last 24 hours. But it could also plausibly mean only the cosmetic benefits last 24 hours. Judge Corley finds that Dior's Forever Foundation's front label is ambiguous as to whether the "24H" representation applies to the product's sunscreen. The product's back label resolves the ambiguity by directing consumers using the product as sunscreen to reapply the product at least every two hours. Because the back label resolves the front label's ambiguity such that no reasonable consumer could interpret the front label's "24H" representation as applying to the product's sunscreen, Judge Corley holds that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior's Forever Foundation's labels are false or misleading to reasonable consumers. Accordingly, Dior's motion to dismiss on this basis is granted. The Plaintiff also alleges Dior's Forever Skin Glow Foundation, which she did not buy, predominately, uniformly, and consistently includes, on the principal display panel of the product boxes and bottles, an SPF claim alongside a claim that the product lasts longer than two hours. The pertinent part of the product's back label is the same as Dior's Forever Foundation's back label. The Plaintiff alleges both products represent they will provide sun protection for longer than two hours. Under the Plaintiff's theory of misrepresentation, the products are substantially similar. Thus, the Plaintiff has standing to assert class claims based on both products. Finding no material distinction between the labeling of the two products, Judge Corley says the analysis applies to both the Dior Forever Foundation and Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation. Accordingly, Judge Corley grants Dior's motion to dismiss. Because McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) was decided after the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 20 days of the date of this Order. This Order disposes of Docket No. 54. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3js4cw9b from PacerMonitor.com. CLARK COUNTY, NV: Faces Parents' Class Suit Over Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------ Kim Passoth and C.C. McCandless of FOX5 report that FOX5 has obtained a copy of a class action lawsuit filed this week against CCSD. A cyberattack on the school district began last month and the plaintiffs claim there has been a subsequent leak of hundreds of thousands of student files. FOX5 spoke with the plaintiff Erin Timrawi and Tim Timrawi back in October when news of the cyberattack on the district first broke. Tim Timrawi is an information technology expert. The Timrawi's own a cyber security company in Las Vegas and also have a child at a CCSD school. "It is our job to protect our children . . . Having our kids before reaching adulthood, having their information online on the dark web is for me a bridge too far. This is where we have to stop and make a stand. I am not willing to allow them to use my kid as a guinea pig," Tim Timrawi contended. The complaint alleges CCSD has a duty under both state and federal law to protect the information they store on students, their families, and staff. The suit claims CCSD's system was breached before in 2020 and they should have seen this attack coming. "This was an entirely foreseeable event that could and should have been prevented but was not, due to the negligent design of CCSD's network," the suit states. The civil complaint cites the school district's "recklessness" and it says that CCSD is "in violation of numerous regulations and standards." It also said that the defendant "failed to implement reasonable and adequate security procedures" to protect the data that was stolen. The lawsuit also states: "To date, CCSD has failed and/or refused to fully and adequately notify victims of their attack that their personal information was improperly accessed and stolen." The lawsuit seeks relief including damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief, attorney's fees, and other expenses. FOX5 reached out to CCSD about this lawsuit but have not heard back. As FOX5 has previously reported, the hackers have messaged us sending proof of their access to private student files. They messaged again on November 2, 2023 saying they still have access to CCSD's network. [GN] COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ Coinbase Global Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In July and August 2021, three purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and employees, and certain venture capital and investment firms. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Direct Listing. In November 2021, these actions were consolidated and recaptioned as In re Coinbase Global Securities Litigation, and an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company disputes the claims in these cases and is vigorously defending against them. Coinbase Global, Inc., branded Coinbase -- http://www.coinbase.com/ -- is an American publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.[BN] COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Coinbase Global Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Underwood class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In October 2021, a purported class action captioned Underwood et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and violations of certain California and Florida state statutes. On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes of action. Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed all federal claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice) against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong. Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"), and the parties completed briefing the appeal on September 13, 2023. The Court of Appeals has not set a date for oral argument. The defendants continue to dispute the claims in this case and intend to vigorously defend against them. Coinbase Global, Inc., branded Coinbase -- http://www.coinbase.com/ -- is an American publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.[BN] CORDOBA MINERAL: Faces Suit Over Alacran Mining Operations ---------------------------------------------------------- Ivanhoe Electric 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 its subsidiary Cordoba Mineral Corp., along with the National Mining Agency, Ministry of Mines and Energy, the local environmental authority, the Municipality of Puerto Libertador and the State of Cordoba, were served with a class action claim by the Alacran Community. This class action seeks an injunction against Cordoba's operations in the Alacran area and an injunction against the prior declaration by the authorities that the Alacran Community's mining activities were illegal. The claim was initially filed with the Administrative Court of Medellin, which remanded the case to the Administrative Court of Monteria, which contested it and submitted the case to the Council of State. The Council of State determined the Administrative Court of Monteria as the competent tribunal, where the process is currently being conducted. The Administrative Court of Monteria admitted the commencement of the class action on September 2021. The decision was challenged by Cordoba and other defendants and confirmed by the Court. Cordoba timely filed its response to the lawsuit and statement of defense and opposition to the injunction requested by plaintiffs. Ivanhoe Electric Inc. is into advanced mineral exploration technology with electric metals exploration projects and mineral exploration efforts focus on copper as well as other metals including nickel, vanadium, cobalt, platinum group elements, gold and silver. DCG NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Contract Price, All State Says --------------------------------------------------------- ALL STATE 12 GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCG NEW YORK INC.; 244 E 52 OWNER LLC; and "JOHN DOE 1" through "JOHN DOE 10," Defendants, Case No. 160678/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov. 1, 2023) alleges violation of the Prompt Payment Act of the State of New York. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for the full value of the work, leaving a balance due and owing from the Defendant in the amount of $505,017.90 for the fair and reasonable value of said work. DCG NEW YORK INC. operates in the construction industry business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Sitaras, Esq. Almerinda Centore-Sitaras, Esq. SITARAS &ASSOCIATES, PLLC 200 Liberty Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 430-6410 Email: alma@sitaraslaw.com DEL MONTE FOODS: Wins Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Bryan Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned KERSTINE BRYAN, Plaintiff v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00865-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant Del Monte Foods, Inc.'s motion, filed Sept. 8, 2023, "to Dismiss First Amended Complaint" ("FAC") pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Kerstine Bryan has filed opposition, to which Del Monte has replied. Del Monte is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. Bryan, a citizen of Oregon, alleges she purchased, at retailers throughout Oregon, fruit cups manufactured by Del Monte, specifically, "Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks," and that she did so in reliance on an assertedly false and misleading statement made on their respective front labels. Specifically, Bryan alleges that in purchasing the fruit cups, she saw and relied on the phrase "fruit naturals," with a bolded emphasis on "naturals," which she understood to mean the products contained only natural ingredients, when, in fact, they contained multiple synthetic ingredients, including citric acid, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and methylcellulose gum. Ms. Bryan further alleges that other Del Monte products (hereinafter, together with Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks, the "Products") include the same "fruit naturals" phrase on their front labels, despite containing the same synthetic ingredients. Based on said allegations, Bryan, on her own behalf and on behalf of two putative classes, asserts the following three claims for relief: (1) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count I); (2) Violation of The False Advertising Law ("FAL") (Count II); and (3) Violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") (Count III). By the instant motion, Del Monte seeks an order dismissing the FAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim. Del Monte argues that no reasonable consumer would be misled by its Products' labels as a matter of law. In support thereof, Del Monte relies on McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023), a decision issued on June 9, 2023, after Del Monte's motion to dismiss Bryan's initial complaint and Bryan's opposition thereto had been filed. Here, the front label's statement, "fruit naturals," like the label considered in McGinity, does not make any affirmative promise about what proportion of the ingredients are natural, and, as in McGinity, the Court finds such ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label, which clearly discloses the inclusion of multiple synthetic ingredients. In sum, the Court cannot say that the front label is "unambiguously deceptive," such that Del Monte is precluded from insisting that the back label be considered together with the front label, and Bryan has not plausibly alleged that the Products' front label, as clarified by the back label, would mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking that the Products contain no synthetic ingredients. Accordingly, the FAC is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Although Bryan seeks leave to amend whatever claims may be found deficient, Judge Chesney says she provides no elaboration in support thereof, either as to any new allegations or other potential additions, and, accordingly, such a request will be denied. For the reasons stated, Judge Chesney rules that Del Monte's motion to dismiss the FAC is granted, and the FAC is dismissed without further leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pjdt56j from PacerMonitor.com. DERMTECH INC: Continues to Defend Bagheri Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dermtech Inc. 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 the company continues to defend itself from the Bagheri class suit in California. On October 16, 2023, a purported class action lawsuit titled Bagheri v. DermTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-1885-DMS-JLB, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and/or former officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 3, 2022 and November 3, 2022. The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The action includes claims for damages and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expert fees. Given the early stage of this litigation, the probability of an outcome cannot be determined at this time. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims. DERMTECH, INC. produces and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products. The Company offers medicines for early detection of skin cancer and inflammatory diseases. [BN] DIGITALOCEAN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Agarwal Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from Agarwal federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 12, 2023, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our executive officers, captioned Ashish Agarwal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc., et. al. (Case 1:23-cv-08060). The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that we made materially false and misleading statements regarding our business. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DigitalOcean securities from February 16, 2023 through August 25, 2023 and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief that the Court deems appropriate. While the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, it is possible that it could incur losses associated with it, although it is not possible to estimate the amount of any loss or range of possible loss that might result from adverse judgments, settlements, penalties or other resolutions of such proceedings, based on the early stage thereof, the fact that alleged damages have not been specified, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class and the size of any certified class, and the lack of resolution on significant factual and legal issues. DMS HEALTH: Boyd Files Suit in D. North Dakota ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DMS Health Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Constance Boyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DMS Health Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-ARS (D.N.D., Oct. 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. DMS Health -- https://www.dmshealth.com/ -- delivers interim and long-term mobile diagnostic imaging solutions featuring the right technology and care to meet healthcare facility needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Miller, Esq. SOLBERG STEWART MILLER PO Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: (701) 237-3166 Email: tmiller@solberglaw.com DOCUSIGN INC: Must Oppose Weston Class Cert Bid by Jan. 19, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD R. WESTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order modifying class certification schedule as follows: Event Date Due Defendants' Opposition to Lead Jan. 19, 2024 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Lead Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Apr. 17, 2024 Support of Their Motion for Class Certification Hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' Motion May 15, 2024 for Class Certification . DocuSign is an American company headquartered in San Francisco, California, that allows organizations to manage electronic agreements. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sjipPG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irina Vasilchenko, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Lisa Strejlau, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com ivasilchenko@labaton.com lstrejlau@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com - and - Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and - Joseph Gulino, Esq. DRRT 340 West Flagler Street, 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 760-8030 Facsimile: (305) 760-8030 E-mail: jgulino@drrtcom - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com - and - Jason S. Risch, Esq. RISCH PISCA, PLLC 407 W. Jefferson St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 345 9929 E-mail: jrisch@rischpisca.com The Defendant is represented by: Dean S. Kristy, Esq. Jennifer C. Bretan, Esq. Marie Bafus, Esq. Sofia Ritala, Esq. Felix S. Lee, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com jbretan@fenwick.com mbafus@fenwick.com sritala@fenwick.com flee@fenwick.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: CSC Class Suit Trial Set for September 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Co. 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 the Superior Court for the State of California set the trial date for the CSC class suit in September 2025. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. The putative class of plaintiffs includes former shareholders of Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC") who exchanged their CSC shares for the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint. In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for September 2025. A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is scheduled for January 2024. The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it. DXC Technology Company helps global companies run their mission critical systems and operations while modernizing IT, optimizing data architectures, and ensuring security and scalability across public, private and hybrid clouds. ELI LILLY & CO: Painters Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Co. 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 the Painters third party payor class suit is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) in a third party payor class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Painters et al. v. Takeda et al.). Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer risk. The Company's agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify the company against its losses and expenses with respect to U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted its and Takeda's petition for permission to appeal the class certification order. This matter is ongoing. Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of Indianapolis, IN. ENGAGESMART INC: Continues to Defend Franchi Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- EngageSmart Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Franchi class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On October 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Franchi v. EngageSmart, et al., No. 2023-1093-JTL. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, General Atlantic (IC), L.P., General Atlantic (IC) SPV., L.P. (collectively, "GA"), Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, Vista Equity Partners Fund VIII, L.P., Icefall Parent, LLC, and Icefall Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, "Vista"). The complaint alleges that the proposed merger with affiliates of Vista breaches the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate") by providing for different treatment of the common shares owned by public stockholders as compared to the common shares owned by GA in connection with the proposed merger. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract against the Company for breach of the Certificate, claims against GA and Vista for tortious interference with the Certificate, claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Company's board of directors, claims for breach of fiduciary duty against GA, and a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Vista. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the closing of the proposed merger unless and until the merger complies with the Certificate, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. The Company believes the claims asserted in the action to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. EngageSmart Inc. provides customer engagement software as a service (SaaS) platforms. The Company offers an application that simplifies tasks like paying a bill, going paper-less, making a donation, setting up an appointment, and viewing customer history. EngageSmart serves customers worldwide. Address ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ----------------------------------------------------- Enservco Corporation 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 on May 22, 2022, a certain Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of others, filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company and certain of its officers violated securities laws in relation to certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which required amendments and restatements to such filings. On November 28, 2022, the plaintiff amended their complaint primarily to add Jan Lambert as lead plaintiff and to include Cross River Partners, L.P. and Cross River Capital Management, LLC as defendants. On February 10, 2023, the company filed a motion in the United States District Court of Colorado to dismiss the class action complaint, citing a lack of specific facts and evidence brought by the plaintiffs in alleging the company and certain of its officers committed securities fraud. As described in the motion requesting dismissal, the company cited a lack and failure by the plaintiffs to bring significant and specific evidence in claiming that the company and certain of its officers acted in an intentionally fraudulent or misleading manner, in connection with the company restating its Form 10-Q financial filings for the first, second, and third fiscal quarters of 2021, due to errors relating to complex and technical tax and accounting issues, which did not have an impact on revenue, operating expenses, operating loss, or adjusted EBITDA for the three 2021 quarterly financial restatements. Enservco Corporation provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural gas industry including hot oiling and acidizing and frac water heating. FCA US: Wins Summary Judgment vs Zuehlsdorf -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Zuehlsdorf v. FCA, US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:18-cv-01877-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: (1) Granting the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and (3) Vacating the November 6, 2023 and December 4, 2023 Hearings. On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff Zuehlsdorf filed a complaint against Defendant FCA. On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a Seconded Amended Complaint against Defendant on November 21, 2018. The Defendant moved to dismiss the SAC on December 14, 2018 -- Vehicle Purchase On October 27, 2012, Plaintiff purchased his model-year 2012 Jeep Compass vehicle from Redlands Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram. While shopping for his vehicle, Plaintiff was "focused" on the Compass because he "liked the style," the available $2,500 rebate, and "the idea of a new car with a warranty." The Plaintiff does not recall reviewing anything about his vehicle except the Jeep website and the vehicle's window sticker, nor does he recall seeing, hearing, or reading anything false about the vehicle prior to purchasing. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sdM8JN at no extra charge.[CC] FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- FIGS Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 1, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements in its initial public offering in May 2021 and thereafter. An additional putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 8, 2022, making similar allegations to the previously referenced purported class action. On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the two complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs. On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements between May 27, 2021 and February 28, 2023 with respect to its ability to predict customer demand and to manage its supply chain, inventory, air freight usage and costs (the “Class Action Securities Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. On May 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and pending with the court. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against such claim; however, it cannot be certain of the outcome of its ongoing proceedings and, if determined adversely to the Company, its business and financial condition may be adversely affected. FIGS, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer healthcare apparel and lifestyle brand company. It designs and sells scrubwear, and other non-scrub offerings, such as lab coats, underscrubs, outerwear, activewear, loungewear, compression socks and footwear. FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Quinones Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Frequency Therapeutics Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Quinones class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David Lucchino. On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single lawsuit, Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al. and on May 16, 2022, the Company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl LeBel, was added as a defendant. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202) for its product candidate FX-322 in the Company's public disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021. The lawsuit sought, among other things, damages in connection with the Company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 15, 2022. On March 29, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety. On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the order dismissing the lawsuit. On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellant submitted its opening brief to the First Circuit. The Company filed its response brief on October 27, 2023. This matter is at the very early stages of the legal process, and as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Since an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time, no accruals have been recorded as of September 30, 2023. FRESENIUS MEDICAL: E.D. Washington Dismisses Laughlin Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled LINDA LAUGHLIN, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a/ FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, and RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00180-TOR (E.D. Wash.). The lawsuit is a purported class action matter arising out of unpaid overtime under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, unpaid wages under the Washington Wage Rebate Act, and failure to provide meal breaks. The Named Plaintiff was a registered nurse employed at Renal Care Group, Inc. ("RCG"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a/ Fresenius Medical Care North America ("Fresenius") around the Spokane, Washington, and Post Falls, Idaho, area from November 2016 until April 2023. The Plaintiff contends that Fresenius incorporated in New York, and maintains its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. Likewise, she asserts that RCG is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Waltham. In her role as a registered nurse around Spokane and Post Falls, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees provided direct patient care by administering and overseeing dialysis treatments. During her employment with RCG, the Plaintiff alleges that she and the class of similarly situated employees were misclassified as independent contractors, and subject to deprivation of earned pay and breaks. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to a deduction in pay because RCG and Fresenius required employees to work through their required unpaid thirty-minute meal break and did not calculate that time into the hourly-pay employees received. Additionally, she alleges that Defendants paid employees at different rates depending on what kind of shift they worked, paying them more if they worked during the COVID-19 pandemic, or in the "Covid unit." The Plaintiff alleges that paying shift differentials is a violation of the Washington Wage Rebate Act because it deprives employees of the statutorily required overtime rates. Additionally, the Defendants excluded higher COVID pay rate into overtime pay rate calculation. She asserts that she and similar situated employees routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week during the relevant three-year period and did not receive the requisite overtime pay. She alleges that the Defendants would not take work conducted during meal breaks into account when determining how many hours an employee worked in a week, and therefore penalize employees pay who worked "less" than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff asserts that she and similar situated employees were jointly employed by Fresenius and RCG, and that both entities were aware of the Washington State laws asserted and proceeded to deny employees' wages earned, overtime earned, and actual 30-minute breaks. The Defendant seeks dismissal of Fresenius, arguing that the Plaintiff has not met her burden of providing facts that the holding company was a joint employer of her, and thus, not liable for the claims she lodged. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff makes no allegation in her complaint regarding how Fresenius, as a holding company, employed her or how it exerts the type of control over and involvement in the daily activity of RCG. In support of its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant points out that the Plaintiff has not shown that Fresenius has ever fired or hired any employee, held any trainings, been the listed entity on any employee's paystub, prepared any employee's daily task or assignment, promulgated any policies, maintained any employee's records, or prepared any employee's work schedule. The Plaintiff filed a response, setting forth the factors used to determine whether an entity may be considered a "joint employer." Defendant Fresenius moves to be dismissed from this matter because it contends it is not a "joint employer" of the Plaintiff and, thus, cannot be held liable under the Plaintiff's unpaid overtime pay and unpaid wages claims. As a general matter, a parent company and a subsidiary are considered separate entities, and thus, a parent company may not be held responsible for the liability created by its subsidiaries, Judge Rice notes, citing United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 61 (1998). Judge Rice finds that the Plaintiff does not explicitly argue that RCG is an alter ego of Fresenius, nor does she provide the requisite facts to suggest such. In her complaint, the Plaintiff argues that Fresenius and RCG have shared or common ownership of the facilities and clinics at which Laughlin and the Putative Class Members work, that at all relevant times, Fresenius and RCG jointly employed the patient care employees, who work in Fresenius's healthcare facilities and clinics through RCG, and that the Defendants jointly require her and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, among other arguments. These allegations are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the alter ego test in demonstrating that Fresenius is dictating every facet of RCG's daily activity, such that both entities are one in the same, Judge Rice opines. Instead, these allegations make sweeping allegations without any specificity as to how Fresenius is involved in the daily activities of RCG. Judge Rice also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding regulatory factors. The Plaintiff does not draw a complete nexus from Fresenius to her employment at RCG. The Plaintiff does not make her allegations with enough specificity to survive the motion to dismiss standard, Judge Rice says. While she need not conclusively establish that the Defendants were her joint employers at the pleading stage, the Plaintiff must allege some facts in support of this conclusion. Judge Rice points out that the Plaintiff here has presented nothing that the Court can use to draw an inference that as a holding company, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., is involved with RCG beyond the status of a parent company such that either can be classified as a "joint employer." The Plaintiff requests the Court strike the declaration of Bryan Mello from the record and not consider it as part of its decision as it is beyond the pleadings. The Defendant requests that the Court consider the declaration to rebut the claims made in the complaint and support the fact that Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., is an entity with no employees. The Court finds that striking the declaration is proper at this stage in the proceeding. The Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the content of the declaration speaks to information that the Plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on and the authenticity is not contested. Further, Judge Rice finds that the declaration adds nothing to the Defendant's motion. The Court likewise grants leave to reassert the proposition made in Mr. Mello's declaration should it become relevant in the future. Taking the allegations in light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that she has not alleged sufficient facts to draw an inference that Fresenius is a joint employer of the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant Fresenius' is granted dismissal from this matter. However, the Court will freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. Here, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings to factually clarify her claim that Fresenius is a joint employer, and thus, may be held liable for claims of withheld wages, withheld overtime pay, and violation of unpaid meal breaks. Accordingly, Judge Rice holds that: 1. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., is granted; 2. the declaration given by Bryan Mello in support of the Motion to Dismiss is stricken with leave to renew; and 3. the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint. She may file an Amended Complaint with 14-days of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 26, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/32pb2ske from PacerMonitor.com. FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Shumacher Class Suit Due Dec. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Funko Inc. 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 the motion of defendants to dismiss Shumacher class suit is due December 15, 2023 and to be fully briefed by March 22, 2024. On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company's corporate "Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on July 29, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8, 2023; briefing on Plaintiff's fee application was completed on April 6, 2023. The Court heard oral argument on both motions on July 24, 2023. On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on October 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated scheduling order. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed October 19, 2023. The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023. Defendants' motion to dismiss is due December 15, 2023, and the motion will be fully briefed by March 22, 2024. Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive offices located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN] FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Berkelhammer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Funko Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Berkelhammer class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the previously named defendants. The Company moved to dismiss the Complaint in the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al., on June 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 27, 2023, cross moving for an order voluntarily dismissing the action without prejudice so that he can pursue status as a class representative in In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation, or in the alternative, a court order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing completed on August 18, 2023. On October 13, 2023, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, denied defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action. Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive offices located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN] GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Narrows Claims in McMillian Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled ALEMAH MCMILLIAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01671-GC-DEA (D.N.J.). The matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Company (collectively, "GEICO"). Plaintiff Alemah McMillian opposed, and the Defendants replied. The putative class action involves claims that GEICO has had a policy of deceptively selling to New Jersey residents automobile liability insurance policies that provide Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") medical expense benefits less than $250,000 without obtaining the required affirmative written waivers mandated by New Jersey law. Plaintiff McMillian seeks to compel GEICO to provide her and similarly situated individuals with the $250,000 coverage, which insurers must provide in the absence of the proper disclosures and affirmative waivers. On July 23, 2015, McMillian, a resident of North Brunswick, New Jersey, used GEICO's website to apply for and to obtain a standard automobile liability insurance policy that provided maximum PIP medical expense benefits of $15,000. She alleges that GEICO's website presented her with the pre-selected $15,000 medical expense benefits coverage and that at no time did she affirmatively select or choose in writing this precise coverage limitation. She also alleges that GEICO did not require her to submit a signed Coverage Selection Form indicating her choice. She renewed her GEICO policy eleven times "under the same conditions" as when she first applied. More than five years after obtaining insurance from GEICO, McMillian was in a car accident on Feb. 16, 2021, that resulted in medical expenses that have far exceeded her $15,000 PIP limit. GEICO has refused to cover McMillian's medical bills more than $15,000. On Jan. 12, 2023, McMillian filed a Complaint against GEICO in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, that asserts four counts: Count One for Violation of Statutory Duties; Count Two for Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJ CFA"); Count Three for Breach of Contract; and Count Four for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. GEICO removed the action to federal court on March 24, 2023, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. Ms. McMillian sues on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of "[a]ll persons in the State of New Jersey who, from January 12, 2017, through the present have been policyholders" of "standard automobile liability insurance policies issued by a GEICO entity that have provided limits of less than $250,000 in PIP medical expense benefits coverage" and did "not have affirmative choice in writing" as "proscribed by" New Jersey law as well as a subclass consisting of "[a]ll persons in the [c]lass who suffered injuries in a covered accident and incurred medical expenses in excess of the medical expense PIP coverage stated in their policy." On March 31, 2023, GEICO moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). McMillian opposed on May 22, 2023, and GEICO replied on June 13, 2023. The Defendants argue that GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company should be dismissed from this action because there are no specific factual allegations as to those two entities and McMillian purchased her automobile insurance policy from Government Employees Insurance Company and the policy was later transferred to GEICO Indemnity Company. In opposition, McMillian agrees to the dismissal of GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company without prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Castner ruled that those two entities are dismissed and the remaining Defendants in this action are Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO Indemnity Company, which will continue to be referred to together as either "GEICO" or "Defendants." The Defendants also argue, among other things, that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because McMillian's core allegations -- related to how she applied for and purchased her automobile insurance from GEICO -- are contradicted by documentary evidence in GEICO's possession. Specifically, the Defendants submit a Coverage Selection Form, dated July 23, 2015, electronically signed by McMillian, which undermines and renders implausible, according to the Defendants, the Plaintiff's claim that she never received such a form and never affirmatively chose a $15,000 PIP medical expense benefits coverage limitation. Judge Castner notes that there is an evident dispute as to how the discovery rule applies to the Plaintiff's claims and when the claims began to run. The Defendants submit that the claims should be deemed to have accrued when the Plaintiff purchased her insurance policy, and she submits that the claims did not accrue until after her accident when she discovered GEICO's alleged fraud. As even the Defendants acknowledge, both could potentially serve as the relevant point in time, Judge Castner says. Because a time-bar is not apparent on the face of the Complaint and because there is a dispute as to how the discovery rule applies and when the claims began to run, the Court is not in a position to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, and other good cause shown, Judge Castner holds that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 26, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2f2t7txu from PacerMonitor.com. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., V. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file exhibits under seal. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cfKoV at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGIA POWER CO: Continues to Defend Turnage Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Georgia Power Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Turnage class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which was amended in March 2019 to include four additional plaintiffs. Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to charge a mirror CWIP rate premised upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into service. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were improper and make claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The district court dismissed the amended complaint; however, in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S. Constitution. In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several additional state law claims based on the allegation that Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of interest applicable to refunds. In November 2020, the district court denied each of the plaintiffs' pending motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi Power. In January 2021, the district court denied further motions by the plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second amended complaint. In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the claims against the Mississippi PSC defendants but reversing the dismissal of the claims against Mississippi Power. In May 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition by Mississippi Power for a rehearing en banc and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for further proceedings. In June 2022, Mississippi Power filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which was granted on March 15, 2023. On March 28, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact on Mississippi Power's financial statements. Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission, distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources, as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern Company. GEORGIA POWER: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Georgia Power Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the municipal franchise fees class suit was concluded on February 16, 2023 after the Georgia Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state law claims. This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the last several years. In 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule. In March 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton County granted class certification and Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In April 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the issue of class certification. In December 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's ruling that granted summary judgment to Georgia Power and dismissed Georgia Power's cross appeal on the issue of class certification as moot. Also in December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on January 27, 2023. On February 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on February 16, 2023. This matter is now concluded. Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission, distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources, as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern Company. GIGCAPITALACQUISITIONS LLC: Delman Sues Over Lightning Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Lightning eMotors, 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 a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned "Delman v. GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC, et al.," Case No. 2021-0679) on behalf of a purported class of stockholders. The lawsuit names GigCapitalAcquisitions3, LLC and the company's former directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty stemming from GigCapitalAcquisitions3's merger with Lightning Systems and unjust enrichment of certain of the defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights, and attorneys; fees. Neither the company nor any of its current officers or directors are parties to the lawsuit. The company's former directors are subject to certain indemnification obligations of the company. On January 4, 2023, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and governments. GLEN MILLS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK, et al., v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01541-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants move the Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.5 for an Order granting leave to file under seal: (1) the unredacted Memorandum of Law in Support of the PDE Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and certain exhibits attached thereto; (2) the PDE Defendants' un-redacted Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and certain exhibits attached thereto; and (3) the DHS Defendants' un-redacted Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certain exhibits attached thereto. The Commonwealth Defendants reserve the right, at a future date and subject to the terms of the Protective Order, to publicly file any of the materials referenced above after redacting Confidential Material or Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only material or otherwise modifying the confidentiality designations of the materials. The Defendants include Theresa D. Miller, former Pennsylvania Secretary of Human Services, Theodore Dallas, former Secretary of Human Services, Cathy Utz, former Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services' Office of Children, Youth, and Families, (collectively, "the DHS Defendants"), the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (collectively, "the PDE Defendants") (together with the DHS Defendants, collectively "the Commonwealth Defendants"). Glen Mills was a youth detention center for juvenile delinquents. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46WEUZA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Esq. Paul Lantieri III, Esq. Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esq. Joseph J. Bailey, Esq. John W. Scott, Esq. Kathryn J. Boyle, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 GOODRX HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement in Hodges Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HODGES, et al., v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for settlement purposes only: the Settlement Class is comprised of millions of individuals; there are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class; the Class Representatives’ claims are typical of those of Settlement Class Members; and the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. -- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only: the questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over individual questions; and class action litigation is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. -- The Court appoints Plaintiffs Thomas Hodges, HaleyRae Cannell, Danielle Benedict, Christopher Britton, Xe Davis, and Emily Hoza as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the Class and that they will be adequate Class Representatives. -- Deadline Defendant will Provide Nov. 14, 2023. the Class List to the Settlement Administrator: -- Defendant to pre-fund Notice and Nov. 14, 2023 Admin. Costs: -- Notice Date: Dec. 15, 2023 -- Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Jan. 29, 2024 Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs and Expenses: -- Objection Deadline: Feb. 13, 2024 -- Opt-Out Date: Feb. 13, 2024 -- Claims Deadline: Feb. 13, 2024 -- Final Approval Hearing: March 7, 2024 -- Motion for Final Approval: Feb. 22, 2024 -- Payment of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, March 21, 2024 and Expenses: -- Settlement Funding Payment: March 21, 2024 -- Claim Payments to Class Members: April 21, 2024 -- Deactivation of Settlement Website: Sept. 3, 2024 Goodrx is a provider of price comparison platforms that tracks prescription drug prices and offers drug coupons. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Spby1Q at no extra charge.[CC] GRAND CANYON: Continues to Defend HRS Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon 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 November 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hialeah City Retirement System class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 12, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System naming the Company, Brian E. Mueller and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the circumstances surrounding the Company’s sale of Grand Canyon University (the "University") to a non-profit entity on July 1, 2018 and the subsequent decision of the U.S. Department of Education to continue to treat the University as a for-profit institution for education regulatory purposes (collectively, the "Conversion"). The complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from January 5, 2018, the date when the Company announced that it had applied to the University's accreditor for approval of the Conversion, to January 27, 2020, the date prior to the publication of a short-seller report focused on the Conversion. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court by Grant Walsh on June 12, 2020 making similar allegations against the Company, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Bachus. Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On August 13, 2020, the two cases were consolidated and the Fire and Police Association of Colorado, the Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust were appointed as lead plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 20, 2020 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020. On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint to correct deficiencies in the initial complaint. The plaintiffs filed further amended complaints on September 28, 2021 and January 21, 2022, and the Company filed a further motion to dismiss on March 15, 2022. On March 28, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied. The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and it intends to defend itself in this legal proceeding vigorously. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Flora Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2023, that the parties in a consolidated securities actions await a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended complaint. On August 17, 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned "Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al." was filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019, dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint, including materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and (b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of the Second Circuit's opinion. On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on January 9, 2023. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. , a Delaware corporation (collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer, marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores, mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and club, drug and convenience stores worldwide. HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Lynn Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2023, that the parties in a consolidated securities actions await a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended complaint. On August 17, 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned "Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al." was filed in the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019, dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint, including materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and (b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of the Second Circuit's opinion. On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on January 9, 2023. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. , a Delaware corporation (collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer, marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores, mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and club, drug and convenience stores worldwide. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Fasteners ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Harley-Davidson faces a proposed class action lawsuit after more than 65,000 motorcycles were recalled in August 2023 due to concerns that a fastener securing the rear shock absorber could break. The 26-page complaint, filed in South Carolina on October 30, says more specifically that the recalled Harley motorcycles at issue are equipped with a defectively designed rear shock absorber fastener that can break and damage the rear tire, causing a loss of tire pressure. A loss of tire pressure can cause a rider to lose control of their motorcycle, "all but guaranteeing a crash," the lawsuit says. According to the suit, the defective Harley-Davidson Softail motorcycles at issue, recalled by the company on August 29, include the following models: 2018-2019 FLDE; 2018-2021 FLHC; 2018-2023 FLHCS; 2018 and 2023 FLHCS ANV; 2020-2023 FXLRS; 2022-2023 FXLRST; and 2022 FXRST. The plaintiff, a Spartanburg, South Carolina resident whose 2022 FXLRS was included in Harley's 2023 recall, says he decided to buy the bike because he believed it was a high-quality, reliable motorcycle equipped with tech features that met his needs. Per the case, the plaintiff spent roughly two hours researching the apparent rear shock absorber fastener defect and possible fixes, contacting Harley dealerships and repair centers in South Carolina to inquire about potential remedies. The plaintiff was ultimately told that the part required for replacement was out of stock, the filing says. "In sum, the Recall is unfixable at this point," the lawsuit states. "Plaintiff is now stuck with a Class Motorcycle that is liable to cause an accident and likely injure Plaintiff." The complaint notes that the man has been "greatly inconvenienced" by the Harley recall in that he has been forced to seek other modes of transportation. Moreover, the case contends that the free fix-and-repair clause included in the motorcycle maker's recall to replace the faulty fastener will cost the plaintiff and other Harley riders hours of their time. "And, as noted earlier, the part required for repair is unavailable," the filing relays. The lawsuit argues that the 2023 Harley-Davidson recall does not offer any "reasonably foreseeable" assurance that the fastener defect will be fixed permanently. "Rather, the Recall mentions installing a new shock absorber fastener, but mentions no testing or assurances that the new fastener will resolve the issue fully," the suit states, calling the recall "especially burdensome" considering the inherent danger of riding a motorcycle. In all, the lawsuit says, Harley-Davidson's recall "amounts to time and dollars needlessly taken from Plaintiff and other Class Motorcycle owners." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) urges affected riders to contact their Harley-Davidson dealer to schedule an appointment to have their motorcycle's shock absorber fastener replaced. The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who bought or leased any of the Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed on this page. [GN] HARRIS TEETER: Faces Class Suit Over Oral Nasal Decongestants ------------------------------------------------------------- Ciara Lankford and Khalif Rhodes of Queen City News report that Harris Teeter LLC is among several companies facing a class action lawsuit in federal court in Maryland claiming they sold oral nasal decongestants with phenylephrine that they knew did not work. The lawsuit, filed in late October, includes Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Kenvue Inc., Proctor & Gamble Co., and Foundation Consumer BRands, LLC. According to court documents, there were more than 250 different phenylephrine-based decongestants accounting for 241.6 million sales in 2022 for $1.7 billion. The stores and companies continued to produce and sell the drug despite knowing they were not effective when taken orally for nasal decongestion, the lawsuit claims. [GN] HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the antitrust class suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 6, 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as defendants. The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies have adhered to a "gentlemen's agreement" that prohibits any defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled. Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the Company could be subject to penalties and damages that could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has not had an opportunity to respond to the complaint or engage in any discovery. HII Corporate -- https://hii.com/ -- formerly Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., is the largest military shipbuilding company in the United States as well as a provider of professional services to partners in government and industry.[BN] INTRUSION INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------- Intrusion 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 the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas approved a class action settlement and plan of allocation on March 22, 2023. The lead plaintiff in the class action filed a motion for distribution of settlement funds on February 21, 2023. On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, captioned "Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al.," Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 against the company, its now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about its business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It claimed compensatory damages and legal fees. On November 23, 2021, the court consolidated the Celeste suit with another action and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the following additional parties as named defendants: Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director and executive officer; Mr. Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe Head, the current chief technology officer, and a former director; and Mr. James Gero, a current director and chair of the compensation committee. The parties to the consolidated action held a mediation on April 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a settlement term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of formal documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court. The settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and conditions and received final approval by the Court on December 16, 2022. At that time, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case, with the court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes of enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3 million settlement was paid by the company's insurance provider under its insurance policy as the company's retention had previously been exhausted. Intrusion, Inc. develops, sells, and supports products that protect any-sized company or government organization by fusing advanced threat intelligence with real-time mitigation to kill cyberattacks as they occur. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- iRhythm Technologies Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court") alleging that the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder ("Securities Class Action Lawsuit"). On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021. The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the Company and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine. The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August 4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the class. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2022, entering judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 11, 2023, after briefing by the parties and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant has stated that he intends to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The Company believes the above securities class action lawsuit to be without merit and plans to continue to defend itself vigorously. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in San Francisco, California. JEFF SANDY: Rose Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Record ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, et al., v. JEFF S. SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiffs file motion for leave to supplement the record in support of their motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that at the time the Motion for Class Certification was filed, Plaintiffs did not have Exhibit Numbers 3, 4, 9, 10, and 12 in their possession as they were produced in discovery by Defendants after the motion was filed. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QDocsz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. Emilee B. Wooldridge, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 Facsimile: (304) 250-6012 E-mail: steve@newlawoffice.com - and - Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR, INC. 115 1/2 South Kanawha Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 894-8733 Facsimile: (681) 245-6236 - and - Timothy Lupardus, Esq. THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE 275 Bearhole Road Pineville, WV 24874 Telephone: (304) 732-0250 E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com - and - Zachary Whitten, Esq. THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE Pineville, WV 24874 E-mail: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com - and - Robert Dunlap, Esq. ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES 208 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-4762 E-mail: robertdunlapesq@gmail.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEMICAL TOXIN WORKING GROUP INC. DBA HEALTHYLIVING FOUNDATION INC., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order amending the Scheduling Order as follows: Event: Previous Deadline New Deadline: Deadline for the parties Oct. 31, 2023 Jan. 31, 2024 to complete fact discovery on issues relating to class certification: Deadline for plaintiff to Nov. 20, 2023 Feb. 20, 2024 file motion for class certification and serve class certification-related expert reports: Deadline for defendants to Jan. 19, 2023 Apr. 19, 2024 serve class certification- related expert reports and opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for plaintiff to Mar. 19, 2024 Jun. 19, 2024 file reply in support of class certification: Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47iiNwH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Oliver-Zhang, Esq. OLIVER-ZHANG LAW, PLLC 810 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 643-1110 Facsimile: (202) 643-1596 E-mail: il1lie@oliverzhanglaw.com - and - Aida Poulsen, Esq. Peter T. Sato, Esq. POULSEN LAW P.C. 282 11th Avenue, Suite 2612 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (650) 296-1014 E-mail: ap@poulsenlaw.org The Defendants are represented by: Anthony T. Pierce, Esq. Miranda A. Dore, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 E-mail: apierce@akingump.com mdore@akingump.com - and - Steven A. Zalesin, Esq. Joshua Kipnees, Esq. George Soussou, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 113 3 A venue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2110 E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com jkipnees@pbwt.com gsoussou@pbwt.com JSW STEEL: Seeks to Modify FLSA Collective in Polen Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON POLEN, v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), JSW moves the Court to clarify or modify its October 18, 2023, Opinion & Order regarding court facilitated notice. JSW proposes that the putative FLSA collective be modified to be: "All current and former Ohio hourly, non-exempt production employees of Defendant who clocked in more than fifteen minutes before a scheduled shift or who clocked out more than fifteen minutes after a scheduled shift as the result of having performed work either prior to the scheduled start of their shift or after the scheduled end of their shift for which they were not paid during any workweek between December 8, 2019 and present in which they were paid for at least 40 hours." Likewise, JSW requests that it only be required to provide Plaintiff with: "an electronic spreadsheet containing a roster of all individuals who clocked in more than fifteen minutes before a scheduled shift or who clocked out more than fifteen minutes after a scheduled shift for which they were not paid overtime during any workweek between August 1, 2019, and the present in which they were paid for at least 40 hours." Without these modifications and given the identified limitations of JSW's payroll records, the spreadsheet JSW would need to share with Plaintiff would list all production employees who worked at least one week of 40 scheduled hours during the multi-year time frame. That list would include many persons who have no claim and no genuine right to opt-in (assuming arguendo that Plaintiff's claim has merit). JSW Steel is in the business of manufacturing and distributing steel products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTOduN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Roberts, Esq. Trial Attorney, Esq. Alexandra M. Berry, Esq. BRICKER GRAYDON LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 629-2799 Facsimile: (513) 333-4330 E-mail: mroberts@brickergraydon.com aberry@brickergraydon.com KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Kiromic BioPharma, 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 on August 7, 2023, the company entered into a term sheet with the plaintiffs in a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to settle in principle. The term sheet is subject to approval by said court. The company shall make cash consideration payments totaling $2,300,000 into an escrow account. The plaintiffs subsequently sent a letter to the Court on August 7, 2023, informing the court of the settlement in principle and requesting that the court stay all proceedings pending approval of the settlement. On October 3, 2022, a Joseph Podmore alleged that the company and certain current and former officers and directors of the company for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the purchase of common stock through the company's public offering that closed on July 2, 2021. Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. and subsidiaries is a clinical stage fully integrated biotherapeutics company formed under the Texas Business Organizations Code in December 2012. It is an artificial intelligence driven, end-to-end allogeneic cell therapy company, currently developing multi-indication allogeneic T cell therapies that exploit the natural potency of Gamma Delta T cells to target solid tumors. LASERSHIP INC: West Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): a. Permitting this case to proceed as a collective action; b. Approving their proposed collective action notice; c. Compelling Defendant to disclose immediately the names and last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of each individual who has worked as so-called subcontractor delivery driver for LaserShip from June 17, 2018 to the present; d. Permitting Plaintiffs to post the proposed collective action notice in common areas and break rooms at all of LaserShip's New York locations; e. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations beginning September 17, 2021; and Lasership provides courier services. The Company offers pickup and delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ZneLH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Rozger, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com - and - William Li, Esq. WILLIAM K LI LAW, PLLC 535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 380-8198 E-mail: wli@wlilaw.com LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit styled ROZINA KIMANI MUTHOKA, Plaintiff v. LEAGUE OF NATIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02434-UNA (D.D.C.). Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's pro se initiating pleading, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's IFP application and dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiff, who is currently designated the St. Louis County Jail, has presented submissions that are difficult to follow, Judge Cobb notes. Her initiating pleading is captioned as a "Remonstrance of Remnants and Surplusese and Remit Unsent Escheat Tacit Remission Adjust and an Act Entitled March 19, 1874, an Act to Audit and Adjust the War Debt to the State." But a plaintiff must open a civil matter by filing a civil complaint, Judge Cobb says. The pleading also fails to comply with the formal requirements of Federal Civil Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d), (e), (g). The Plaintiff sues the League of Nations, the United Nations, the United States, "all the several states of the confederate," and the state of Missouri, and fails to provide contact information for the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). Assuming that the Plaintiff intended her pleading to serve a complaint, and generously construing it as such, Judge Cobb says the contents fare no better. The complaint consists of a mix of vague and unconnected allegations, non-sequiturs, and personal anecdotes, all covering a range of topics. The Plaintiff asks this Court "help adjust the war debt and remove our estates bodies from being bounty of war indebtedness to this foreign government who has us as an alien enemy," citing to a litany of different laws, but she fails to make out a cognizable claim under any of the authority cited. A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Cobb opines, citing Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014). The instant complaint falls within this category. As presented, neither the Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify any of the intended claims. Furthermore, Judge Cobb explains, it appears that the Plaintiff is attempting to proceed with this matter, at least in part, on behalf of an estate and/or trust, and she indicates that she brings this matter as a class action. Judge Cobb opines that as an artificial entity, a trust cannot proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. Also, a pro se litigant cannot bring a class action. To that same end, the Plaintiff has filed an IFP application, at least in part, on behalf of a trust, however, an artificial entity cannot proceed under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1). Even if the Plaintiff intended to bring the IFP application only on her own behalf, Judge Cobb finds that it is devoid of any of the information or material necessary to assess her financial circumstances, and fails to include her prison ledger sheets. For these reasons, the IFP application must be denied. For these reasons, Judge Cobb rules that this case is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zhwxwu8 from PacerMonitor.com. LEGACY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 15, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGACY HEALTH, LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & HEALTH CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT LEGACY EMANUEL, Case No. 3:18-cv-02219-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: (1) Discovery related to certification of a class action and decertification of any conditionally certified FLSA collective action due by March 28, 2024. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and Defendants' Motion for Decertification of FLSA collective action are to be filed on or before May 15, 2024. (3) Any oppositions to those motions are due six weeks after the respective moving papers are filed. (4) Replies in support of their motions are due six weeks after the respective oppositions are filed. Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system consisting of six primary-care hospitals, a children's hospital, and allied clinics and outpatient facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sfShVO at no extra charge.[CC] LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Lightning eMotors, 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 putative securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado since October 15, 2021, where the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants. Case captioned "Shafer v. Lightning eMotors, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv02774 alleges violations of Sections 10(b), Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for purported false or misleading statements regarding the company's business operations and financial condition. On December 17, 2021, this was consolidated and on April 22, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated lawsuit. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2022. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other remedies. Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and governments. alleges violations of Sections 10(b), Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for purported false or misleading statements regarding the company's business operations and financial condition. On December 17, 2021, this was consolidated and on April 22, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated lawsuit. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2022. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other remedies. Lightning eMotors, Inc. designs and manufactures zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure solutions for commercial fleets, large enterprises, original equipment manufacturers, and governments. LYFT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $38M Over Wage Theft ------------------------------------------------------------ Leah Shepherd of SHRM reports that rideshare companies Uber and Lyft will pay a combined $328 million to settle wage theft claims in New York, state Attorney General Letitia James announced on Nov. 2. Uber will pay $290 million, and Lyft will pay $38 million into two separate settlement funds that will be distributed to current and former drivers. The settlements will institute a minimum earnings floor, paid sick leave, proper hiring and earnings notices, and other improvements in drivers' working conditions, James said. From 2014 to 2017, Uber deducted sales taxes and Black Car Fund fees from drivers' payments when those taxes and fees should have been paid by passengers, James said. The Black Car Fund is a nonprofit organization created by New York State to protect for-hire drivers and passengers. It provides safety and health programs and workers' compensation insurance to black car and limousine drivers. Uber misrepresented the deductions made to drivers' pay in their terms of service, telling drivers that Uber would only deduct its commission from the drivers' fares, and that drivers were entitled to charge the passenger for any tolls, taxes or fees incurred, although no method to do so was provided via the Uber Driver app, James said. Lyft employed a similar method to shortchange drivers from 2015 to 2017, deducting a 11.4 percent administrative charge from drivers' payments in New York equal to the amount of sales tax and Black Car Fund fees that should have been paid by passengers. Uber and Lyft also failed to provide drivers with paid sick leave guaranteed to workers under New York City and New York state law, James said. With the settlements, drivers will earn one hour of sick pay for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours per year, James said. "We are thrilled that our members won this historic victory to recover their stolen income," said Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a Long Island City, N.Y.-based union for drivers. "The agreement is a win for drivers across New York State who can now enjoy both the flexibility that is so important to them, while also having new benefits and protections like a minimum earnings standard and paid sick leave," Tony West, Uber's chief legal officer, said in a press release. "This helps put to rest the classification issue in New York and moves us forward with a model that reflects the way people are increasingly choosing to work." In a statement, Lyft said, "The agreement prioritizes the benefits drivers want without sacrificing the independence and flexibility they need." We've collected a group of articles on the news from SHRM Online and other trusted sources. Minimum Wage New York City was the first city in the country to establish a minimum wage for app-based drivers, who have been classified as independent contractors. The city also implemented a minimum wage for app-based food delivery services, such as Uber Eats. Uber and Lyft drivers in New York City receive a $17.96 per hour minimum wage under regulations established by the city's Taxi & Limousine Commission in 2019. Under the new settlements, Uber and Lyft drivers outside of New York City will receive a minimum of $26 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, James said. Drivers Continue to Be Classified as Independent Contractors More than 100,000 current and former drivers in the state are eligible to benefit from the settlements. The settlement ends James' probe into Uber's and Lyft's classification of drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, a practice both companies regularly defend in lawsuits, when dealing with legislators, and at the ballot box. Uber and Lyft, both based in San Francisco, denied wrongdoing. The settlements equal a little under 1 percent of Uber's and Lyft's annual revenue. In a separate settlement, Uber recently agreed with the New York State Department of Labor to begin making quarterly payments to a state insurance fund to ensure that unemployed drivers receive benefits. California Drivers Remain Independent Contractors Ride-hailing and delivery companies can continue to treat their California drivers as independent contractors, a state appeals court ruled on March 13. The court mostly upheld the state's Proposition 22, which said ride-hailing businesses could legally classify their drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. In general, independent contractors aren't entitled to the benefit plans and legal protections that employees receive. Settlement in California In 2022, Uber agreed to pay $8.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with California drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The settlement applies to drivers who used the Uber Rides App in California between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2020, or who used the Uber Eats App in California between June 28, 2016, and Oct. 7, 2021, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration agreement. It does not reclassify drivers as employees. Uber, headquartered in San Francisco, has about 1 million U.S. drivers and about 29,000 employees worldwide. Action In Other States Drivers in New York City, Seattle and California all have minimum wage guarantees. Uber and Lyft successfully blocked minimum wage laws for gig workers in Minnesota, and driver advocates are pushing for reforms in Chicago, as well. Based on the New York settlements, Uber and Lyft will update their apps to allow drivers to request sick leave through the apps. [GN] MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Video Hearing on Notice Set for Dec. 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS BRIXEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JENIFFER LOPEZ, MADISON HALL, BAILEY ALFORD, ALEC SEEHAUSEN, LAUREN THOMPSON, CAIDEN LONGORIA, ALEXANDRA KOPP, ALEXANDER NICKERSON, RYEN WESCOTT, AUSTIN CONRAD, EMILEE OVERFIELD, MEG KEAVUTZ, KURT R. MCDANIEL, ZACHARY ELLIOT, v. MCADOO'S SEAFOOD COMPANY, LLC, WIGGINS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00232-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for Court-Authorized Notice is set for a videoconference hearing at 10:30 a.m. on December 5, 2023. -- Counsel for all parties are required to appear by Zoom for the hearing. The information to join the hearing is as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting: https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/16126729723 Meeting ID: 161 2672 9723 If there are questions regarding the Zoom appearance, the parties should contact Judge Chestney's Courtroom Deputy by emailing txwdml_chambers_sa_judgechestney@txwd.uscourts.gov. McAdoo's is a restaurant serving Texas Creole favorites, authentic Cajun specialties and fresh seafood. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QGiaat at no extra charge.[CC] MCKESSON CORP: Appellate Court Ok'd TCPA Class Decertification Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that on October 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., finding that the lower court: 1) had correctly determined that Defendants violated the TCPA's junk fax prohibition; 2) had properly decertified the proposed class; and 3) did not abuse its discretion in denying treble damages to Plaintiffs. As our readers are aware, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, forbids the sending of a fax advertisement "to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise." The Ninth Circuit found that Defendants had violated the TCPA's junk fax prohibition by failing to obtain adequate consent to deliver the subject fax advertisements to Plaintiffs. More importantly, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Defendants' violations only applied to Plaintiffs in their individual capacities. As such, because the TCPA awards $500 non-treble damages per violation, the Ninth Circuit's decision all but assured Defendants that they would not be liable for more than $2,000 (4 total alleged unsolicited faxes), before costs and fees. Why Did the Court Uphold Class Decertification? In upholding the district court's decision to decertify Plaintiffs' proposed class, the Court determined that it was bound by the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or the "Commission") Amerifactors declaratory ruling. In Amerifactors, the FCC determined that the TCPA does not apply to faxes received through an online fax delivery service. Considering that traditional fax machines are rarely used anymore, the Amerifactors ruling served to effectively bar the lawsuit from proceeding as a class action. In their appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Amerifactors was "neither an order of the Commission, nor final." Plaintiffs claimed that Amerifactors was not an order of the FCC because it was issued by the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (the "Bureau") and not the entire Commission. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argued, it did not carry the full force of an order of the Commission. The Court ruled, however, that rulings issued on authority delegated by the FCC carry the same weight as if issued by the FCC itself. Amerifactors made clear that an online fax service is not a "telephone facsimile machine" and, thus, falls outside the consumer protections afforded by the TCPA's Junk Fax Protection Act. As a final order of the FCC, Amerifactors is only reviewable by federal courts of appeal. Accordingly, the ruling was binding on the district court, thereby obligating it to grant summary judgment to Defendants on any class claims arising from the receipt of an online fax. Because Plaintiffs could not propose a method for distinguishing class members who had received faxes on a stand-alone fax machine from those who had received faxes through an online service, Plaintiffs' claims were rightfully restricted to proceed on an individual, rather than a class wide, basis. Why does McKesson Matter to your Business? Although not as prevalent on November 2, 2023, faxes are still sent business-to-business. Traditional fax machines use "ink, toner, or paper, or otherwise . . . money" to print out an incoming fax. Unsolicited faxes that arrive on a traditional fax machine cause tangible harms seemingly deserving of the FCC's protection. A majority of modern faxes, however, are transmitted through online fax services, appearing as an attachment to an email in the recipient's inbox. It follows that the FCC would issue a declaratory ruling determining that an online fax service falls outside the protections afforded by the TCPA's junk fax prohibition. Because there is no cap on damages under the TCPA, McKesson is a major decision for businesses engaged in online fax marketing. Still, any business that engages in fax marketing opens itself to possible TCPA claims. Marketers should always utilize the safest approach, which is to obtain prior express consent from recipients before sending a marketing piece via facsimile transmission. The attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco have decades of experience in defending companies that face unsolicited telemarketing claims. If you are interested in working with a law firm that has an extensive track record in the telemarketing field, please email us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900. The material contained herein is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. [GN] MCLAREN HEALTH: E.D. Michigan Prohibits Filings in Norwood Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JANISE NORWOOD, Plaintiff v. McLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12553-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order prohibiting filings in this action until further order of the Court. On Oct. 10, 2023, Plaintiff Janise Norwood filed this putative class action against Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation. Judge Leitman says once McLaren appears in this action, the Court intends to hold a status conference to discuss next steps in this case. Until the Court holds that status conference, and until further order of the Court, there will be no filings in this action other than attorney appearances. In other words, McLaren need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint prior to the status conference. Counsel for Norwood will serve the Complaint and this order on McLaren as soon as is practicable. Once counsel for McLaren appears in this action, the Court will schedule a status conference at a time mutually convenient for all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/38b4s7cp from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2818: Class Cert Bid in Air Conditioning Suit in Abeyance ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as General Motors Corp Air Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order holding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in abeyance. In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that the air conditioning systems in certain vehicles sold by Defendant General Motors Company are defective and that GM's efforts to repair the air conditioning systems have failed. On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In support of their class certification motion, Plaintiffs cited as supplemental authority two recent decisions from district courts in this circuit granting motions for class certification in automotive defect cases: Speerly v. General Motors, 2023 WL 2572457 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2023) and In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation, 2023 WL 2749161 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2023). On October 23 and 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed to consider, on an interlocutory basis, appeals from the class certification rulings in both Speerly and In re Nissan North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SpbfEe at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Robinson Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robinson, et al., v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02182 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that: 1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement Class. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss Certain Class Representatives is granted. 3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. 4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie Smith, Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved as Class Representatives. 5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles J. LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing: a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1, 2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely request to be excluded from this Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9. 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's final approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class certification of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on April 18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of their claims at trial. 8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from the Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms. 9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by Arkansas law. The Robinson Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SDHOOT at no extra charge.[CC] MESOBLAST LIMITED: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Mesoblast Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that a class action proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia was served on the company in May 2022 by the law firm William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of persons who, between February 22, 2018, and December 17, 2020, acquired an interest in Mesoblast shares, American Depository Receipts, and/or related equity swap arrangements. In June 2022, the firm Phi Finney McDonald commenced a second shareholder class action against the company in the Federal Court of Australia asserting similar claims arising during the same period. Like the class action lawsuit from October 2020 filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (which had court approval for settlement in August 2022), the Australian class actions relate to the Complete Response Letter released by the FDA in relation to its GvHD product candidate; they also relate to certain representations made by the Company in relation to our COVID-19 product candidate and the decline in the market price of our ordinary shares in December 2020. The Australian class actions have been consolidated into one lawsuit. Mesoblast Limited is primarily engaged in the development of regenerative medicine products with its primary proprietary regenerative medicine technology platform based on specialized cells known as mesenchymal lineage cells. MITEK SYSTEMS: BIPA Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ Mitek Systems 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 dismissed the Biometric Information Privacy Act class suit without prejudice on September 14, 2023. On December 16, 2021, the Company was sued in a putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that the Company had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") with respect to identity verification services that the Company provided to its customer HyreCar, Inc. ("HyreCar") for HyreCar's customers in Illinois (the "BIPA Lawsuit"). Plaintiff claimed that the Company had not obtained the required consent to collect and use Plaintiff's biometric information, and that Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals therefore are entitled to statutory damages under BIPA. The Company removed the BIPA Lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on March 4, 2022 the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on HyreCar's terms and conditions requiring HyreCar customers to arbitrate on an individual (non-class) basis (the "Arbitration Motion"). On May 4, 2022 the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion. On December 21, 2022, the trial court's ruling was upheld on appeal, and the case subsequently was remanded back to the trial court. On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding a second named plaintiff, who is also a HyreCar end-user, but otherwise not materially changing the allegations. On March 27, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations. On May 11, 2023, and after the Company’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations had been fully briefed, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint seeking to add two new named plaintiffs, who are end-users of Mitek customers Instacart and Roadie, and to remove one named plaintiff. The Company opposed the Motion for Leave. On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. On September 14, 2023, the Court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, ending the litigation. Mitek Systems, Inc. -- https://www.miteksystems.com/ -- is a software company that specializes in digital identity verification and mobile capture built on artificial intelligence algorithms.[BN] MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catherine Cole, Barbara Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman, Rhondie Voorhees, Courtney Babcock, Laura Berkhouse, Ruth Ann Burgad, Jane Doe 1, Jennifer Cooper, Cindy Ferguson, Frieda Houser, Sherrie Lindbo, Jennifer McNulty, Jane Doe 2, Vida Wilkinson, and Vandi Theriot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Montana University System, University of Montana-Missoula, and John Doe Defendants 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the parties to file their motions regarding class certification, with supporting briefs, for a period of 2-days, from November 1, 2023, to November 3, 2023, given the extensive nature of these filings. Montana University System is the state's system of public colleges and universities. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Spjq3c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hillary P. Carls, Esq. CARLS LAW, PLLC 322 West Mendenhall, P.O. Box 85 Bozeman, MT 59771 Telephone: (406) 577-2145 Facsimile: (406) 219-0256 E-mail: hillary@carlslaw.com - and – Veronica A. Procter, Esq. PROCTER LAW, PLLC 2718 Montana Avenue, Suite 200 Billings, MT 59101 Telephone: (406) 294-8915 Facsimile: (406) 302-0504 E-mail: vp@procterlawfirm.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cochran Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDERA COCHRAN, individually and on behalf on of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, d/b/a Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC d/b/a Right Path Servicing, Defendant, Case No: 0:23-cv-62076 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young Kim, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEYS 2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 270 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (877) 241-2200 Email: ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com federalservice@consumerlawattorneys.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued by 45 Days -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN HERNANDEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NEOVIA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-01221-PA-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class Certification by 45 days. -- The Court modifies in part the Court's August 2, 2023, Civil Minutes – General and directs the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification, consistent with Local Rule 6, with a hearing date no later than January 29, 2024. Neovia offers inventory management, warehousing, and manufacturing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FITaZY at no extra charge.[CC] NEVADA: Williams Must File Signed 1st Amended Complaint by Dec. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v. Nevada Attorney General, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00510-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada directs Plaintiff Williams to file a signed first amended complaint on or before Dec. 26, 2023. On Oct. 19, 2023, Plaintiffs Thomas Williams, Joey Keaton, and Haywood Wilson, inmates at Washoe County Detention Facility, submitted a pro se civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that seeks to bring a class action on behalf of African American pretrial detainees at the facility. But the Court cannot consider the complaint because no Plaintiff personally signed it. And this action cannot otherwise proceed because the Plaintiffs have neither paid the full $402 filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma pauperis. According to Judge Denney, litigants, who are not represented by counsel, are pro se and have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally. But pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves. This means pro se litigants cannot seek to certify a case as a class action themselves; they must be represented by counsel. But there is no right to appointed counsel in civil-rights actions. And the Court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in "exceptional circumstances." Moreover, the Court must collect filing fees from parties initiating civil actions. The fee for filing a civil-rights action is $402, which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee. For an inmate to apply for in forma pauperis status, the inmate must submit all three of the following documents to the Court: (1) a completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate, which is pages 1–3 of the Court's approved form, that is properly signed by the inmate twice on page 3; (2) a completed Financial Certificate, which is page 4 of the Court's approved form, that is properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official; and (3) a copy of the inmate's prison or jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. The Court will grant each Plaintiff an opportunity to file a signed complaint and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. But only Plaintiff Thomas Williams is permitted to proceed in this action currently, Judge Denney says. If any other Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his claims, he must file a signed complaint with the Court, under a new case number, and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. For these reasons, Judge Denney orders Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams to submit a signed first amended complaint to the Court on or before Dec. 26, 2023. If Plaintiff Thomas Williams chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, so the amended complaint must be complete in itself. This means the amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff Thomas Williams wishes to pursue in this action. Thus, the submission of a mere signature page will not be enough. Moreover, Judge Denney holds that the Plaintiff should file the amended complaint on the Court's approved civil-rights form, and it must be titled "First Amended Complaint." On or before Dec. 26, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas Williams will either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three required documents: a completed application with the inmate's two signatures on page 3, a completed financial certificate that is signed both by the inmate and the prison or jail official, and a copy of the inmate's trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. Judge Denney rules that Plaintiffs Joey Keaton and Haywood Wilson are dismissed without prejudice from this action. Plaintiff Thomas Williams is cautioned that this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice if he fails to timely comply with this order. A dismissal without prejudice allows the Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when he can file a signed complaint and either pay the required filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. If either Joey Keaton or Haywood Wilson wishes to proceed with his claims, Judge Denney says each inmate must file his own complaint with the Court, under a new case number, and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff Thomas Williams, Joey Keaton, and Haywood Wilson each the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint and instructions for the same, the approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis for an inmate and instructions for the same, a copy of the original complaint, and General Order No. 2021-05. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 26, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx3v4n8 from PacerMonitor.com. NEW BRUNSWICK, CA: Court OKs $17M Deal in Sexual Assault Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that a settlement has been approved in a class action lawsuit against the Province of New Brunswick and Vitalite Health Network on behalf of former residents of the Restigouche Hospital Centre ("RHC") in Campbellton, New Brunswick. The settlement provides a $17 million fund for financial compensation to Class Members who allege they suffered certain harms at RHC. On October 26, 2023, the Court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. Class Members are now able to submit a claim for compensation for certain harms they allege they suffered while living at RHC. The potential amount of money to be paid to a Class Member whose claim is accepted will likely range between $1,000 and $85,000, depending on the type of claim they make. All claim forms must be submitted by October 26, 2024. Claims will be assessed by an independent Administrator, in a paper-based claims process. Class Members will be able to claim compensation without ever having to go to Court. The "Class" in this class action includes all individuals who were admitted or resided at RHC from May 24, 2004 to October 1, 2021, and who were alive as of May 24, 2017. The Class also includes individuals who resided at RHC from January 1, 1954 to October 1, 2021, who were alive as of May 24, 2017, and who claim they were sexually assaulted. For more information about making a claim, please visit https://restigouchehospitalcentreclassaction.com/ or contact the Claims Administrator at 1-866-476-3107, or by email to info@RestigoucheHospitalCentreClassAction.ca. The lawyers who are representing the Class Members are Koskie Minsky LLP. You may also contact Koskie Minsky LLP by email at restigoucheclassaction@kmlaw.ca, or by calling the toll-free number 1-888-233-2852. [GN] NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit Over New-Born Screening Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan King of Institute of Justice reports that on November 2, 2023, a group of New Jersey parents teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's practice of keeping blood samples taken from newborn babies for 23 years, all without parents' knowledge or consent. Not only does New Jersey hold onto the blood, it can use the blood samples in any manner it chooses. When babies are born in New Jersey, state law requires that blood be taken from the newborns and tested for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hormonal deficiencies, and other immunity issues. All states perform similar tests. But, after the testing is over, New Jersey's Department of Health keeps the leftover blood for 23 years. The state does not ask parents for their consent to keep their babies' blood, failing to even inform parents that it will hold on to the residual blood. The only way parents could learn about such retention is by proactively looking it up on one of the third-party websites listed on the bottom of the card they're given after the blood draw. And, once the state has the blood, it can use it however it wishes, including selling it to third parties, giving it to police without a warrant, or even selling it to the Pentagon to create a registry—as previously happened in Texas. "Parents have a right to informed consent if the state wants to keep their children's blood for decades and use it for purposes other than screening for diseases," said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer. "New Jersey's policy of storing baby blood and DNA and using that genetic information however it wants is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of all New Jersey parents and their newborns." The plaintiffs challenging this law are two Boonton parents, Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak, and Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a Cranbury mother of two. "It's not right that the state can enter an incredibly intimate moment, the tender days of childbirth, and take something from our children which is then held on to for 23 years," said Hannah. "The lack of consent and transparency causes me to question the intent and makes me worried for my children's future selves." "As a mother, I deserve the right to decide whether or not the government takes blood from my son and holds onto it for decades past its claimed use." Although all 50 states and the District of Columbia require blood screening for newborns, whether a state will destroy leftover newborn blood, return it, or keep it with a form of parental consent varies on a state-by-state basis. "What makes New Jersey's program so uniquely disturbing is the complete lack of safeguards for future abuse and the lack of consent, which leave the program ripe for abuse," said IJ Attorney Christie Hebert. "Parents should not have to worry if the state is going to use the blood it said it was taking from their baby to test for diseases for other, unrelated purposes." New Jersey is not alone in facing legal issues for the lack of consent when obtaining blood and over what the state does with the blood. Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan have all faced lawsuits over their retention of blood samples without informed consent from the parents. The 2009 lawsuit in Texas resulted in the state destroying 5.3 million blood samples, and now, all blood samples obtained after 2012 must be destroyed after two years. A 2014 settlement in the Minnesota lawsuit resulted in 1.1 million blood samples being destroyed. In 2022, Michigan agreed to destroy 3 million blood spots, but that lawsuit continues to move forward. "It's incredibly misleading for the state to tell parents they are simply drawing blood from their babies to test for diseases when it could be sold to third parties or used by other government agencies to build invasive databases or registries," said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. "As Texas and other states have shown, these concerns aren't hypothetical." Through its Project on the Fourth Amendment, IJ defends the rights of Americans to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures. Following IJ's lawsuit, an Iowa court recently declared an Orange City, Iowa, law that required warrantless inspections of all rental properties unconstitutional, and IJ is continuing to defend that victory on appeal. IJ is currently suing game wardens in Virginia after they snuck onto a family's private property and stole cameras. IJ recently argued before the Michigan Supreme Court, challenging a town's warrantless use of surveillance drones to look for code violations on private property. [GN] NORTHERN GENESIS: Schachter Sues Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- AHUVA SCHACHTER; MICHAEL SMITH; DOUGLAS NEUJAHR; SAMHITA GERA; and DENISH BHAVSAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHERN GENESIS SPONSOR, LLC; IAN ROBERTSON; KEN MANGET; CHRISTOPHER JARRATT; MICHAEL HOFFMAN; PAUL DALGLISH; BRAD SPARKES; and ROBERT SCHAEFER, Defendants, Case No. 2023-1112 (Del. Ch., Nov. 1, 2023) seeks monetary and rescissory damages against the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to stockholders of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. stockholders arising out of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs' right to make a fully informed decision about whether to redeem their NGA shares or to invest in the Merger. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class by prioritizing their own personal, financial, and reputational interests above those of NGA's stockholders. The Defendants also breached their fiduciary duty by approving the unfair Merger and by failing to inform stockholders of the material information necessary to allow them to make an informed redemption decision. The Merger was the result of an unfair process and was completed at an unfair price. Among other things, the Defendants' actions impaired stockholders' ability to exercise their redemption rights on a fully informed basis. Lion Electric's share price has remained low. On October 31, 2023, it closed at $1.57 per share, the suit alleges. NORTHERN GENESIS SPONSOR, LLC operates as a capital pool company. The Company focuses on the identification and evaluation of businesses and assets with a view to completing a qualifying transaction. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 - and - David Wissbroecker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 3rd Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Nelnet's Bid to Dismiss Carr Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN CARR, individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY; and NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.). Before the Court is Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed a Response, and the Defendants, thereafter, filed a Reply. Plaintiffs Carr, Killory and Powell bring this case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding a data breach related to student loan services they received from Defendants Oklahoma Student Loan Authority ("OSLA") and Nelnet Servicing, LLC. They allege their personally identifiable information ("PII") was obtained by malicious actors in 2022 via a data breach of Nelnet's technology platform. The exposed PII included their names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiffs claim both Defendants, Nelnet and OSLA, acted negligently in protecting the PII they had been provided. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim OSLA committed torts of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training, hiring, and supervision of Nelnet. The Plaintiffs bring additional claims against OSLA for an invasion of their privacy. Defendant OSLA moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs bring six claims against Nelnet. Two sound in negligence, and the Court denies Nelnet's motion in respect to these. The Court also denies Nelnet's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and the declaratory and injunctive relief claim. The Plaintiffs' final two claims are based in the general tort of invasion of privacy; the Court grants Nelnet's motion to dismiss these claims. Judge Russell finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs adequately allege the elements of a plausible negligence claim against Nelnet. Judge Russell points out that Nelnet owed a duty to the Plaintiffs, even in the absence of contractual privity, to act reasonably in safeguarding their PII. Judge Russell holds that the Plaintiffs properly state claims against Defendant Nelnet for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Their claims for Intrusion upon Seclusion, and Publicity Given as a Private Fact fail for the reasons set forth in this Order. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action. The Court denies the Defendant's Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/233h9ezf from PacerMonitor.com. OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Amended Carr Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled KATHLEEN CARR, individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. OKLAHOMA STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY; and NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R (W.D. Okla.). Before the Court is Defendant Oklahoma Student Loan Authority's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed a Response, and the Defendants, thereafter, filed a Reply. Plaintiffs Carr, Killory and Powell bring this case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated regarding a data breach related to student loan services they received from Defendants Oklahoma Student Loan Authority ("OSLA") and Nelnet Servicing, LLC. They allege their personally identifiable information ("PII") was obtained by malicious actors in 2022 via a data breach of Nelnet's technology platform. The exposed PII included their names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiffs claim both Defendants, Nelnet and OSLA, acted negligently in protecting the PII they had been provided. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim OSLA committed torts of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training, hiring, and supervision of Nelnet. The Plaintiffs bring additional claims against OSLA for an invasion of their privacy. Defendant OSLA moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs bring five claims against OSLA. Three sound in negligence. Of these, the Court grants only OSLA's motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim. Two other claims are based in the general tort of invasion of privacy. The Court grants OSLA's motion to dismiss these claims. Judge Russell finds that the Plaintiffs properly state claims against Defendant OSLA for negligence and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Their claims for negligence per se, Intrusion upon Seclusion, and Publicity Given as a Private Fact fail. The Plaintiffs attribute the intentional and highly offensive acts of hackers to OSLA. However, Judge Russell opines, among other things, that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead that OSLA intended the harmful breach to occur. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' Fourth and Eighth Causes of Action. The Court denies the Defendant's Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' Third and Seventh Causes of Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3we2s2 from PacerMonitor.com. ORIGIN MATERIALS: Court Consolidates Soto & Jones Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California consolidates ANTONIO F. SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY, JOHN BISSELL, and NATE S. WHALEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), and STEPHEN JONES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY, JOHN BISSELL, and NATE S. WHALEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02202 WBS JDP (E.D. Cal.). Having considered the parties' stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court orders that pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Soto v. Origin Materials, Inc. et al., No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP, and Jones v. Origin Materials, Inc. et al., No. 2:23-cv-02202 WBS JDP, are consolidated for all purposes, including trial. The case caption is now: In re ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP. Judge Shubb holds that the file in Case No. 2:23-cv-01816 WBS JDP will constitute the master file for every action in the consolidated action. The Clerk will administratively close the Jones action. All parties are directed to make further filings only to the docket for the consolidated case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryjyyba from PacerMonitor.com. BORIS FELDMAN -- boris.feldman@freshfields.com -- DORU GAVRIL -- doru.gavril@freshfields.com -- CARL HUDSON -- carl.hudson@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP, in Redwood City, California, Attorneys for Defendants Origin Materials, Inc., Richard J. Riley, John Bissell, and Nate S. Whaley. PARKER-HANNIFIN: Court OKs Settlement of Data Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Parker-Hannifin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended August 14, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that on August 2, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio finally approved a settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit against the company after an unauthorized party gained access to its systems on March 14, 2022. The data exfiltrated during the incident included personal information of its team members. The consolidated class action lawsuit has been filed in said court. The parties have reached a settlement in principle in the lawsuit, which the district court preliminarily approved on March 14, 2023. Parker-Hannifin Corporation is a worldwide diversified manufacturer of motion and control technologies and systems, providing precision engineered solutions for a wide variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets. PBF ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PBF Energy Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Goldstein class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of its Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to its acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021, its motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint were heard by the Court. On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef and on May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative. After considering the parties' proposed orders, on July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class Representative was denied and decertifying both of Plaintiffs' proposed Air and Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff and required the parties to meet and confer and propose a schedule for the remaining pretrial dates and a trial date. On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the District Court's decertification order finding that Navarro is an inadequate class representative. The Company's answer to the petition was filed on July 29, 2022. On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying Plaintiffs' petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, confirming that the case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff. On January 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On January 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Defendants' motion. Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition was filed on January 30, 2023. On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed. Plaintiff’s trespass claim with prejudice and granted. Plaintiff leave to amend his nuisance claims in conformity with the order if he can do so consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) relating to the remaining nuisance claims. On April 7, 2023, the Company responded to the FAC by filing a motion to dismiss on the pleadings for Plaintiff's failure to establish standing to bring the nuisance claims. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed its opposition to its motion. On April 24, 2023, the Company filed its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. A hearing on its motion was scheduled for May 8, 2023 but, on May 2, 2023, the Court took the hearing on the motion off calendar. On May 23, 2023, the Court denied its motion. After completing further discovery, on August 28, 2023, it filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's opposition was filed on September 1, 2023. The Company filed its reply on September 12, 2023. On October 18, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion, adjudged that Plaintiff take nothing, and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The order also allows the Company to recover the costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding the Court's order granting summary judgment. The Company presently believes the outcome of this litigation will not have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. PEACEHEALTH: $7.35MM Class Settlement in Davies Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs in the lawsuit entitled TRACY DAVIES; ASHLEY DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACEHEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-00825-AA (D. Or.). Under the heightened standard scrutiny for potential collusion, the Court concludes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court certifies the Class, as defined in the Court's prior Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) solely for purposes of settlement. All Class Members, who timely requested exclusion are excluded from the Class. Judge Aiken notes that there were two objections to the proposed settlement, Stutheit Decl. Exs. E and D. For the reasons discussed at the final fairness hearing, the objections are overruled. The Defendant is directed to pay the settlement amount of $7,350,000 into a common fund held by JND Legal Administration LLC ("JND") in trust no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the Settlement Effective Date. Judge Aiken grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Class Counsel are awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,837,500 and costs in the amount of $24,653.63 to $26,653.63, as requested. Representative Plaintiffs Tracy Davies and Ashley DeWitt are awarded each a service award in the amount of $7,500. Settlement Administrator JND is awarded costs and expenses in the amount of $65,000. JND is to distribute all funds or amounts pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or by court order, including payments to Class Members, Representative Plaintiffs, and Class Counsel. The case is dismissed and final judgment will be entered accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 26, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4387djks from PacerMonitor.com. PENNSYLVANIA: Bid for Summary Judgment in Alford v. Baylor Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled CRAIG ALFORD, Plaintiff v. LEA BAYLOR, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01787-MWB-MP (M.D. Pa.). Plaintiff Craig Alford filed this pro se Section 19831 action, alleging constitutional violations during his pretrial detention at Monroe County Correctional Facility in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Presently pending is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. On June 7, 2020, Alford was arrested pursuant to a state criminal complaint charging him with multiple felonies related to various firearms offenses. That same day, he was placed into pretrial detention at Monroe County Correctional Facility (MCCF) in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, with his bail set at $100,000. Mr. Alford remained in pretrial detention at MCCF until his jury trial in May 2021, at the conclusion of which he was convicted on several felony charges and subsequently sentenced to 156 to 324 months' incarceration. The civil action was originally commenced on Oct. 1, 2020, by eight plaintiffs who--at that time--were all pretrial detainees at MCCF. The complaint was styled as a "class action," seeking to bring collective Section 1983 claims against four defendants--three prison officials at MCCF and the Monroe County prothonotary (or clerk of court). The gravamen of the complaint was that the plaintiffs were being unlawfully held in pretrial detention and without arraignment longer than permitted by various Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus, violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. According to the allegations, some plaintiffs were being held in pretrial detention longer than allowed after the filing of a criminal complaint (in violation of Rule 600), and others were being held in pretrial detention too long without arraignment (in violation of Rule 571). The plaintiffs specifically noted that they were not seeking release from custody, only monetary damages for the purported illegal pretrial confinement. On Oct. 13, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims were barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 11 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Only one plaintiff, Craig Alford, appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the Oct. 13, 2020 judgment and remanded for further proceedings as to Alford's Section 1983 claim involving failure to timely arraign, holding only that it was not barred by the favorable termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey. On remand, this Court reviewed the complaint to determine if it stated a claim for relief absent any Heck v. Humphrey bar. On Dec. 8, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the Court determined that the complaint did not plead facts plausibly establishing how the named Defendants had violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court dismissed the complaint but granted Alford leave to amend. In December 2021, Alford filed an amended complaint. He again attempted to file for himself and on behalf of other plaintiffs, but those other plaintiffs were dismissed from this action less than a month later for failure to file amended complaints. In its dismissal order, the Court explicitly noted that non-lawyer pro se litigants like Alford cannot represent other parties in federal court and that because the amended complaint is signed only by Alford, it applies only to his own claims. In his amended complaint, Alford alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was not timely arraigned pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 571(A) and when he was not released on nominal bail after 180 days of pretrial detention pursuant to Rule 600(B)(1). The Defendants moved to dismiss Alford's amended complaint. In a lengthy opinion, the Court dismissed many of Alford's Section 1983 claims but permitted the following to proceed: (1) Alford's official capacity Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against warden Garry Haidle based on an alleged unconstitutional policy at MCCF, and (2) Alford's individual capacity Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims against Defendants Lea Baylor, Gregory Armond, and Haidle. Mr. Alford subsequently moved for declaratory judgment and summary judgment, but those motions were denied because numerous material facts remained in dispute. The Defendants now move for summary judgment on all remaining claims. Judge Brann finds that Alford has not carried his burden to rebut the Defendants' summary judgment motion regarding his Rule 571(A) claims. Summary judgment, therefore, must be granted in the Defendants' favor on all remaining individual and official capacity claims concerning untimely arraignment. Judge Brann notes that Alford's due process claim regarding the alleged Rule 600(B)(1) violation is more swiftly resolved. That is because the state-created liberty interest on which he bases his due process claim--Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600--was suspended during the entire length of his pretrial detention. Thus, he has not identified, and indeed cannot identify, a protected liberty interest that was allegedly infringed. Mr. Alford claims, pursuant to Rule 600(B)(1), that his due process rights were violated by the Defendants when he was not released on nominal bail after 180 days of pretrial detention. However, Judge Brann says, it is undisputed that, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, with authorization from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, suspended Rule 600 from March 16, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Consequently, there can be no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. Summary judgment, therefore, must be granted in the Defendants' favor with respect to Alford's Rule 600(B)(1) claims, whether asserted against the Defendants in their official or individual capacities, Judge Brann points out. Judge Brann adds that Alford cannot amend his pleadings through a brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, so there is no need to examine or discuss any Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim. Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on all remaining claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yypes4f8 from PacerMonitor.com. PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Penumbra Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Labor-Code-related class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage statements and records, and other similar allegations. Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company employees in California, alleging similar claims. The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The Company believes the claims lack merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Penumbra is a medical device company headquartered in Alameda, California.[BN] POLISHED.COM INC: Faces Maschhof Shareholder Suit Over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------- Polished.com 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 on October 31, 2022, a putative shareholder class action was filed against Polished.com Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors, as well as certain underwriters of the company's 2020 initial public offering (IPO). The action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is captioned "Maschhof v. Polished.com Inc., et al.," No. 1:22-cv-06606. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from alleged misstatements and omissions made in certain of the company's SEC filings made in connection with the IPO. On or about December 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Although that motion is fully briefed, to date, oral argument has yet to be scheduled. Polished.com Inc. operates a content-driven and technology-enabled shopping destination for appliances, furniture and home goods. With warehouse fulfillment centers in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as showrooms in Brooklyn, New York, and Largo, Florida, it offer one-stop shopping for national and global brands. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN STROMQUIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and AMY VERMEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; Case No. 8:22-cv-00332-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an amended case progression order as follows: 1) The status conference scheduled for November 1, 2023, is cancelled. 2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is February 29, 2024. 3) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and completing expert disclosures for all experts expected to testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non- retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are: For the plaintiffs: Feb. 29, 2024 For the defendants: April 29, 2024 4) Motion to Certify a Class Action. a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall be filed by February 29, 2024, in the absence of which any claim in the pleadings that this is a class action shall be deemed abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had been filed and denied by the Court. b. The Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' class certification motion by April 29, 2024. c. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of the motion for class certification by May 23, 2024. 5) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is May 23, 2024. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40nELvU at no extra charge.[CC] PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Dlamini Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology Inc. 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 the Company and plaintiff agreed to dismiss the Dlamini class suit with prejudice. On May 26, 2023, Mfolozi Dlamini filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging injuries as a result of unauthorized disclosure of certain individuals' personally identifiable information in connection with a data security incident discovered by the Company in June 2022. On September 21, 2023, the plaintiff and the Company agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company based in Los Angeles, California that develops and commercializes innovative products to enhance cancer care and improve treatment outcomes for patients. QUALCOMM INC: Class Status Bid in Shah Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and certifying action to proceed as a class action on behalf of: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Qualcomm Inc. from February 1, 2012, through January 20, 2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." On June 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants' petition for permission to appeal the Court's March 20, 2023, Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Court-appointed Class Representatives Sjunde AP-Fonden and Metzler Asset Management GmbH have moved for the entry of an order approving the proposed form and content of notices of pendency to be disseminated to the Class, as well as the proposed methods for dissemination of these notices. Qualcomm creates semiconductors, software, and services related to wireless technology. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FFhlbW at no extra charge.[CC] QUALVOICE LLC: Settlement in Frederick Suit Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York finally approves the class and collective action settlement in the lawsuit entitled ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALVOICE LLC and RODNEY NEDD, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-MMH (E.D.N.Y.). The matter come before the Court, on consent of all parties, for a fairness hearing on Sept. 14, 2023, pursuant to the Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement reached by the parties is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs as defined in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, and satisfies all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). This Order granting the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits, addendums, stipulations, and schedules thereto, with the exception of Paragraph 1.40. The Court finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice of Class Action Settlement ("Notice") constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and that such Notice, including individual notice to Class Members whose mailing addresses or other contact information were identified through reasonable effort, constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto, complying fully with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. On behalf of the Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs, the Court approves the Settlement, finds that it is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of Class Members. With respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs, the Court finds that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). Finally, with respect to the Plaintiffs, the Settlement satisfies Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and those factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court directs that the Settlement be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and orders all parties to take the necessary steps to effectuate the Settlement. The Court has previously certified and now grants in light of the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, final certification to the following two Settlement Classes: (a) all individuals employed by the Defendants as cable installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period of Oct. 10, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2021, worked for the Defendants in New York; and (b) all individuals employed by the Defendants as cable installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period of Oct. 10, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2021, worked for the Defendants in New York, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby, opting into the settlement and, in so doing, releasing their FLSA claims. The Settlement provides for a service award to the Named Plaintiff Andy Frederick in the amount of $15,000. The Settlement also provides for a payment of $143,170, or the equivalent of 31.8% of the total Settlement amount as attorneys' fees, plus $6,830.00 for Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid to Class Counsel. Class Administrator fees are to be paid to Arden Claims Service LLC ("Arden") in the amount of $12,000. The Court holds that the terms and provisions of the Settlement have been entered into in good faith and are approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Classes, and in full compliance with all applicable due process requirements. The Settlement is approved as fair and reasonable. The allocation and distribution as set forth in the Settlement are final. Judge Henry grants the request for Service Awards. Arden is ordered to pay the Named Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000, apportioned from the Settlement Funds in accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $143,170, apportioned from the Settlement Funds, which is less than the amount explained in the Notices, is fair and reasonable and is granted. Class Counsel's request for expenses in the amount of $6,830 is also granted. Arden is to be paid $12,000 for its administration fees and costs from the Settlement Amount. All claims against the Defendants in this action are dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction. Judge Henry enters Final Judgment pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nuak783 from PacerMonitor.com. QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson's Bid to Strike Five Defenses Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike the five remaining affirmative defenses in the lawsuit captioned WILSON, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01566-JG (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Peter Wilson sues Defendants QuoteWizard.com, LLC, and Perform[CB], LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). He sues on behalf of himself and a class he asks to be certified. The Plaintiff alleges that QuoteWizard made aggressive phone calls to him, and that Perform[CB] has placed at least one of those calls on QuoteWizard's behalf. In its original answer to the complaint, Defendant Perform[CB] raised 10 affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff moves to strike nine of those ten original defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Perform[CB] then filed its first amended answer, raising six of the ten original affirmative defenses, with some modifications. In its response to the Plaintiff's motion to strike, Perform[CB] argues that the motion to strike is now moot, since Perform[CB] has removed and revised answers in light of the Plaintiff's arguments. The Plaintiff objects to the following nine affirmative defenses in Defendant Perform[CB]'s original answer: (2) failure of class action allegations; (3) failure to mitigate; (4) consent; (5) the Plaintiff did not suffer damages; (6) acts or omissions of others; (7) third-party negligence; (8) comparative fault; (9) unclean hands; and (10) waiver. The Plaintiff argues that these affirmative defenses are legally insufficient based on the complaint's factual allegations or are legally insufficient on their face. As an initial matter, Perform[CB] removed affirmative defenses (2), (3). (7), and (8). Judge Gwin holds that the Plaintiff's motion to strike is, thus, moot regarding those affirmative defenses. Judge Gwin finds that the Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient basis to strike the remaining five affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses (4), (6), (9), and (10) all involve factual determinations that are more appropriate for summary judgment. Contrary to the Plaintiff's arguments, Judge Gwin says Perform[CB] did not have to specifically plead any of the facts supporting these defenses. These defenses all meet the "fair notice" pleading requirement and alert Plaintiff to Perform[CB]'s intention to investigate issues of consent, third-party acts, unclean hands, and potential waiver. As for affirmative defense (3), Judge Gwin finds that Plaintiff Wilson fails to show how it has no possible relation to the controversy. Even if suffered damages are not a required element for TCPA actions, the Plaintiff does not cite to any controlling authority that clearly precludes Perform [CB] from raising this defense. For these reasons, the Court denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses (3), (4), (6), (9), and (10); and dismisses as moot the Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses (2), (3), (7), and (8). A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ra99kdr from PacerMonitor.com. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Signs Pension Class Deal for $900,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Rockwell Automation Inc. will boost the monthly pension payments of about 200 married retirees in a class settlement valued at about $900,000. The deal represents about 60% of the retirees' estimated damages and is a strong result given the "cutting-edge and complex" nature of the lawsuit, the retirees said in a settlement motion filed on November 1, 2023 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Their legal theory has never been litigated through trial and there are no appellate decisions directly considering it, according to the motion. Rockwell allegedly calculated joint and survivor annuity pensions—those that pay post-death benefits. [GN] RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Privacy Suit in Florida Court ----------------------------------------------------- Rumble 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 in October 2022, the company received notification of a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit is currently in discovery of evidence directly probative of venue, with its motion for summary judgement on the issue of venue due last September 22, 2023. Rumble Inc. is a full-service video technology provider offering customizable video players, original content videos, and a library of advertisements for use with its video players. SCIVAC LTD: Vaccine Product Litigation Stayed in Israeli Court -------------------------------------------------------------- VBI Vaccines 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 District Court of the Central District in Israel has accepted the motion of VBI's subsidiary, SciVac Ltd., to suspend reaching a decision on the approval of the class action pending the determination of liability under the civil action. Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on January 15, 2020, with subsequent preliminary hearings held on May 13, 2020, December 3, 2020, September 30, 2021, June 9, 2022, January 12, 2023 and July 13, 2023. The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on November 16, 2023. On September 13, 2018, two civil claims were brought in said court with SciVac as a defendant. In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege, among other things: defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July 2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to consumers; and that each child suffered side effects from the vaccine. The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April 2011 and seeking damages in a total amount of NIS 1,879,500 ($507,973). The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their parents against SciVac and the Ministry of Health of the State of Israel alleging, among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental, defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel without approval of a western regulatory body. The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as well as punitive damages. VBI Vaccines Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates manufacturing facilities located in Rehovot, Israel and research facilities located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Sentinelone, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that on June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District of California, captioned "Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the case into another action. The suits are in their preliminary phase, and no response to the complaints in either action is currently due. SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous cybersecurity defense. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 31, 2023, that consolidated case captioned "In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," Lead Case No. 19CIV05370, remains stayed. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Slack's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Salesforce acquired Slack in July 2021. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC. All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo (and the original San Francisco action was dismissed). The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019 under "In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," Lead Case No. 19CIV05370. Slack and the other defendants filed demurrers to the complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020. In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they filed in October 2020. Slack and the other defendants answered the complaint in November 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 21, 2021, which remains pending. On October 26, 2022, the court stayed the State Court Action pending resolution of Slack's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Federal Action. Salesforce, Inc. is into customer relationship management technology. It has pioneered innovations in cloud, mobile, social, analytics and artificial intelligence, enabling companies of every size and industry to transform their businesses in the all-digital, work-from-anywhere era. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Partial Dismissal of Dennee Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salesforce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 31, 2023, that its subsidiary, Slack Technologies, is facing captioned "Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc.," Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI in federal court. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Slack's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against its subsidiary Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC. All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo (and the original San Francisco action was dismissed). The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In said federal action, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020. In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court granted. Slack and the other defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. Oral argument was heard in May 2021. On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Slack filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on November 3, 2021, which was denied on May 2, 2022. Slack filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 31, 2022, which was granted on December 13, 2022. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision vacating the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to submit additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court's decision. Salesforce, Inc. is into customer relationship management technology. It has pioneered innovations in cloud, mobile, social, analytics and artificial intelligence, enabling companies of every size and industry to transform their businesses in the all-digital, work-from-anywhere era. SMITTY'S: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 4:20-md-02936-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal Exhibit C to their Sur-Reply Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. 1. On July 22, 2020, this Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order permitting the parties to exchange information that each party has previously maintained in a confidential manner and which disclosure could potentially cause harm to the interests of the disclosing party or nonparties. 2. The majority of the exhibits attached to the Defendants' Sur- Reply Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will not be filed under seal. 3. Pursuant to the Court's CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual rules pertaining to proposed sealed documents, Defendants will send a copy of the foregoing exhibits by email to the Court pending a ruling on Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Smitty's manufactures and distributes lubricants and related products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46UTD7g at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nikki Cannezzaro, Esq. CANNEZZARO MARVEL 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 130 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 641-5600 Facsimile: (816) 641-5601 E-mail: nikki@cmlawkc.com - and – Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. Jeffrey A. Masson, Esq. Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq. Kristen E. Sanocki, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com jmasson@thompsoncoburn.com srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com ksanocki@thompsoncoburn.com - and – Robert J. Hoffman, Esq. Stephen G. Strauss, Esq. Timothy J. Hasken, Esq. Peter W. Bay, Esq. Randy J. Soriano, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 374-3200 Facsimile: (816) 374-3300 E-mail: RJHoffman@bclplaw.com SGStrauss@bclplaw.com tim.hasken@bclplaw.com peter.bay@bclplaw.com rjsoriano@bclplaw.com SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorrento Therapeutics, 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 as of January 23, 2023, plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit filed his reply brief with regard to an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641). On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the company, Dr. Henry Ji and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D. The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees. On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order consolidating said case and appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff and lead counsel. On April 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's scheduling order. Pursuant to that scheduling order, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 20, 2021 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on July 2, 2021. The defendants' reply was filed on August 4, 2021. On or about November 18, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On December 30, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, the defendants filed their opposition to the motion on February 7, 2022, and the Plaintiff filed its reply on February 28, 2022. On April 11, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. On June 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. On June 3, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and the case was closed. On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641). On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff/Appellant filed an opening brief and on December 2, 2022, the defendants/appellees' filed their answering brief. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical and commercial stage biopharmaceutical company developing a portfolio of treatments for cancer, infectious disease and pain. SOUTHERN CO: Court Concludes Municipal Franchise Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the municipal franchise fees class suit after the court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on February 16, 2023. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state law claims. This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the last several years. In 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule. In March 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton County granted class certification and Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In April 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the issue of class certification. In December 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's ruling that granted summary judgment to Georgia Power and dismissed Georgia Power's cross appeal on the issue of class certification as moot. Also in December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on January 27, 2023. On February 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was denied on February 16, 2023. This matter is now concluded. Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding company. SPLUNK INC: Plaintiff Files Bid for Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Splunk 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 24, 2023, that on February 7, 2023, lead plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is under submission and is awaiting a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Said class action lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws and was filed on December 4, 2020 against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer. The operative complaint, filed by lead plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding our marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 21, 2022, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss filed by defendants, which limited the putative class period to May 21, 2020 through December 2, 2020. On January 30, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, subject to court approval. The settlement resolves all claims asserted against the company and the other named defendants without any admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by defendants. Splunk Inc. provides solutions for security and observability that empower security operations, IT operations, and development operations teams to maintain resilient systems by monitoring and securing them more quickly and efficiently. STABLE ROAD: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------- Momentus 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 on February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company reached an agreement in principle to settle. A purported stockholder of its Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC) filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned "Depoy v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-06287. This was consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the company. The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court. Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. STABLE ROAD: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Momentus 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 on February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company reached an agreement in principle to settle. A purported stockholder of its Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC) filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned "Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05943. This was consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the company. The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court. Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. STABLE ROAD: To Settle Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------- Momentus 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 on February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities class action and the company reached an agreement in principle to settle said action. On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of its Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC) filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned "Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 2:21-cv-05744. The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding its 2021 merger, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the company consummated a merger by and among SRAC, Project Marvel First Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of SRAC and Project Marvel Second Merger Sub, LLC. In connection with the closing of the merger, the company changed its name from Stable Road Acquisition Corp. to Momentus Inc. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the securities class actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the company. The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and approval by the court. Momentus Inc. is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Andy Kravetz of Clproud.com reports that a Florida couple claims State Farm was negligent and violated their privacy by not preventing a data breach this summer that led to the theft of 400 million records that contained personal information. The suit, originally filed in McLean County Circuit Court in September but moved to U.S. District in Peoria two weeks ago, claims the Bloomington-based insurance giant "breached its duties to class members by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the Personal Information entrusted to it from unauthorized access and disclosure." A class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all people who had their information hacked, the 33-page suit seeks unspecific damages regarding claims of negligence, invasion of privacy and breaching the company's fiduciary duty among other things. The data included health information, addresses, phone numbers and financial information, the suit alleges. A call to the Scotts' Minneapolis-based attorneys was not returned. In an Oct. 18 filing where State Farm asked to move the case from state court to federal court, the company said it "denies the allegations in the complaint, which are factually and legally baseless." State Farm wanted to move the case, which isn't uncommon, for a variety of reasons including that it's a class action suit, that a possible payout could be in the tens of millions of dollars and that the case crosses state lines. The amount of people who were affected is staggering. State Farm wrote in a court filing that even "if some customers had multiple entries -- e.g., a customer had more than one insurance policy -- a conservative extrapolation from that data is 25,011,429 customers with records affected by the alleged data breach." [GN] STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Nguyen Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUY NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated, v. STEPHENS INSTITUTE D/B/A ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court finds that the only remaining damages Plaintiff can recover -- the course fees for individual classes -- are so varied as to fail the predominance requirement. The adjudication of the course fees would require separate and individualized analyses among each of the courses. Accordingly, the Court finds that class certification is unwarranted. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all students enrolled at the Academy of Art University during the Spring 2020 semester who (i) were registered for at least one on-site course, and (ii) paid tuition and/or fees, or on whose behalf tuition and fees were paid. The action arises from the Academy's determination to close the campus and cancel all in-person and oncampus educational services and to transition to exclusively online instruction in Spring 2020 in response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The Plaintiff contends that, despite being unable to provide students with the in-person and on-campus educational services that they had agreed to, the Academy retained the full amount of tuition and the majority of fees. The Plaintiff contends that he was denied access to the benefits and services he had bargained for and moves to certify a class of similar students who were forced to continue their education entirely online. Stephens Institute is a private for-profit art school in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47df4QJ at no extra charge.[CC] STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard, et al., Seek Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, DEAN J. SCHEMANSKI, THOM M. GRAY, JALONNE RICE, MANUEL ACEVEDO, AHMED ADAM, MARK S. DELMEDICO, ROGER TADJBAKHSH, ROSA VALERY, IBRAHIM ELSALAMONI, JOHN M. FINK, JODIE HOLMES, DONALD NG, BARBARA SELIG, EKOVI AMENOUNVE, NADEEM WAQAR, and IPUOLE OGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to certify four separate classes under New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The Plaintiffs in this case have asserted wage-and-hour claims on behalf of themselves and all other pharmaceutical delivery drivers who were classified as independent contractors by Strategic Delivery in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Discovery has confirmed the core allegations in this case. Specifically, SDS, as a matter of policy and practice, classifies all of its delivery drivers as nonemployee "independent contractors" and thus fails to pay overtime and makes deductions from their pay which violate applicable wage statutes. SDS also admittedly fails to pay drivers any overtime premium for hours worked over forty per week and does not perform any accounting to ensure that drivers are paid the statutory minimum wage in a given week. SDS's drivers are required to use their personal vehicles to perform their assigned deliveries for SDS, yet they are not reimbursed for the extraordinary expenses they incur driving hundreds or thousands of miles per week making deliveries for the company, driving their hourly pay below the statutory minimum in the applicable state. Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following separate classes under Rule 23: The Plaintiffs Bernard, Schemanski, and Rice seek certification of a class of: "all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of New Jersey at any time from six years preceding the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor agreement with SDS (the New Jersey Class). The Plaintiffs Acevedo and Adam seek certification of a class of: "all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of Connecticut at any time from two years preceding to the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor agreement with SDS (the Connecticut Class)." The Plaintiff Elsalamoni, Fink, Holmes, Ng, Selig, Amenounve, and Waqar seek certification of a class of: "all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of Pennsylvania at any time from three years preceding the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor agreement with SDS (the Pennsylvania Class)." The Plaintiff Ogar seeks certification of a class of: "all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of Maryland at any time from three years preceding the filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor agreement with SDS (the Maryland Class)." Strategic is a warehouse and transportation broker that services large institutional pharmacies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QkQwia at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP 300 Summers Street, Suite 1500 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 E-mail: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com STRIDE INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stride 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 16, 2023, that on November 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion affirming the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upholding the dismissal of consolidated case captioned "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:20-cv-01419. On December 11, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned "Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al," Case No. 1:20-cv-01528, was filed against the company and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020. On February 17, 2021, said court consolidated the Baig Case under the caption "In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation" and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 5, 2021, alleging violations by the company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted, without prejudice, on September 16, 2021. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, but appealed the District Court's dismissal decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021. Stride is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. SUMMIT MEDICAL: Bid for Partial Judgment in Wiley Suit OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David L. Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in the lawsuit captioned STELLA WILEY, PLAINTIFF v. ZEGARY ALLEN, M.D., et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00026-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.). The matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Zegary Allen, M.D. ("Dr. Allen"); Summit Medical Group, Inc. d/b/a St. Elizabeth Physicians ("SEP"); and Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc. ("SEMC" and, together with Dr. Allen and SEP, "Defendants"). Plaintiff Stella Wiley filed a Response and the Defendants filed a Reply. The lawsuit stems from Dr. Allen's performance of laser eye surgeries on his patients. SEP is a Kentucky corporation, which operates SEMC, a business with medical facilities in Kenton County, Kentucky, and Boone County, Kentucky. Dr. Allen, an Ohio resident and domiciliary, is an employee of SEP and performs eye surgeries at SEMC. The Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Allen has been performing unnecessary eye surgeries on patients from approximately March 2018 to the present. Relevant to the instant Motion is the selective laser trabeculoplasty Dr. Allen performed on Wiley, a Kentucky resident and domiciliary. Ms. Wiley first visited Dr. Allen on Sept. 10, 2021, during which visit her vision was allegedly good. On another visit, Dr. Allen allegedly told Wiley that she risked permanent blindness if she did not undergo laser surgery. On Jan. 7, 2022, Dr. Allen performed laser surgery on Wiley's right eye. On Feb. 15, 2022, Wiley returned to Dr. Allen for a four-week post operation checkup. The checkup revealed that the intraocular pressures ("IOPs") in both of Wiley's eyes had reduced since the surgery and were both below 21. According to Wiley, selective laser trabeculoplasty is a treatment for glaucoma. She submits that she never was diagnosed with glaucoma. On Feb. 17, 2023, Wiley initiated this action by filing her Complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. She brings various claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated plaintiffs, although she is the only named plaintiff. She asserts claims of negligence, lack of informed consent, fraud, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"), and negligence per se against all Defendants. She also asserts a battery claim against Dr. Allen and vicarious liability claims against SEP and SEMC. Additionally, she requests that the case be certified as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants have now moved for a partial judgment on the pleadings dismissing Wiley's claims except for the fraud, KCPA, and vicarious liability claims. Wiley responded, and the Defendants replied. The Defendants move for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Defendants make two arguments in their Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. First, they argue that Wiley's claims of negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Second, they argue that Wiley fails to adequately plead her claims of negligence per se. Although the first argument fails at this procedural posture, Judge Bunning holds that the second argument is meritorious. Having determined that the discovery rule applies to Wiley's claims of negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery, the Court cannot determine at this juncture whether the claims are time-barred. For these reasons, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings will be denied as to Wiley's claims of negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery. Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff asserting a negligence per se claim must prove the following elements: (1) that the underlying statute is criminal in nature without an inclusive civil remedy; (2) that the plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute is intended to protect; and (3) that the plaintiff's injury is the type of injury the statute was designed to prevent. In support of her negligence per se claims, Judge Bunning notes that Wiley merely recites the elements and states that the Defendants' actions constituted negligence per se as they are facial violations of existing laws and regulations. Judge Bunning points out that this is insufficient. Without knowing which statutes the Defendants allegedly violated, the Court cannot determine whether Wiley adequately pled any of the elements of negligence per se. Moreover, Judge Bunning finds Wiley appears to have waived any defense as to this claim. The Defendants expressly argued in the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings that Wiley failed to adequately plead negligence per se. She did not address the Defendants' argument or reference the claim at all in her Reply. The Court assumes that Wiley concedes this issue. For these reasons, Judge Bunning holds the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted as to Wiley's negligence per se claims. At the end of her Response, Wiley requests that if the Court were to find her Complaint was improperly pled or insufficient in some respect that it afford her an opportunity, after reviewing the Court's opinion, to amend and correct the error. Judge Bunning opines that Wiley has not formally moved to amend the Complaint, and in the absence of such a motion, the Court will not take up the issue. Thus, for the reasons set forth, Judge Bunning rules that the Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is granted as to the negligence per se claims in Plaintiff Stella Wiley's Complaint, and denied as to the negligence, lack of informed consent, and battery claims in her Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtbbz6mt from PacerMonitor.com. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Suit for $290M Over Wage Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Shepherd of SHRM reports that rideshare companies Uber and Lyft will pay a combined $328 million to settle wage theft claims in New York, state Attorney General Letitia James announced on Nov. 2. Uber will pay $290 million, and Lyft will pay $38 million into two separate settlement funds that will be distributed to current and former drivers. The settlements will institute a minimum earnings floor, paid sick leave, proper hiring and earnings notices, and other improvements in drivers' working conditions, James said. From 2014 to 2017, Uber deducted sales taxes and Black Car Fund fees from drivers' payments when those taxes and fees should have been paid by passengers, James said. The Black Car Fund is a nonprofit organization created by New York State to protect for-hire drivers and passengers. It provides safety and health programs and workers' compensation insurance to black car and limousine drivers. Uber misrepresented the deductions made to drivers' pay in their terms of service, telling drivers that Uber would only deduct its commission from the drivers' fares, and that drivers were entitled to charge the passenger for any tolls, taxes or fees incurred, although no method to do so was provided via the Uber Driver app, James said. Lyft employed a similar method to shortchange drivers from 2015 to 2017, deducting a 11.4 percent administrative charge from drivers' payments in New York equal to the amount of sales tax and Black Car Fund fees that should have been paid by passengers. Uber and Lyft also failed to provide drivers with paid sick leave guaranteed to workers under New York City and New York state law, James said. With the settlements, drivers will earn one hour of sick pay for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours per year, James said. "We are thrilled that our members won this historic victory to recover their stolen income," said Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a Long Island City, N.Y.-based union for drivers. "The agreement is a win for drivers across New York State who can now enjoy both the flexibility that is so important to them, while also having new benefits and protections like a minimum earnings standard and paid sick leave," Tony West, Uber's chief legal officer, said in a press release. "This helps put to rest the classification issue in New York and moves us forward with a model that reflects the way people are increasingly choosing to work." In a statement, Lyft said, "The agreement prioritizes the benefits drivers want without sacrificing the independence and flexibility they need." We've collected a group of articles on the news from SHRM Online and other trusted sources. Minimum Wage New York City was the first city in the country to establish a minimum wage for app-based drivers, who have been classified as independent contractors. The city also implemented a minimum wage for app-based food delivery services, such as Uber Eats. Uber and Lyft drivers in New York City receive a $17.96 per hour minimum wage under regulations established by the city's Taxi & Limousine Commission in 2019. Under the new settlements, Uber and Lyft drivers outside of New York City will receive a minimum of $26 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, James said. Drivers Continue to Be Classified as Independent Contractors More than 100,000 current and former drivers in the state are eligible to benefit from the settlements. The settlement ends James' probe into Uber's and Lyft's classification of drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, a practice both companies regularly defend in lawsuits, when dealing with legislators, and at the ballot box. Uber and Lyft, both based in San Francisco, denied wrongdoing. The settlements equal a little under 1 percent of Uber's and Lyft's annual revenue. In a separate settlement, Uber recently agreed with the New York State Department of Labor to begin making quarterly payments to a state insurance fund to ensure that unemployed drivers receive benefits. California Drivers Remain Independent Contractors Ride-hailing and delivery companies can continue to treat their California drivers as independent contractors, a state appeals court ruled on March 13. The court mostly upheld the state's Proposition 22, which said ride-hailing businesses could legally classify their drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. In general, independent contractors aren't entitled to the benefit plans and legal protections that employees receive. Settlement in California In 2022, Uber agreed to pay $8.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with California drivers who claimed they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The settlement applies to drivers who used the Uber Rides App in California between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2020, or who used the Uber Eats App in California between June 28, 2016, and Oct. 7, 2021, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration agreement. It does not reclassify drivers as employees. Uber, headquartered in San Francisco, has about 1 million U.S. drivers and about 29,000 employees worldwide. Action In Other States Drivers in New York City, Seattle and California all have minimum wage guarantees. Uber and Lyft successfully blocked minimum wage laws for gig workers in Minnesota, and driver advocates are pushing for reforms in Chicago, as well. Based on the New York settlements, Uber and Lyft will update their apps to allow drivers to request sick leave through the apps. [GN] UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh VPPA Suit ---------------------------------------------- Udemy Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Saleh video privacy protection act class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On December 12, 2022, a putative class action complaint captioned Mohamed Saleh v. Udemy, Inc., was filed against the Company, alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA") and claiming that Udemy violated the VPPA by knowingly sharing personally identifiable information about the viewing history of Udemy courses with an advertiser. The complaint is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:23-cv-02207. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory, liquidated, and punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs. On August 30, 2023, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration. It intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and development. UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Udemy Inc. 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 the Company continues to defend itself from the Williams class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 23, 2021, a putative class action complaint captioned Williams v. Udemy, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-06489, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of California's unfair competition and false advertising statutes as well as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with the Company's pricing practices. The complaint sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits. On December 13, 2022, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement for an immaterial amount. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to dismiss the pending case in federal court and refile in California state court, which filing was made on February 3, 2023. On July 28, 2023, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego granted final approval of the settlement in Case No.37-2023-00003666-CU-BT-NC. Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and development. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMass Memorial Health Care Inc. The case is styled as Lisa Colleton, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. UMass Memorial Health Care Inc., Case No. 2384CV02450 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Torts." UMass Memorial Health -- https://www.ummhealth.org/ -- is the largest health care system in Central Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. William Patrick Doyle, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COLONNA, DOYLE AND SIMEOLA 26 Main St 3rd Floor Lynnfield, MA 01940 The Defendant is represented by: James Hefferan Rollinson, Esq., BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114-1214 UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Suit Filed in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMass Memorial Health Care Inc. The case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UMass Memorial Health Care Inc., Case No. 2384CV02448 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Torts." UMass Memorial Health -- https://www.ummhealth.org/ -- is the largest health care system in Central Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara Aguiniga, Esq. Nathan B Campbell, Esq. Alex J Dravillas, Esq. Foster C Johnson, Esq. Erin E McHugh, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP 268 Summer St The Defendant is represented by: James Hefferan Rollinson, Esq., BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114-1214 UNITED HELPERS: Class Action Discovery in Groulx Due March 25, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denise Groulx, v. United Helpers Care, Inc. Case No. 8:23-cv-00561-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart entered an order that: -- Any motion to join any person as a Nov. 3, 2023 party to this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in Nov. 3, 2023 this action shall be made on or before: -- All discovery related to the Certification March 25, 2024 of Class Action in this matter is to be completed on or before: United Helpers provides health care services. The Company offers assisted living, home care, rehabilitation, and respite care. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cfMx3 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Muthoka's IFP Application Denied; Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit captioned ROZINA KIMANI MUTHOKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02436-UNA (D.D.C.). Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's pro se initiating pleading, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's IFP application and dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiff, who is currently designated the St. Louis County Jail, has presented submissions that are difficult to follow, Judge Cobb says. Her initiating pleading is captioned as a "Bill of Reversion Writ, Writ of Right," but a plaintiff must open a civil matter by filing a civil complaint. Judge Cobb opines that the pleading also fails to comply with the formal requirements of Federal Civil Rule 10(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(d), (e), (g). She sues approximately 11 Defendants, including the United States, the state of Missouri, federal courts, and other party defendants that cannot be discerned. She also fails to provide contact information for the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). Assuming that the Plaintiff intended her pleading to serve a complaint, and generously construing it as such, the contents fare no better, Judge Cobb says. The complaint consists of a mix of vague and unconnected allegations, non-sequiturs, and personal anecdotes, all covering a range of topics. The Plaintiff asks this Court to "enforce legislation," demanding $144 trillion in damages under a litany of different laws, but she fails to make out a cognizable claim under any of the authority cited, Judge Cobb adds. A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Cobb opines, citing Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014). The instant complaint falls within this category. As presented, neither the Court nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify any of the intended claims. Furthermore, Judge Cobb notes, it appears that the Plaintiff is attempting to proceed with this matter, at least in part, on behalf of an estate and/or trust, and she indicates that she brings this matter as a class action. As an artificial entity, a trust cannot proceed in federal court without licensed counsel. Also, a pro se litigant cannot bring a class action, Judge Cobb points out. To that same end, the Plaintiff has filed an IFP application, at least in part, on behalf of a trust, but an artificial entity cannot proceed under the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1), Judge Cobb explains. More, even if the Plaintiff intended to bring the IFP application only on her own behalf, it is devoid of any of the information or material necessary to assess her financial circumstances, and fails to include her prison ledger sheets. For these reasons, the IFP application must be denied. For these reasons, Judge Cobb holds that this case is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2suhxd2a from PacerMonitor.com. UPS STORE: Court Denies Bid to Invalidate Class Suit Waiver ----------------------------------------------------------- Craig Miller and Rachel O'Connor of JD Supra report that a federal court in New Jersey recently declined to issue an order invalidating the class action waiver and arbitration provision used by franchisor The UPS Store, Inc. and certain TUPSS franchisees' (collectively, TUPSS) and it would not bar TUPSS from soliciting such waivers from their customers going forward. Tripicchio v. UPS Store, Inc., 2023 WL 6307528 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2023). The customers filed suit against TUPSS, purporting to represent a class of customers who were charged more than $2.50 for notary services in violation of New Jersey law. The customers' motion relates to a class action waiver that TUPSS's New Jersey franchisees secure from each customer as a condition of receiving notary services. The customers sought two types of relief. First, the customers requested that the court invalidate any executed waivers that TUPSS or any New Jersey franchisee had received from any customer to date. The court denied this request and declined to address whether the waiver was enforceable because the court found it had no authority to declare the class action waiver invalid before any party attempts to enforce the waiver. Second, the customers requested that the court mandate that TUPSS modify the waivers to provide customers with detailed disclosures about the instant litigation, permit customers to opt out of the waiver before receiving notary services, and create a court-approved website, at TUPSS's expense, with information about the instant litigation. The customers argued that the waiver was misleading because it does not give notice of the instant litigation. The court denied this request as well, holding that the customers had not established (1) specific harm that would flow from permitting TUPSS to employ their current waiver and (2) justification for ordering the requested injunctive relief. The court did, however, acknowledge that once the customers move for class certification, the court may invalidate a future attempt to use any waiver secured after September 2021 to preclude customers who received notary services before September 2021 from joining the class. [GN] VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bids in Levine Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL LEVINE, Plaintiff v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendant's Motion"); and (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion"). The Motions are before the Court on the parties' consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this action and to order the entry of a final judgment. The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the disposition of the Motions. The Defendant is a Colorado corporation that owns and operates more than 150 grocery stores in 20 states. It employs more than 3,000 people across the United States, including dozens of Assistant Store Managers ("ASMs") at its retail stores. The Plaintiff was one such ASM, working in the position between March 2018 and April 2019 at one of the Defendant's stores located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. As an ASM, the Plaintiff earned an annual salary of $47,500. The Defendant's job description describes the role of an ASM as the second person in charge of the store and responsible for the successful operation and profitability of the store. The Plaintiff's resume description for his time as an ASM listed the following tasks: assisting in the overall successful operation and profitability of his store; interviewing and hiring; and training staff on how to give exemplary customer service. He testified that these items represented "a very small part" of what he did as an ASM but consisted of some of the "higher priority tasks" that he was involved with as an ASM. During his approximately 13-month employment as an ASM, the Plaintiff had some degree of involvement in various responsibilities related to running the store. The parties focus on the following general categories: interviewing and hiring, scheduling and adjusting/approving payroll, directing the work of other employees, training and on-boarding other employees, monitoring and evaluating other employees' work performance, managing store finances and inventory, handling employee and customer complaints, disciplining and terminating employees, and general management and supervision. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on Jan. 31, 2020, and, in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), consented to join this action on the same date. The operative Complaint alleges that Natural Grocers violated the FLSA and the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA") by improperly classifying the Plaintiff and other ASMs as exempt employees and denying them overtime. The Complaint also asserts a claim under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (the "CMWA"). The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's CMWA claim on Sept. 19, 2022, holding that he failed to plausibly allege a violation of the CMWA for which relief is available. On Nov. 6, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, and conditionally certified the following collective for the purposes of his FLSA claims: All current and former "Assistant Store Managers" who worked for Natural Grocers in the United States at any time on or after Jan. 31, 2017, to the present, and who were classified as exempt from overtime compensation. On Dec. 7, 2022, after the close of discovery, the Defendant filed a Motion to Decertify, arguing that discovery established that the members of the collective and the named Plaintiff are not similarly situated. On Feb. 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify, seeking to certify a class of ASMs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the purposes of his CWCA claims. On May 25, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify, concluding that the ASMs, who had opted into the collective action, were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of the FLSA claims and that the requirements of Rule 23 were not met for the purposes of certifying a class action on the Plaintiff's CWCA claims. Accordingly, the claims of all ASMs, who had opted into the collective action, were dismissed. On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff has responded and the Defendant has replied. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant has responded and he has replied. In its Motion, the Defendant argues that the undisputed facts establish that: (1) the Plaintiff was correctly classified as exempt under both state and federal law; (2) the Defendant did not willfully violate the FLSA; and (3) the Defendant acted in good faith and reasonably believed that its conduct was lawful. In his Motion, the Plaintiff argues that the undisputed facts establish that the Defendant willfully misclassified him during the time that he spent in the training program in Golden, Colorado. Having considered the factors relevant to a "primary duty" analysis and the Plaintiff's job as a whole, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the Plaintiff's primary duty as an ASM was the management of the store. Accordingly, Judge Varholak says the Defendant has not met its burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment on the executive exemption, and the Defendant's Motion is denied to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on this ground. The same fact issues that precluded summary judgment under the FLSA exemptions similarly preclude summary judgment on the Plaintiff's CWCA law claim, Judge Varholak opines. Accordingly, the Defendant has not met its burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment on the Plaintiff's CWCA claim, and the Defendant's Motion is denied to the extent that it seeks a summary judgment on this ground. Judge Varholak also denies the Defendant's Motion to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on the issue of whether the Defendant acted willfully, and to the extent that it seeks a determination that the Defendant acted reasonably and in good faith in classifying the Plaintiff as exempt. Turning to Plaintiff's Motion, the Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on both his FLSA and CWCA claims, asserting that the undisputed facts establish that he was entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 in a workweek during the several-week training program that he attended in Golden, Colorado. Thus, Judge Varholak says the Plaintiff may be entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA for hours worked during the Defendant's training program--even if the position that he was training for qualified as exempt. However, turning to the Defendant's factual argument, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the undisputed facts do not compel this conclusion. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's primary duties during training and the amount of overtime he worked during this period (if any) are questions to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, Judge Varholak denies the Plaintiff's Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3thycvym from PacerMonitor.com. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bids to Dismiss Tijerina Suit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit titled BEATRIZ TIJERINA, et al., Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-18755-BRM-LDW (D.N.J.). Before the Court are motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VW America"); Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC ("VW Chattanooga"); and Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft ("VWAG") (collectively "Defendants"). The Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions. VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG filed their respective replies. The Court reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the Motions and declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). Plaintiffs Beatriz Tijerina, David Concepcion, Gina Aprile, Theresa Gillespie, Talina Henderson, Diana Ferrara, Lauren Daly, Shane McDonald, Kasem Curovic, Christa Callahan, Erica Upshur, Johnnie Moutra, Jennifer Tolbert, Derek Lowe, Phillip Hooks, and Delia Masone (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs Tijerina and Concepcion reside in California. Plaintiffs Aprile, Gillespie, and Masone reside in Florida. Plaintiff Henderson resides in Kentucky. Plaintiffs Ferrara and Daly reside in Massachusetts. Plaintiff McDonald resides in Michigan. Plaintiff Curovic resides in New York. Plaintiff Callahan resides in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Lowe resides in New Jersey. Plaintiff Upshur resides in Pennsylvania but purchased her vehicle in New Jersey. Plaintiff Tolbert resides in Virginia. Plaintiff Moutra resides in Texas. Plaintiff Hooks resides in Florida but purchased his vehicle in Missouri. The action arises out of an alleged design defect in certain 2018 through 2021 model Volkswagen Atlas vehicles purchased or leased after Jan. 1, 2017 ("Class Vehicles"). The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG. VWAG, a German corporation with its principal place of business in Germany, is the parent corporation of VW America. VW America is a New Jersey corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Virginia and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. VW Chattanooga is a Volkswagen plant located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which manufactured the Class Vehicles. VW Chattanooga is a wholly owned subsidiary of VW America. The Plaintiffs allege the Class Vehicles' second-row seating is designed defectively because the seats are improperly latched to their base ("Seat Defect"). Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim the only warning the second-row seats are unlatched is a "slight appearance of a small red button," which "can easily be obstructed from the driver's view by a high-back booster seat." The Seat Defect causes the Class Vehicles' second-row seats to lurch forward and slam passengers into the front seats when the Class Vehicles decelerate or are involved in an accident or collision. The Defendants marketed the Class Vehicles to families with infants and young children, who are typically seated in the second row. The Plaintiffs allege Defendants knew of and concealed the Seat Defect. The 2018 and 2019 model years of the Class Vehicles are purportedly covered by a warranty, which furnishes bumper-to-bumper coverage for six years or 72,000 miles, whichever comes first, and is fully transferrable with no loss in coverage, and the 2020 and 2021 model years are alleged to be covered by a warranty, which covers four years, or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first, on a bumper-to-bumper basis. The Defendants excluded coverage for the Seat Defect from these warranties because the Seat Defect is one of design, and the warranties apply to defects in "materials and/or workmanship." On Feb. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint bringing the following claims on behalf of a nationwide class: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Nationwide Count I); (2) fraud by concealment or omission (Nationwide Count II); (3) negligent misrepresentation (Nationwide Count III); (4) unjust enrichment (Nationwide Count IV); (5) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Nationwide Count V) (also brought on behalf of a New Jersey state sub-class); (6) breach of express warranty (Nationwide Count VI); and (7) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Nationwide Count VII). The Plaintiffs also raise claims based on violations of various state laws on behalf of state sub-classes for California (California Counts I–VI), Florida (Florida Counts I–III), Kentucky (Kentucky Counts I–III), Massachusetts (Massachusetts Counts I–III), Michigan (Michigan Counts I–III), Missouri (Missouri Counts I–III), New York (New York Counts I–III), Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Counts I–III), Texas (Texas Counts I–III), and Virginia (Virginia Counts I–III). On April 15, 2022, VW America filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 13, 2022, VW Chattanooga filed its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to both motions. On July 15, 2022, VW America and VW Chattanooga filed their replies, respectively. On July 22, 2022, VWAG filed its motion to dismiss. On Sept. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to VWAG's motion, and on Nov. 4, 2022, VWAG replied to the opposition. VW America, VW Chattanooga, and VWAG all seek to dismiss various claims asserted in the Amended Complaint on several grounds. VW Chattanooga argues dismissal is warranted because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. VW America argues the nationwide class claims, certain state-specific claims, and all claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed for lack of standing. VW America also contends the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims, MMWA claims, statutory and common law fraud claims, negligent misrepresentation claims, and unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. VWAG argues all breach of express warranty claims should be dismissed because it did not issue them, that, certain implied warranty and statutory fraud claims should be dismissed for lack of privity, and certain false advertising claims should be dismissed for failing to allege that VWAG advertised the vehicles. VW America argues, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' nationwide class claims should be dismissed because they lack standing on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs in states in which they themselves have suffered no alleged injury. Judge Martinotti notes that the Plaintiffs allege all Class Vehicles contain the second-row seat defect resulting in overpayment for the vehicles at the time of sale or lease and diminished value of the subject vehicles. Therefore, the Amended Complaint has sufficiently asserted Plaintiffs Concepcion, Ferrara, McDonald, Upshur, and Moutra have a cognizable injury-in-fact traceable to the Seat Defect to confer Article III standing. Accordingly, Judge Martinotti holds that the Defendants' motions to dismiss the nationwide claims for lack of standing are granted to the extent they are premised on state-law claims brought on behalf of putative class members outside of the eleven states represented by named Plaintiffs. The Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Concepcion, Ferrara, McDonald, Upshur, and Moutra for lack of standing are denied. VW Chattanooga challenges the Plaintiffs' basis for personal jurisdiction, arguing that they fail to allege VW Chattanooga conducted any purposeful activity in or directed at New Jersey, much less any purposeful activity that relates to their claims. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue VW Chattanooga purposefully targeted New Jersey by manufacturing and selling the Class Vehicles to its parent company, VW America, which markets, tests, and distributes the Class Vehicles from locations in New Jersey. Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiffs have not established VW Chattanooga purposefully directed its activities at New Jersey and, therefore, have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over VW Chattanooga. The Plaintiffs fail to present factual allegations to suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between VW Chattanooga and the forum state. Accordingly, Judge Martinotti grants VW Chattanooga's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. VW America challenges the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims, MMWA claims, statutory and common law fraud claims, negligent misrepresentation claims, and unjust enrichment claims for failure to state a claim. Defendant VWAG adopts VW America's arguments in their own motion to dismiss the same claims. This litigation involves 16 named Plaintiffs asserting claims under the laws of 11 different states--California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. The Court finds the Plaintiffs' allegations of unconscionability insufficient to expand the scope or alter the terms of the Engine Warranty. Accordingly, VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims are granted. Judge Martinotti says the allegations in the Amended Complaint, if taken as true, support that a defect exists notwithstanding it has yet to manifest in some Class Vehicles. Accordingly, VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claims under Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey law are denied. Judge Martinotti also rules that VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claim under Massachusetts law are denied. VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claims (i) under Florida, New York, and Kentucky law for lack of privity are denied, and (ii) under New Jersey, Florida, and Missouri law for lack of pre-suit notice are denied. VW America argues the MMWA claims should be dismissed because there are only 16 named Plaintiffs and the MMWA requires at least 100 named plaintiffs if the matter is brought as a class action. Here, Judge Martinotti says, there are only eighteen named plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' MMWA claim does not meet the one-hundred named plaintiff jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims are granted. Judge Martinotti also holds, among other things, that VW America and VWAG's motions to dismiss the common-law fraudulent concealment claim under New Jersey and Massachusetts law are granted, and their motions to dismiss the common law fraud-based claims under Kentucky, New York, Missouri, and Virginia law are denied. The Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint to the extent any of their claims are dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Martinotti grants the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Judge Martinotti rules that VW Chattanooga's motion to dismiss is for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted; VW America's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; and VWAG's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/zwnpmhpc from PacerMonitor.com. WELLS FARGO: $3.75-Mil. Class Settlement in Chang Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards for lead plaintiffs, and for final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled ANNIE CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01973-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging Defendant Wells Fargo aided and abetted an alleged Ponzi scheme (the "Equitybuild Scheme" or the "Scheme") conceived by non-parties Jerome and Shaun Cohen and their entities Equitybuild, Inc., and Equitybuild Finance, LLC, f/k/a Hard Money Company, LLC (collectively, "Equitybuild"). Equitybuild solicited investors by promising them returns flowing from real estate purchases, renovations, and developments in Chicago. The Plaintiffs allege that the Equitybuild Scheme was a "sham," as the Cohens raised money from investors through misrepresentations and omissions, siphoned much of it, improperly commingled it, used it for Ponzi payments to other investors, and skimmed between 15% and 30% off each investment by taking undisclosed fees. In August 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Equitybuild and the Cohens, charging them with fraud under U.S. securities laws and misuse and misappropriation of investor money. That court appointed a Receiver (the "Equitybuild Receiver") who, among other things, identified and issued notices to 835 persons or entities "who might have a claim against the Equitybuild Scheme." The Receiver received claims from all 835 claimants. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 12, 2019, alleging that Wells Fargo, as the only bank Equitybuild used, "aided and abetted the Equitybuild Scheme." The Complaint asserted claims for 1) aiding and abetting fraud; 2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and 3) negligence. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the Complaint, which the Court denied as to the first two claims, and granted, with leave to amend, as to the third. Following substantial discovery concerning the Plaintiffs' remaining claims, one unsuccessful mediation before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford (Ret.) in February 2021, and renewed settlement discussions, the parties ultimately executed an agreement to settle this case on June 16, 2022. The Court granted Preliminary Settlement Approval in December 2022. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service awards on April 4, 2023, and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement on June 8, 2023. Both were unopposed. The parties appeared before the Court for a fairness hearing on the motions in July, and filed requested supplemental briefing shortly thereafter. Among other things, the supplemental briefing provided preliminary monetary estimates for individual class member recovery, and confirmed that this settlement would be additive to, not duplicative of, the Receiver's work in the SEC action. The parties' Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement" or "SA") defines the Class as consisting of "all persons and entities who invested in the Equitybuild Scheme and were damaged thereby." The Settlement Agreement directed that each member of the class be sent a notice of the Settlement and a Claim Form. Per the Agreement, the Notice directed Class Members to a settlement website containing copies of relevant motions and orders. The Settlement Fund consists of a payment from Wells Fargo of $3,750,000 into an escrow account. The gross settlement fund includes payments to Settlement Class Members, payments for costs and expenses related to Class Notice, as well as the implementation and administration of the Settlement, payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for Class Counsel, and payment of the Service Award for the Class Representatives, as approved by the Court Settlement Agreement. Class members are entitled to relief relative to the dollar amount they claim (and if necessary, substantiate) as a loss on their claim forms. With the notice and claims process now completed, the Plaintiffs have greater visibility into the likely monetary distribution than they did at the preliminary approval stage. With 588 claimants, class counsel calculate that on a net basis (assuming this Court approves the proposed costs, fees, and service awards), the average claimant will receive a monetary recovery of $4,351.64, with a low of $11.89 based on a claimed loss of $503.31, to a high of $82,710.87 based on a claimed loss of $3,500,000. If there is a balance remaining after distribution, it will not revert to the Defendant; instead, once it is no longer feasible to make additional distributions, any remaining balance will be donated to the Victim Connect Resource Center, a non-profit that assists victims of investment fraud, including specifically Ponzi schemes. The Court finds that (i) class members received adequate notice, and that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; (ii) the parties have sufficiently provided the best practicable notice to class members; (iii) the recovery is significant, especially when weighed against the litigation risks in this case; and (iv) the Plaintiffs' counsel had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the merits of the case. Since no potential class members have raised concerns or opted out, the Court finds that the positive reaction of the settlement class supports approval of the settlement. In its unopposed motion and consistent with the Settlement Agreement, class counsel asks the Court to approve an award of $937,500 in attorneys' fees and $128,723.32 in costs. Counsel also seeks a $10,000 service award for each of the named Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the billing rates used by class counsel to calculate the lodestar are in line with (and in some cases, significantly discounted from) prevailing rates in this district for personnel of comparable experience, skill, and reputation. The Court is also persuaded that the claimed costs are reasonable, were necessary for prosecution of the action, and should be reimbursed. In recognition of the favorable settlement, the substantial risks of litigation, and the financial burden assumed, the Court, accordingly, grants the request for attorneys' fees and costs, and awards to class counsel $937,500 in attorneys' fees and $128,723.32 in costs, for a total of $1,066,223.32. The Court also finds that in this case, where class representatives each invested between 160-180 hours and where the service award is only around 2.3 times greater than the average class member's recovery, a $10,000 service award for each of the named plaintiffs is justified. The Court grants the requested service of award of $10,000 for lead plaintiffs Annie Chang, Ann Liu, Oliver Chang, Melanie Gonzales, and Gary Gonzales. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for final approval of class action settlement, and grants the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award. The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $937,500 and litigation expenses in the amount of $128,723.32. The Court further awards $10,000 as an incentive award to each of the five named Plaintiffs. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date of this order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis in this order. Within 21 days after the settlement checks become stale (or, if no checks are issued, all funds have been paid to class members, cy pres beneficiaries, and others pursuant to the settlement agreement), the parties must file a Post-Distribution Accounting. Counsel are directed to summarize this information in an easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases. The parties will post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website. The Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties' Post-Distribution Accounting. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 19, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mve28hyn from PacerMonitor.com. WILLIAM BURNS: Brewer Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Burns, et al. The case is styled as Dennis Sheldon Brewer, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. William Burns, Director of Central Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09605-UA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. William Joseph Burns is an American diplomat who has served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Biden administration since March 19, 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ZALKIN LAW FIRM: Deats Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ariana Deats, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C., Case No. 37-02023-00041615-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 30, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02005-L-SBC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Electronic Comm. Privacy Act. The Zalkin Law Firm -- https://www.zalkin.com/ -- is one of the nation's most trusted & respected civil sexual abuse firms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colin Glenn Furlow, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Eli Strauss, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 312-4118 Email: bstrauss@manatt.com - and - Brandon P. Reilly, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 312-4330 Fax: (310) 996-6993 Email: breilly@manatt.com ZUFFA LLC: Court Rejects Revocation Antitrust Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Ultimate Fighting Championship has lost its U.S. appeals court bid to revoke class action status from hundreds of martial arts fighters who are suing for billions of dollars in wages, setting the stage for an April trial. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 1, 2023 spurned the UFC's pretrial challenge to a ruling that said more than 1,200 fighters could sue as a group seeking upwards of $1.6 billion in damages in the Las Vegas case. U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware's August ruling approved a class of fighters who competed in live professional UFC-promoted bouts in the U.S. between December 2010 and June 2017. Boulware ruled after November 1, 2023's appeals court decision that the April trial date was set and would not be moved. The lawsuit claims that Nevada-based Zuffa, which does business as the UFC, has abused its power to suppress wages in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Attorneys for UFC at law firms Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Latham & Watkins had asked the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit to block Boulware's order. UFC has denied any wrongdoing. The appeals court panel denied UFC's appeal outright without hearing arguments, saying certain legal factors were not met. Representatives from UFC and Zuffa's parent, sports and entertainment company Endeavor Group Holdings (EDR.N), did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Plaintiffs' attorney Eric Cramer, chairman of Berger Montague, said the class welcomed the 9th Circuit's ruling and was looking forward to the scheduled April 8 trial. In its appeal, UFC's lawyers attacked what they called Boulware's "unprecedented" decision to certify the class. They said the order was erroneously based on claims that fighter compensation did not rise as fast as UFC's revenue. The plaintiffs' attorneys defended Boulware's order and denied UFC's claim that it would lead to a "torrent of similar lawsuits." They told the 9th Circuit that the ruling "applies only to professional athletes, not ordinary workers." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a friend-of-the-court brief had asked the 9th Circuit to reverse the class certification order. The case is Le v. Zuffa LLC, U.S. District Court for the District Of Nevada, No. 2:15-cv-01045. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***