/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 241 Headlines AES GROUP: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing ALDER HOLDINGS: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered ALLIED WASTE: Bid to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline Partly OK'd AMERICAN HONDA: Bid for Class Certification Due August 2, 2024 ATLASSIAN CORP: Capistrano Suit Stayed Pending Existing Case Result ATLASSIAN CORP: Faces Firemen's Fund Securities Suit in CA Court BANK OF NEW YORK: Fraud Case Dismissal Ruling Reversed BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Union Class Suit BIOVENTUS INC: Bid to Dismiss Ciarciello Suit Granted in Part BITPAY INC: Wilhelm Biometrics Suit Removed to W.D. Ill. BLOOM INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Fuller Bid to Remand BRIGHT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Marquez Securities Class Suit CANISIUS COLLEGE: McCudden Appeals Ruling in COVID Tuition Suit CAROTHERS HOLDING: Court Sets Hearing on Bid to Certify Class CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Credit Transaction CONAGRA BRANDS: Vanbuskirk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Dec. 8 COTTAGE HEALTH: K. S. Files Suit in C.D. California CS DISCO: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in New York D.R.E.A.M. CLOTHING: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOORDASH INC: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Adjourned to Feb. 21, 2024 ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Udovich Sues Over Improper Monopoly Power ET-A-LL LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVERBRIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Sylebra Class Suit EXP WORLD: Faces Batton Class Suit in Illinois FLEXPORT INC: Thorson Sues Over Failure to Provide Written Notice FLO HEALTH: Bid for Class Certification in Frasco Due Feb. 22, 2024 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Burkhart Class Suit in Delaware GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Savings Plan Class Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TVPX Class Suit GERBER PRODUCTS: Smith Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Snack Products GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Ching Seeks Unpaid Renewal Commissions GPB CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Material Misstatements Class Suit GREEN DOT CORP: Faces Lyons Class Suit in M.D. Alabama GREEN DOT: Faces Hester Class Suit in Texas GREEN DOT: Faces Koffsmon Class Suit in California GULF COAST POWER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Espinosa Claims HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider in Anderberg Suit HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Toussaint Class Suit in N.C. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit HAZA FOODS LLC: Townsend Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Sanchez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania HENKEL CORPORATION: Ochoa-Cornman Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri HERC RENTALS: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement in Finch Pending IANTHUS CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Blue Sky Class Suit in Ontario IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Salzman Securities Class Suit INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wedeking Suit Transferred to D. Mass. J CREW GROUP: Court Stays Babaeva Class Suit Pending Arbitration JBROOKS OF FARMINGTON: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chamberlain Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania JORDAN & SKALA: Faces Ruf Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KGC INC: Fails to Comply Tip Regulations, Gabriel & Yeasem Say KROGER CO: Suit Filed in S.D. Ohio LENSAR INC: Continues to Defend Schaper Class Suit in Delaware LOUISIANA: Court Enters Permanent Injunctive Relief in Lewis Suit LUCKY ELEPHANT: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LUXURBAN HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hepburn Suit Alleges MASTEC INC: Liptock Files Suit in D. South Carolina MDL 2666: Three Suits Transferred to D. Minn. MDL 2873: Grosch's Conditional Transfer Order Vacated MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Maryland v. 3M Suit to D.S.C. MDL 2924: Love v. GSK Consolidated in Zantac Liability Row MDL 2924: Panel Denies Gallagher's Bid to Remand Case to S.D.N.Y. MDL 3017: Bayer v. Auson Consolidated in Xarelto Patent Litigation MDL 3074: Irvin Suit Consolidated in Cabela's Wiretapping Row MDL 3083: 10 Suits Consolidated in MoveIt Data Breach Litigation MDL 3085: 22 Suits Consolidated in Uber Sexual Assault Row MDL 3085: Panel Denies Centralization of Moody's Suits to M.D. Pa. ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Expert Reports Filing Extended to Dec. 19 MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in NY MERRILL GARDENS: Escobedo Suit Removed to N.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Burr Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California MIDLAND FINANCIAL: Strucke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MODIVCARE INC: To Settle Misclassification Suit in Missouri Court MPOWER ENERGY: Silva Sues Over Deceptive Retail Energy Pricing NATIONAL ACCOUNT: MacGillivray Files Suit in D. South Carolina NCAA: Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Report by August 2, 2024 NCAA: Smart et al., Must Submit Expert Report by August 2, 2024 NEW ENGLAND HEALTH: Beckwith Sues Over Telemarketing Calls NEW YORK HEALTH: Court OK's Withdrawing Bid to Certify Class NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Simpson Suit OK'd in Part NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Stockley Suit NORTHWELL HEALTH: Heitzner Sues Over Inadequate Data Security NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Avila Suit Removed to C.D. California OAK GROVE: Wisconsin Court Refuses to Dismiss Kluender FLSA Suit OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in PA ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Somogyi Suit Pending OS RESTAURANT: Guerra Suit Removed to N.D. California OUTCOMES INC: Cifuentes Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas OWENS-BROCKWAY: Hillis Suit Removed to E.D. California P.L. ROHRER & BRO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PACESETTER: Bid to Dismiss Duran Suit Denied w/o Prejudice PANINI AMERICA: Huerta Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination at Work PARKMOBILE LLC: Class Cert Bid Briefing Deadlines Entered in Baker PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Ventrillo Sues Over Exchange Act Violation PHILO INC: N.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss May Class Suit POLARIS INC: Lindstrom Files Suit in D. Alaska POST UNIVERSITY: Bid for More Time to File Class Certification OK'd POSTMEDS INC: Williams Sues to Remedy Harms Over Data Breach PROG LEASING: Williams Files Suit in D. Utah PROVIDENCE ST: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington QUASI CORPORATION: Sinkfield Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania RADIUS GLOBAL: Hudgins' Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery Denied RICHARD MONTGOMERY: Thomas Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ROCK GATE: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit SET ENTERPRISES: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks STAKE CENTER: Kinsey Sues Over Company's Unfair Labor Practices STAR RENOVATIONS: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation STATE FARM: $65K Awarded to Class Representatives in Arnold Suit STEEL PARTNERS: Reith Class Suit Trial Set for September 2024 STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Vendor Data Breach TEACHERS INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TEACHERS INSURANCE: Marshall Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TEACHERS INSURANCE: Newman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TEACHERS INSURANCE: Smuda Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TELEPHONE & DATA SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Hendrix Suit Removed to C.D. California TRADITIONS HEALTH: Arnett Suit Removed to C.D. California TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TWIN CITIES COMICS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIQUE FABRICATING: Eaton Files Suit in D. Delaware UNITED STATES: Faces Tang Suit Over Unlawful Biometric Fee Charges UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit W6LS INC: Lizama Files RICO Suit in E.D. California WALT DISNEY: Fails to Apply Anti-Slip Products in Pools, Suit Says WASHINGTON FINE WINE: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 3,388 Active PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has $50.6MM A&E Net Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reports $427MM Asbestos Litigation Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 317 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 55 Pending Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $741MM Net A&E Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Has $0.3MM Loss Contingency Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 700 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Defends 132 New Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,924 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 548 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Estimates $15MM to $25MM A&E Losses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 101 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Numerous Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has $20MM Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 231 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Faces 7,500 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ********* AES GROUP: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARYN MOYNIHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AES GROUP USA, LLC d/b/a KEY AUTISM SERVICES, KEY AUTISM SERVICES OPR, LLC d/b/a KEY AUTISM SERVICES, TRINITY KEY HOLDINGS, LLC, DON FOSTER, AVINOAM SCHECTER, and YOSSI ZAKLIKOWSKI, Case No. 1:22-cv-11889-WGY (D. Mass.), the Parties' asks the Court to enter an order granting a short extension of the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23, from November 15, 2023 to December 6, 2023. The Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with the Court on July 5, 2023. The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s initial written discovery requests was November 3, 2023. The Defendants have not yet responded to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests due to the scope of the requests, as well as the recent change of firm by Defendants’ counsel. The Defendants have indicated to Plaintiff that they will be able to respond to the initial discovery requests by November 24, 2023. The parties propose that the Court set a hearing on Plaintiff's Rule 23 motion for the first week of January 2024. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GbxWEs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Smit, Esq. Brook Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: rachel@fairworklaw.com brook@fairworklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Herlihy, Esq. Jonathan Hatfield, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 75 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 367-0025 Facsimile: (617) 367-2155 E-mail: Sarah.Herily@JacksonLewis.com Jonathan.Hatfield@JacksonLewis.com ALDER HOLDINGS: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH NIPPER, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01239-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christopher D. Baker entered a class certification scheduling order: -- Discovery Deadlines Fact Discovery Cut-off: Aug. 2, 2024 Mid-Discovery Status Conference: June 7, 2024 Expert Disclosures: Aug. 16, 2024 Rebuttal Disclosures: Aug. 30, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-off: Sept. 30, 2024 -- Motion Deadlines: Filing: Oct. 15, 2024 Opposition: Nov. 25, 2024 Reply: Dec. 9, 2024 Hearing: Jan. 3, 2025 Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security, home automation, and life safety services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49KCQWu at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED WASTE: Bid to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QIHAI CHEN and DUALTONE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order: (1) Granting in part joint motion to extend expert discovery deadlines and pretrial motion filing deadline, and (2) Issuing first amended scheduling order. The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to complete discovery. Upon due consideration, and upon a review of the docket, the Court finds good cause to grant in part the joint motion. Allied Waste offers collection and disposal of refuse systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47nbbcp at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Bid for Class Certification Due August 2, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue litigation deadlines as follows: Close of fact discovery May 20, 2024 Motion for class certification, August 2, 2024 expert reports Opposition to motion for class Nov. 8, 2024 certification, expert reports Close of expert discovery Dec. 31, 2024 Reply re: motion for class Feb. 6, 2025 certification and rebuttal expert reports Hearing on class certification motion March 7, 2025 Final pre-trial conference TBD American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40WN8Ph at no extra charge.[CC] ATLASSIAN CORP: Capistrano Suit Stayed Pending Existing Case Result ------------------------------------------------------------------- Atlassian Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on October 31, 2023, the court stayed a stockholder derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 6, 2023 against the members of the company's board of directors and certain of its officers pending resolution of an existing class action. Case is captioned "Capistrano v. Cannon-Brookes," Case No. 4:23-cv-04584 where the company is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between August 5, 2022 and November 3, 2022 and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the company's business and prospects during the class period and alleged insider trading. The lawsuit purport to assert claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief purportedly on the company's behalf. Atlassian Corporation, a Delaware corporation, designs, develops, licenses, and maintains software and provisions software hosting services to help teams organize, discuss, and complete their work. The company's primary products include "Jira Software" and "Jira Work Management" for planning and project management, "Confluence" for content creation and sharing, and "Jira Service Management" for team service, management and support applications. ATLASSIAN CORP: Faces Firemen's Fund Securities Suit in CA Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Atlassian Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on February 3, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corporation," Case No. 3:23-cv-00519, naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between August 5, 2022 and November 3, 2022 and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the company's business and prospects during the class period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2023, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 23, 2023. The defendants' reply is currently due November 22, 2023, and a hearing is currently scheduled for January 10, 2024. Atlassian Corporation, a Delaware corporation, designs, develops, licenses, and maintains software and provisions software hosting services to help teams organize, discuss, and complete their work. The company's primary products include "Jira Software" and "Jira Work Management" for planning and project management, "Confluence" for content creation and sharing, and "Jira Service Management" for team service, management and support applications. BANK OF NEW YORK: Fraud Case Dismissal Ruling Reversed ------------------------------------------------------ The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on Dec. 15, 2022, an appeals court reversed the dismissal and returned a putative class action against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court to the trial court for further proceedings. In March 2019, a group of investors filed said action alleging fraud and asserting contractual, statutory and common law claims in connection with the sale of CDs. On Nov. 12, 2021, the court dismissed the class action against The Bank of New York Mellon where an appeal was filed. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation owns the "BNY Mellon" brand, America's oldest bank and the first company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It powers capital markets around the world through comprehensive solutions that help clients manage and service their financial assets throughout the investment life cycle. BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Union Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On May 11, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03602. On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for its counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On October 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to which the defendants must respond to the amended complaint by December 8, 2023. The amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022, inclusive. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's ability to manufacture its products at scale and to its partners' specifications. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' and expert fees; and granting other unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BIOVENTUS INC: Bid to Dismiss Ciarciello Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ROBERT CIARCIELLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O. ANGLUM, and SUSAN M. STALNECKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina grants in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements in various Securities and Exchange Commission filings and earnings phone calls. The Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Judge Eagles says the Defendants' motion to dismiss the 1933 Securities Act claims will be granted because the Lead Plaintiff has not alleged facts to plausibly show statutory standing to assert these claims. The complaint otherwise alleges many factual details sufficient to plausibly allege with particularity misleading statements made with knowledge and causing loss, so the Exchange Act claims may proceed. The Defendant, Bioventus, Inc., is a medical device and pharmaceutical company that sells drug therapies, including hyaluronic acid injections. The revenue from these sales is affected by contracts Bioventus has with third party payers, like health insurance companies. These contracts require Bioventus to pay rebates to the third-party payers when an insured patient gets a Bioventus injection. Bioventus provides public certifications of net revenue in SEC filings. From early 2021 to late 2022, Bioventus stated that it deducts expected rebates, calculated based on historical data, buying trends, and other appropriate variables, from its recognized revenue. In those filings and other public declarations, the Defendants also said that they follow generally accepted accounting principles and had designed a reasonable internal control system for financial reporting. After an unexpectedly large payout on a rebate claim in the summer of 2021, Bioventus conducted an internal audit of the processes and controls for estimating and managing rebates. The audit was highly critical of the way Bioventus was calculating expected rebates and identified at least 12 action items as "red," meaning that issue was severe and required immediate attention and correction. Defendants Kenneth Reali, Gregory Anglum, and Susan Stalnecker received the report in late August or early September 2021. After the audit, Bioventus failed to make needed changes in the rebate estimation process, leading more than one employee, who worked on the audit report to resign in early 2022. The Defendants continued to discuss their processes and controls positively in SEC filings and otherwise, and to report revenue based on the inadequate estimation process. The Defendant's revenue is also affected by reimbursement payments made to Bioventus by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Historically, Bioventus received payment from CMS based on its wholesale acquisition cost, which did not take into account rebates and discounts; this allowed Bioventus to receive larger reimbursements than if reimbursed based on average sales price. In 2020, Congress passed legislation requiring healthcare manufacturers seeking Medicare reimbursements to report average sales price instead of wholesale acquisition cost starting on Jan. 1, 2022. This shift meant Bioventus would receive significantly less in reimbursements from Medicare. The Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Bioventus had planned for this change by, among other things, securing agreements with private payers for lower rebates. The Defendants also said Bioventus had run careful calculations showing that the shift in price reporting would have a "net-neutral" impact. After the price reporting shift took effect, the Defendants repeatedly said that everything went exactly as expected and that the shift was consistent with the modeling. But in fact, Bioventus had not carefully calculated the effect of the price shift, as it lacked basic information needed to model the impact of the pricing change. And Bioventus had not obtained agreements from private payers for lower rebates. In November 2022, Bioventus filed its third quarter Form 8-K, reporting a lower than previously anticipated revenue. Bioventus partially attributed this to a large rebate request from an insurer, which it characterized as "unexpected," even though the Defendants were aware of the likelihood of a large rebate request like this one because of the large rebate request and the audit report in 2021. Bioventus also claimed that the legislatively required price reporting shift contributed to the revenue shortfall. As a result of the third quarter filing, stock prices significantly declined. The Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). The Defendants responded with their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint on the grounds that the statements were not false or misleading, the Plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the Defendants acted with the requisite scienter, and the Plaintiffs did not suffer a loss attributable to the statements. Judge Eagles opines that these challenges raise factual disputes more appropriate for later in the proceedings, ignore the substance of the complaint, and rely on conclusory assertions that are little more than opinions of counsel. To the extent that the Defendants say loss causation is not shown because the Lead Plaintiff sold all its shares before the Nov. 19, 2022, and March 31, 2023 filings were made, the Court does not understand the argument. The Court's review of the complaint does not show any allegation that statements made in those filings were misrepresentations; indeed, the complaint alleges that these statements show the inaccuracy of the earlier revenue projections. Judge Eagles says the complaint specifically identifies all misrepresentations, and none assert that statements made in those two filings were misrepresentations. The Defendants contend that the Lead Plaintiff, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (WCERS), does not have standing to bring a Section 11 Securities Act claim because it has not adequately alleged that its stock is traceable to the registration statement at issue. WCERS asserts that it is not required to do more than generally allege that the stock it purchased can be traced back to the registration statement. Because the Lead Plaintiff has alleged only that it purchased stock "traceable to the Registration Statement," but has not offered any factual support for this general and conclusory allegation, Judge Eagles holds that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Section 11 Securities Act violations will be granted. The Section 15 claim, which establishes controlling person liability for a Section 11 violation, will also be dismissed. If the Plaintiffs have sufficient facts, they may promptly file a motion to amend in compliance with the Local Rules, Judge Eagles says. In support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants offer discrete pages from their SEC filings, transcripts from earnings calls and presentations, and a paper writing they say is the audit report referenced by the Plaintiffs in the complaint. They ask the Court to consider these documents in deciding the motion to dismiss, contending the documents are incorporated into the complaint and are subject to judicial notice. The Plaintiffs move to strike the purported audit report. They object to consideration of the other materials only to the extent they are offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted. The Plaintiffs dispute the authenticity of the document proffered by the Defendant and do not concede that it is the audit report discussed in the complaint. Its contents also do not match up to the detailed factual allegations in the complaint. The Court says it has not considered this exhibit in evaluating the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs do not challenge the authenticity of the other documents proffered by the Defendants. Rather, the Plaintiffs state that the Court cannot consider these documents for the truth of the matters asserted. Judge Eagles finds that many of the Plaintiffs' allegations are directly in conflict with statements made by the Defendants in these exhibits. The Defendants have also made arguments about adequacy of cautionary statements that are more appropriately evaluated later in the litigation. The Court has considered the documents to show that they were filed and that the statements were made, but not for the truth of the statements made therein. Accordingly, Judge Eagles rules that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is granted as to the Plaintiffs' first and second causes of action, violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, and violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act, for inadequate allegations of statutory standing. The Defendants' motion is, otherwise, denied, and the Plaintiffs Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) may proceed. The Defendants' motion for consideration is denied as to the proffered audit report, and is otherwise granted for the limited purposes stated herein. The Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as unnecessary. The Court has not considered the proffered audit report and has considered the other materials only to the limited extent stated herein. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/494ttnbb from PacerMonitor.com. BITPAY INC: Wilhelm Biometrics Suit Removed to W.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- The case CANDICE WILHELM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BITPAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2023-CH-08567, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on November 8, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15799 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that BitPay violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by unlawfully collecting, retaining, and disclosing the biometric information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. BitPay, Inc. is a bitcoin payment service provider.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen J. Siegel, Esq. Robert J. Crawford, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 419-6900 E-mail: ssiegel@atllp.com rcrawford@atllp.com - and - Edward A. Marshall, Esq. Theresa Y. Kananen, Esq. Morgan E. M. Harrison, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 171 17th St. NW, Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 873-8500 E-mail: edward.marshall@agg.com theresa.kananen@agg.com morgan.harrison@agg.com BLOOM INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Fuller Bid to Remand -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA FULLER, et al., v. BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01440-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Alex G. Tse entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to remand or in the alternative for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The defendants have met their burden of proving that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Plaintiffs' motion to remand or, in the alternative, for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery is therefore denied. The Plaintiffs agree that attorney's fees should be included in the amount in controversy, and they do not dispute that defendants have met their burden to include a 25% attorney's fee in the calculation. Bloom is an online coding bootcamp that trains people to become software engineers, data scientists, or back end developers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49UCyfU at no extra charge.[CC] BRIGHT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Marquez Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bright Health Group, 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Marquez securities class suit in the Eastern District of New York. On January 6, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York. The case is captioned Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that it made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and compliance policies, which in turn adversely affected its stock price. An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, which expands on the allegations in the original complaint and alleges a putative class period of June 24, 2021 through March 1, 2022. The amended complaint also adds as defendants the underwriters of our initial public offering. The Company has served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which has not yet been ruled on by the court. The Company is vigorously defending the Company in the above actions, but there can be no assurance that it will be successful in any defense. Bright Health Group, Inc. and subsidiaries operates in care delivery and care solutions segments. CANISIUS COLLEGE: McCudden Appeals Ruling in COVID Tuition Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Caleb McCudden, et al., filed an appeal from a court's ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Caleb McCudden et al. vs. Canisius College, Case No. 808928/2020, in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department. The Plaintiff files this suit against the college for charging the same tuition, despite moving its classes online. He, like many other students, paid for in-person educational services and he wants his money back since the school cannot provide those services. The lawsuit claims Canisius has not refunded any of the tuition or mandatory fees it collected from students, even though it implemented an online-only learning model in March 2020. The student claims the university also stopped providing services that the mandatory fees were intended to cover. On May 11, 2023, though New York Supreme Court Justice John Licata dismissed the claim as it relates to tuition, he allowed the former student to pursue his claim over the college's mandatory fees. "In the case of the mandatory fees, there exists clear, specific language what services students will receive in exchange for each of the four fees," Judge Licata said in his ruling. "Plaintiff's complaint alleges that most of services specifically paid for by the mandatory fees were not provided," added Judge Licata. The Plaintiff filed this appeal seeking a review of the ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Caleb McCudden et al. v. Canisius College, Case No. CA 23-01865, in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, filed on November 7, 2023.[BN] CAROTHERS HOLDING: Court Sets Hearing on Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simpson v. Carothers Holding Company, LLC, et al., Case No. (W.D.N.C., April 14, 2023), the Court entered an order setting hearing on bid to certify class and motion to dismiss.[CC] CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Credit Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that it is facing "Gerardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Cinemark USA, Inc. and Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al." This class action lawsuit was filed against the company on February 24, 2023 in the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay. CONAGRA BRANDS: Vanbuskirk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL VANBUSKIRK and JESSICIA FICKERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. and CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01856-MWB (M.D. Pa., Nov. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees at Defendants' food manufacturing facility in Milton, Pennsylvania and in Troy, Ohio. Their job duties involved the manufacturing, packaging, processing and/or handling of food. They regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek but were not paid at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours, say the Plaintiffs. Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American consumer packaged goods holding company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Dec. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dudley v. Consolidated Waste Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00592 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Frederick J Scullin, Jr. entered an order that the motion for conditional class certification shall be filed by Dec. 8, 2023. -- No further extensions will be granted, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Consolidated provides waste management services.[CC] COTTAGE HEALTH: K. S. Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cottage Health. The case is styled as K. S., C. M., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cottage Health, Case No. 2:23-cv-09528 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cottage Health -- https://www.cottagehealth.org/ -- is a not-for-profit Health Care system operating, Hospitals, Urgent Cares, Clinics, and Cottage Virtual Care telehealth services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Email: daniel@slfla.com CS DISCO: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- CS Disco 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 9, 2023, that the Company faces a stockholder class suit in New York Supreme Court, County of New York. On November 3, 2023, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, alleging violations under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements about the factors that were driving revenue growth between July 21, 2021 and August 11, 2022. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, rescission, equitable and injunctive relief, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. CS Disco provides cloud-based, artificial intelligence-powered technologies to simplify electronic discovery, legal document review, legal hold and case management for enterprises, law firms, legal services providers, and governments.[BN] D.R.E.A.M. CLOTHING: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.R.E.A.M. Clothing LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D.R.E.A.M. Clothing LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09984-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DREAM Clothing is the leader in fashion & merch that supports a greater cause by donating a portion of all sales to help raise funding for Mental Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DOORDASH INC: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Floyd, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated v. DOORDASH, INC., a foreign corporation; DOORDASH EXPRESS DELIVERY LLC, a Washington limited liability company; DOORDASH ESSENTIALS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; DOORDASH G&C, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-19559-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01740. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff Alexander Floyd caused to be filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory Relief ("Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mathew A. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KeyBank Building 88 East Broad Street, Suite 2025 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 Email: mathew.parker@ogletree.com ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- Enviva 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit in the federal district court in the District of Maryland. On November 3, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Maryland against Enviva, John Keppler, and Shai Even. On April 3, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint adding Jason E. Paral, Michael A. Johnson, Jennifer Jenkins, Don Calloway, and a number of underwriters of the Company's stock offering made pursuant to the Company's registration statement and prospectus dated January 19, 2022 as named defendants. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act based on allegations that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, particularly relating to its ESG practices. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company's statements were misleading as to the environmental sustainability of the Company's wood pellet production and procurement and the impact such statements would have on the Company's financials and growth potential. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest and costs, and attorneys' fees. The parties completed briefing on Enviva's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 1, 2023 and it is now before the court for consideration. Enviva has insurance coverage that, it believes, will cover some or all of its liabilities related to the defense of this matter. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and it cannot be certain that our coverage will be adequate for liabilities actually incurred. Enviva believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the matter. Enviva Inc. supplies utility-grade wood pellets primarily to major power generators under long-term, take-or-pay off-take contracts procuring wood fiber and process it into utility-grade wood pellets. EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Adjourned to Feb. 21, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katz & Skidanenko v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09856-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an order granting the parties' request to file a joint letter regarding the ADR program. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification and for Defendant to file a motion for decertification of the collective is adjourned to February 21, 2024. The parties shall file a joint letter by January 19, 2024, regarding motion practice and, if applicable, the sequencing of such motion with the certification/decertification motions. The status letter shall also include a statement as to whether the parties request a referral for mediation before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger or through the District's Mediation Program. Thus, Defendant deprived Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of proper overtime pay. The Plaintiffs also allege that they worked off-the-clock by, among other things, prospecting for clients, commuting to meetings, and communicating with their managers without pay, including overtime pay when it resulted in overtime hours. They additionally allege that they were entitled to be paid on a weekly basis pursuant to the New York Labor Law section 191 but were unlawfully paid on a bi-weekly basis. Thes case is about Equinox trainer compensation in New York. That compensation is lawful and is based on the following premises: Trainers receive a commission for each session, which is intended to compensate them for all activities related to the session. The effective rate for such work is always well above minimum wage: -- Trainers are paid hourly at the minimum wage for certain ancillary activities relating to continuing education and training; and, -- Trainers – fitness professionals all – are free to otherwise make use of Equinox's world class fitness facilities, to whatever extent they choose, for personal purposes. Equinox is an American luxury fitness company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sxEme1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI, KANE & VAGNINI 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: www.vkvlawyers.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Udovich Sues Over Improper Monopoly Power -------------------------------------------------------------- Nedenia Udovich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A.; LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A.; ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS; ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC.; LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC.; EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC; AND VISION SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-15854 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought concerning the exclusionary acts and practices of EssilorLuxottica in the eyewear industry. EssilorLuxottica has improperly maintained monopoly power in the eyewear industry by engaging in exclusionary acts and practices, including entering long-term, exclusive licensing contracts with various fashion houses, imposing restrictive sales agreements on competing eyewear manufacturers, and improperly steering customers towards its own products via its wholly-owned vision insurance company, EyeMed. Luxottica's conduct has led to higher prices, lower output, reduced innovation, and diminished consumer choice. The Plaintiff brings this antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and a nationwide Class of all similarly situated persons and entities who purchased eyewear directly from one or more EssilorLuxottica--operated physical or online outlets between 2007 and the present. Because of Defendants' violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Plaintiff and members of the Class were injured by paying significant overcharges on eyewear throughout the United States. If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive scheme, Plaintiff and members of the Class will continue to pay supracompetitive prices on eyewear. Plaintiff brings this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin Defendants' misconduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident who purchased, for her own personal or household consumption, eyewear, including Licensed Eyewear. EssilorLuxottica has emerged as the world's largest eyewear company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian M. Hogan, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: bhogan@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com ET-A-LL LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ET-A-LL, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ET-A-LL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09987 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ET-A-LL, LLC doing business as HAH -- https://www.wearehah.com/ -- is an eco-friendly brand made by Women for Women offering sustainable swimwear, lingerie, bras, panties, dresses, bodysuits, pajamas & activewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com EVERBRIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Sylebra Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Everbridge 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sylebra class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Jaime Ellertson, Patrick Brickley, and David Meredith (the Company's former Chief Executive Officer) by Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd, Sylebra Capital Parc Master Fund, and Sylebra Capital Menlo Master Fund (collectively, "Sylebra"). In September 2022, Sylebra filed an amended and restated complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"). The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising out of purported misrepresentations in the information the Company provided to investors regarding the Company's organic and inorganic revenue growth, and the status of integrating acquisitions, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the period from November 4, 2019 to February 24, 2022. The Company is not able to estimate the amount of the loss allegedly suffered by members of the putative class or the amount of legal costs and internal efforts associated with defending the Company and the Company's officers and directors. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. In October 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds, including failure to plead any actionable misstatement or omission, failure to establish scienter, and failure to meet the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and other applicable law. On May 9, 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss each of the claims, dismissing the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. Sylebra filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 30, 2023. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and that motion is scheduled to be heard by the Court on December 7, 2023. Even if the Company were to prevail again, this litigation could continue to be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of the Company's management and key personnel from the Company's business operations. During the course of the litigation, the Company anticipates announcements of the results of hearings and motions, and other interim developments related to the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the market price of the Company's common stock may decline. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending itself in this litigation, this lawsuit could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Everbridge, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a global software company with operations in the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, China, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, France, India, and other countries. EXP WORLD: Faces Batton Class Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------- Exp World Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for November 2, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the Company faces a class suit captioned Batton et. al. v. Compass, Inc. et. al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 2, 2023, a putative class action complaint under the caption Batton et. al. v. Compass, Inc. et. al. (the "Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, naming certain unaffiliated real estate brokerages, including the Company, as defendants. The Class Action alleges that defendants participated in a system that resulted in sellers of residential property paying inflated buyer broker commissions in violation of federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction under federal antitrust laws enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer-agent commissions without negotiations or from otherwise restricting competition among brokers and an award of declaratory relief and damages or restitution under the laws of various states on behalf of certain home buyers in those states, as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble or other multiple damages. The Company believes that additional antitrust litigation may be possible. The Company cannot provide any assurances that results of such litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. eXp World Holdings is a holding company based in Washington State. FLEXPORT INC: Thorson Sues Over Failure to Provide Written Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Thorson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flexport, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-15866 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought on behalf of former employees of the Defendant who were terminated in mass layoffs for which Defendant was required to provide 60 days advanced written notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"). On October 13, 2023, Defendant announced that it was laying off 20% of its workforce and terminated Plaintiff and Class Members. Flexport provided employees in Bellvue, Washington and San Francisco, California the required Warn Act notice. However, Flexport did not provide its remote employees who reported to its San Francisco and/or Bellvue offices with notice or renumeration under the Warn Act. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover from Defendant 60 days wages and benefits, and reasonable attorney's fees and the costs, pursuant to the Warn Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for five years until her termination on October 13, 2023. The Defendant is a California corporation, with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan G. Zelizer, Esq. HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC 29 South Webster Street, Suite 350-C Naperville, IL 60540 Phone: 630.551.8374 Fax: 630.566.0705 Email: ethan@hrlawcounsel.com FLO HEALTH: Bid for Class Certification in Frasco Due Feb. 22, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and Defendant Google's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment, will be heard on February 22, 2024. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Flo provides women's health mobile application services.[CC] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Burkhart Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Burkhart class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC ("GFIH") and Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, it moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to its motion to dismiss, which it replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. ("Genworth Canada") from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, it filed its answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, it moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted its motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this action. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC ("GFIH") and Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, it moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to its motion to dismiss, which it replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. ("Genworth Canada") from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, it filed its answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, it moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted its motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial's shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this action. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Burkhart class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC ("GFIH") and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, it moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to its motion to dismiss, which it replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. ("Genworth Canada") from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on its motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, it filed its answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, it moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted its motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial's shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The Company intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Savings Plan Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Savings Plan suit in Virginia. On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial's Retirement and Savings Plan ("Savings Plan"). Plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly simulated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney's fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial's Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and it filed its reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to serve an amended complaint, rendering its initial motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court directed plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and denied as moot its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April 17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, it answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery is now ongoing, and trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this action. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TVPX Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the TVPX class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company ("GLAIC"), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, it filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. It moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the "McBride settlement") that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, it moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted its motion to enjoin and denied its motion for leave to file its counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting its motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, the Company filed its notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying its motion for leave to file its counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff's appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth's counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, it filed in the Middle District of Georgia its renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed its motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, it filed an appeal of the Court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, it filed its opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its respondent's brief on September 20, 2022, and it filed its reply brief on November 10, 2022. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023, and it is awaiting a decision from the Eleventh Circuit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this action. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. GERBER PRODUCTS: Smith Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Snack Products --------------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE SMITH and AMANDA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-09834 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2023) is a class action brought under the New York General Business Law on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Gerber Yogurt Melts and Gerber Fruit & Veggies Melts that claim to have "No Preservatives." According to the complaint, the "No Preservatives" representation is false and/or misleading because the products contain citric acid, ascorbic acid and/or sodium ascorbate -- three well-known preservatives commonly used in food products. The Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct. Thus, Plaintiffs therefore assert claims on behalf of themselves and similarly situated purchasers for violation of the state law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alec Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Ching Seeks Unpaid Renewal Commissions ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC. and KIM DAO AGENCY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-AAQ (D. Md., Nov. 7, 2023) arises out of Defendants' uniform pattern and practice of wrongfully denying Plaintiffs and the other Class members commissions to which they are legally entitled and wrongfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' clients and revenues. The Plaintiffs bring their claims individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated present and former local insurance agencies, seeking damages and other relief resulting from Defendants' breaches of contract and other unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices, which deprived Plaintiffs and the other Class members of monetary and other benefits to which they are legally entitled. Specifically, the Class consists of both current and former local insurance agencies that signed GEICO Field Representative Agreements with Defendants and were damaged as a result of Defendants' breaches of contract and other wrongdoing (the "Agency Class"), including, but not limited to, the wrongful denial of commissions for generating new business, and a subclass of former local insurance agencies that suffered the same damages as the Agency Class, but also suffered additional damages, including, but not limited to, the denial of post-termination renewal commissions1 and the wrongful appropriation of clients and potential clients, due to their contracts being arbitrarily terminated by Defendants (the "Former Agency Class"), says the suit. Government Employees Insurance Company is a private passenger auto insurer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Crump, Esq. Desiree Austin-Holliday, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com desiree@bencrump.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 505 Twentieth Street North, Suite 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 855-5700 E-mail: fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com - and - Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin Hawal, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 8160 Norton Parkway Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eviealle Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 1101 Seventeenth Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 975-2288 E-mail: edawkins@dicellolevitt.com GPB CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Material Misstatements Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GPB Capital Holdings LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated material misstatements and omissions class suits in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. In re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation (formerly, Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. and Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. (New York Supreme Court, New York County, Case No. 157679/2019) In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, AAS, Ascendant, and Axiom Capital Management. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. GPB Capital -- http://gpb-cap.com/-- is a New York-based alternative asset management firm that seeks to acquire income-producing private companies.[BN] GREEN DOT CORP: Faces Lyons Class Suit in M.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ Green Dot 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 9, 2023, that the Company faces the Lyons class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. On October 20, 2023, an alleged class action captioned Lyons v. Walmart Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging that Walmart, Green Dot Corporation, and Green Dot Bank breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and were otherwise negligent in the packaging of gift cards at Walmart stores, resulting in the unauthorized tampering with, and loss of stored values, on four gift cards sold in advance of the 2022 Christmas holiday season but that were later used at another location in January 2023. The suit seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons who purchased a Visa Prepaid card issued by us and subjected to unauthorized use by a third party after purchase but prior to the first authorized use, at a Walmart retail store located in a state that has adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (thereby excluding Louisiana). On October 24, 2023 the court on its own initiative ordered plaintiff to re-plead the action based on insufficient jurisdictional allegations, and an amended complaint was filed October 30, 2023. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. GREEN DOT: Faces Hester Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------- Green Dot 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 9, 2023, that the Company faces the Hester class suit in the District Court for Travis County, Texas. On October 27, 2023, an alleged class action, Hester v. Green Dot Corporation, was filed in District Court for Travis County, Texas, alleging he was unable to access funds in his account for an extended period, and that the Company had similarly blocked access for other customers. The complaint purports to allege three causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Texas Bus. and Comm. Code, Ch. 17. The proposed class is all Texas residents and GO2bank customers or account holders who "had their accounts or funds blocked, closed, or otherwise restricted" for more than 72 hours at any time during the four years (or the length of the longest applicable statute of limitations for any asserted claim) immediately preceding the filing of this action continuing through the date of judgment. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. GREEN DOT: Faces Koffsmon Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- Green Dot 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 9, 2023, that the Company faces a class suit captioned Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E in the United States District Court for the Central District District of California. On December 18, 2019, the alleged class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the Company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. GULF COAST POWER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Espinosa Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edelio R. Espinosa, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. Gulf Coast Power And Light Co., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01044 (M.D. Fla., November 15, 2023) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from approximately July 17, 2023 to October 6, 2023. He performed as an electrician helper and worked more than 40 hours weekly; however, he never received overtime compensation, as required by law. In addition, the Plaintiff's working hours during his first four weeks of employment were deducted by two and a half hours of lunchtime even though he was not allowed to take bona fide lunchtime hours, says the suit. Gulf Coast Power Co. is an electrical contractor specializing in commercial and residential electrical installations, maintenance, and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider in Anderberg Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendant's motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit titled HEIDI ANDERBERG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01794-RBM-SBC (S.D. Cal.). On March 2, 2022, Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Heidi Anderberg's First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on April 11, 2022, and the Defendant filed its reply on April 18, 2022. On Jan. 26, 2023, the Court issued its Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration and the Defendant filed a reply. On Oct. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this class action complaint against the Defendant. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") on Feb. 2, 2022. The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (2) violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (3) violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) breach of implied warranty. In her FAC, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant markets and sells chemical sunscreens with labeling and advertising that leads consumers to believe that the sunscreens are Reef Friendly, when in fact the chemical sunscreens contain active ingredients known to damage coral reefs and the marine life that inhabit them. The FAC discusses the dangers various chemicals pose to coral reefs and states chemical sunscreens generally consist of a combination of different chemical ingredients, primarily oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone, but also include other chemicals, such as octocrylene and homosalate each of which are known to cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Thus, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant labeling its sunscreen products as "Reef Friendly" is misleading because the products contain avobenzone, octocrylene, homosalate and octyl salicylate. The FAC includes the Plaintiff's individual allegations, as well as class allegations. In regard to Plaintiff's individual allegations, she explains that she has been purchasing Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Coconut Clear Spray 50 and Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Green Tea 45 (cream version) consistently for the past two years for personal and household use. The Plaintiff is "eco-conscious" and believed the products to have clean chemicals and be reef friendly as advertised. Thus, she alleges she paid an unlawful premium for the product advertised as reef friendly when it in fact is not safe for coral reefs and marine life and would not have purchased the products had the product been truthfully advertised. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims she was harmed and suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of the Defendant's false, unfair and fraudulent practices. In regard to her class allegations, the Plaintiff lists a total of 14 of the Defendant's chemical sunscreens which bear labeling stating "Reef Friendly," yet contain octocrylene and/or avobenzone. She, thus, brings a class action on behalf of a nationwide class and a California subclass of individuals who, within the applicable limitations period, purchased any of the 14 products from the Defendant. On March 2, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC. In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argued that the term "Reef Friendly" is not deceptive because a "reasonable consumer" would not be misled by the representation. In the Court's Order on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court found that it could not conclude as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the term "Reef Friendly" and decided that this was not the "rare situation" warranting dismissal of the Plaintiff's UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims. On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed the Motion for Reconsideration at issue here. The Defendant argues that the Ninth's Circuit's recent decision in McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) is an intervening change in controlling law that dictates a different result on its Motion to Dismiss. In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Defendant contends that reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 60(b) when there is an intervening change in the controlling law. In support of this position, the Defendant cites two published Ninth Circuit cases, as well as several unpublished opinions from this District. The Defendant then argues that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) is new controlling law warranting reconsideration of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court finds the Defendant's argument unpersuasive. The Court does not consider the Ninth Circuit's decision in McGinity an intervening change in controlling law. Judge Montenegro explains that McGinity merely reiterates prior Ninth Circuit's decisions, including its decision in Moore v. Trader Joe's Co., 4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021) ("Trader Joe's"), decided two years earlier. Judge Montenegro opines that it is clear that the Ninth Circuit's decision in McGinity merely applies its decision in Trader Joe's to a new set of facts and cannot be considered an "intervening change" in "controlling law." The McGinity panel also relies on the Ninth Circuit's prior decision in Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) for the proposition that a back label ingredients list "can ameliorate any tendency of a label to mislead," Judge Montenegro says. The McGinity case is merely an application of the Ninth Circuit's prior ruling in Mars Petcare. McGinity's new use of the word "ambiguous" rather than "misleading" does not create an "intervening change" in "controlling law," Judge Montenegro points out. Even assuming that McGinity constitutes an intervening change in controlling law, McGinity is easily distinguishable from the present case, Judge Montenegro holds. Reconsideration of the Court's Order on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is not warranted. Based on the foregoing, Judge Montenegro holds that the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied in its entirety. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx2m36k from PacerMonitor.com. HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Toussaint Class Suit in N.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- HanesBrands 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Toussaint class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Company is named in a putative class action in connection with its previously disclosed ransomware incident, entitled Toussaint et al. v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc. This lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and follows the consolidation of two previously pending lawsuits, entitled Roman v. Hanes Brands,[sic] Inc., and Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. The pending lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and injunctive relief. The Company is vigorously defending the pending matter and believes the case is without merit. HANESBRANDS, INC. manufactures apparels and clothing products. The Company produces underwear, t-shirts, sport shirts, socks, bras, thermals, sweatshirts, sleepwear, and shoes for men, women, and children. [BN] HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- HarperCollins disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "N.Y. District Court") against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. ("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the "Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2022, the N.Y. District Court granted Amazon and the Publishers' motions to dismiss the complaints but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both cases in November 2022, and in January 2023, Amazon and the Publishers filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in one of the cases with prejudice. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. Harpercollins Publishers LLC provides publishing services. The Company publishes audio, business, children's, cooking, lifestyle, mystery, romance, science, self improvement, spirituality, christian, fiction, and non-fiction books. Harpercollins is based in New York, New York. HAZA FOODS LLC: Townsend Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haza foods, LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Townsend, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Haza foods, LLC, Haza Foods of Northeast, LLC, Haza Foods of Minnesota LLC, DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 5:23-cv-01419-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HAZA Foods -- https://hazagroup.com/haza-foods/ -- is a Franchise of 245 Wendy's restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET LLP 1145 Bower Hill Road-Suite 104 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 Phone: (412) 857-5350 Email: ben@nshmlaw.com HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Sanchez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Care Services Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Christine Sanchez, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Care Services Corporation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, TMG Health, Inc., Health Care Services Corporation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Does 1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-15857 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Health Care Service Corporation -- https://www.hcsc.com/ -- is deploying innovative solutions to reduce burden prior authorization sometimes brings members and their health care providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Sq. 2001 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Email: jgolan@barrack.com HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Career Institute LLC. The case is styled as Brittany Roberson, Rebecca Freeman, Bianca Vias, Tiffany King, Tresha Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Health Career Institute LLC, (dba HCI College LLC and HCI Acquisition LLC), Florian Education Investors LLC, STEVEN HART, Case No. 2:23-mc-00147 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous. HCI College -- https://www.hci.edu/ -- is dedicated to providing education and training to students for careers in various healthcare and technical fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Nagdeman, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC 1717 Arch St., Ste. 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5660 Fax: (215) 320-5703 Email: dnagdeman@langergrogan.com HENKEL CORPORATION: Ochoa-Cornman Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miquel Ochoa-Cornman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 23SL-CC04044 was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01439 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Henkel -- https://www.henkel.com/ -- operates worldwide with leading innovations, brands and technologies in two business areas: Adhesive Technologies and Consumer Brands.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: C. David Goerisch, Esq. Michael L. Jente, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC - St. Louis 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 444-7600 Fax: (314) 241-6056 Email: dgoerisch@lewisrice.com mjente@lewisrice.com HERC RENTALS: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jacob Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HERC RENTALS, INC., a foreign corporation; HERC RENTALS EMPLOYEE SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-19533-7 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01739. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff Jacob Atkinson caused to be filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory Relief ("Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com - and - Mathew A. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KeyBank Building 88 East Broad Street, Suite 2025 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 Email: mathew.parker@ogletree.com IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement in Finch Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ianthus Capital 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 9, 2023, that the bid for preliminary approval of the settlement in the Finch class suit remains pending in court. On April 20, 2020, Donald Finch, a shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit with the SDNY against the Company (the "Class Action Lawsuit") and is seeking damages for an unspecified amount against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others for alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt, that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of default on such long-term debt. On May 5, 2020, Peter Cedeno, another shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action against the same defendants alleging substantially similar causes of action. On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were filed by Jose Antonio Silva, Robert and Sherri Newblatt, Robert Dankner, and Melvin Fussell. On July 9, 2020, the SDNY issued an order consolidating the Class Action Lawsuit and the Hi-Med Complaint referenced above and appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff"). On July 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit against the Company (the "Amended Complaint"). On November 20, 2020, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Company and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company's and its Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that the Lead Plaintiff may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a second Amended Complaint was included as part of the Stipulation identified above. On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and the Lead Plaintiff's second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's second Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff's opposition to the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company's and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the Lead Plaintiff's opposition was filed on March 21, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the SDNY issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's second Amended Complaint. On October12, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order, which the SDNY so ordered on October 19, 2022, ordering that that the Defendants' answers are due on November 21, 2022; that the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan by December 12, 2022; and that discovery in the Class Action Lawsuit shall be coordinated with discovery in the Hi-Med action referenced above, to the extent the two actions involved overlapping issues. The parties agreed to submit the matter, together with the Hi-Med action referenced above, to mediation, which took place on January 17, 2023. On January 31, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the Defendants and Lead Plaintiff reached a settlement in principle and anticipated filing a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 9, 2023. Accordingly, the parties requested that the SDNY suspend all further deadlines and proceedings in the Class Action Lawsuit pending submission of the motion for preliminary approval. On March 7, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the parties required a short extension of the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and such motion would be filed by March 21, 2023. On March 21, 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the SDNY, which remains pending. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a vertically-integrated multi-state owner and operator of licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities in the United States. It was incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, on November 15, 2013. IANTHUS CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Blue Sky Class Suit in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ianthus Capital 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Blue Sky class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative class action against the Company, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ("OSCJ") in Toronto, Ontario. On September 27, 2021, the OSCJ granted leave for the plaintiff to amend its claim ("Amended Claim"). In the Amended Claim, the plaintiff seeks to certify the proposed class action on behalf of two classes. "Class A" consists of all persons, other than any executive level employee of the Company and their immediate families ("Excluded Persons"), who acquired the Company's common shares in the secondary market on or after April 12, 2019, and who held some or all of those securities until after the close of trading on April 5, 2020. "Class B" consists of all persons, other than Excluded Persons, who acquired the Company's common shares prior to April 12, 2019, and who held some or all of those securities until after the close of trading on April 5, 2020. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges statutory and common law misrepresentation, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages together with interest and costs. The plaintiff also alleges common law oppression for releasing certain statements allegedly containing misrepresentations inducing Class B members to hold the Company's securities beyond April 5, 2020. No certification motion has been scheduled. The Amended Claim also changed the named plaintiff from Blue Sky Realty Corporation to Timothy Kwong. The hearing date for the motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market claim under the Securities Act (Ontario) has been vacated. The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement, which would fully resolve the Amended Claim. On August 19, 2021, Arvin Saloum ("Saloum"), a former consultant of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the "Arbitration Action") against The Healing Center Wellness Center, Inc. ("THCWC") and iAnthus Arizona, LLC ("iA AZ"), claiming a breach of a Consulting and Joint Venture Agreement (the "JV Agreement") for unpaid consulting fees allegedly owed to Saloum under the JV Agreement. Saloum is claiming damages between $1.0 million and $10.0 million. On September 7, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed Objections and Answering Statement to Saloum's Demand for Arbitration. On November 18, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Declaratory Judgment Complaint") with the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County ("Arizona Superior Court"), seeking declarations that: (i) the JV Agreement is void, against public policy and terminable at will; (ii) the JV Agreement is unenforceable and not binding; and (iii) the JV Agreement only applies to sales under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. On January 21, 2022, Saloum filed an Answer with Counterclaims in response to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The Declaratory Judgment Complaint remains pending before the Arizona Superior Court. The Arbitration Action is stayed, pending resolution of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The parties are currently engaging in discovery. On April 25, 2023, the parties attended a mediation, which was unsuccessful. On May 23, 2022, CGX Life Sciences, Inc. ("CGX"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a demand for arbitration (the "CGX Arbitration") with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") against LMS Wellness, Benefit LLC ("LMS") and its 100% owner, William Huber ("Huber" and together with LMS, the "Defendants") for various breaches under the option agreements entered into between CGX and LMS, on the one hand, and CGX and Huber on the other (collectively, the "Option Agreements"). Specifically, CGX is seeking: (i) an order finding the Defendants in breach of the Option Agreements and directing specific performance by the Defendants of their obligations under the Option Agreements to complete the sale and transfer of LMS to CGX; (ii) an order either tolling or extending the closing date under the Option Agreements; (iii) an order requiring Huber to restore LMS' bank account of all sums withdrawn for the payment of contracts entered into in breach of the Option Agreements; and (iv) an order prohibiting Huber from withdrawing any further funds from LMS' bank account. On June 8, 2022, the Defendants filed an Answering Statement, denying the allegations raised by CGX and sent a notice to CGX, purporting to terminate the Option Agreements. In addition, on June 8, 2022, LMS filed a demand for arbitration (the "S8 Arbitration") with the AAA against S8 Management, LLC ("S8"), alleging that S8 breached the Amended and Restated Management Services Agreement (the "MSA") entered into between LMS and S8 on March 12, 2018. On June 24, 2022, the Defendants filed Motion to Consolidate the CGX Arbitration and S8 Arbitration. On July 5, 2022, CGX filed an opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and a cross-Motion to Stay the S8 Arbitration to allow the CGX Arbitration to proceed first. On July 26, 2022, the parties attended a preliminary conference with the arbitrator, at which conference the arbitrator preliminarily granted the Defendants' Motion to Consolidate and denied CGX’s cross-Motion to Stay the S8 Arbitration. On October 7, 2022, CGX filed a dispositive motion for specific performance of Defendants' obligations to complete the sale of LMS to CGX (claims (i) and (ii), above), which Defendants opposed. On October 31, 2022, the arbitrator granted CGX's dispositive motion and ordered Defendants to complete the sale of LMS to CGX. The remaining claims asserted in the CGX Arbitration (claims (iii) and (iv), above) and the S8 Arbitration remain pending. On November 30, 2022, Defendants filed a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. CGX filed its response on January 30, 2023, and subsequently the Defendants filed a Request for Hearing on February 3, 2023. Both the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and request for a hearing remain pending before the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. CGX continues to prosecute its other two claims concerning Defendants' use of LMS' funds, and S8 continues to deny and defend against LMS' contentions that S8 breached the MSA. On June 20, 2023, LMS filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against ICH and three wholly-owned subsidiaries of ICH, alleging conversion, RICO violations and unjust enrichment and seeking damages in excess of $4.5M, plus treble damages (the "Federal Complaint"). The allegations in the Federal Complaint appear substantially similar to, and appear to arise from substantially the same operative facts as, those alleged by LMS in the CGX Arbitration, the S8 Arbitration, and in support of the Defendants' Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. ICH denies LMS's allegations alleging unlawful conduct and intends to vigorously defend the Federal Complaint in due course. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a vertically-integrated multi-state owner and operator of licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities in the United States. It was incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, on November 15, 2013. IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Salzman Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Immunitybio 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Salzman securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 30, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received an FDA CRL stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company's BLA for its product candidate, Anktiva in combination with BCG for the treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or without Ta or T1 disease, in its present form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse facts regarding its third-party clinical manufacturing organizations and the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. The district court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel on September 27, 2023. Lead plaintiff must file or designate a consolidated complaint by November 17, 2023. Defendants must file their anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint by January 8, 2024. The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that complement, harness, and amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. We strive to be a vertically-integrated immunotherapy company designing and manufacturing our products so they are more effective, accessible, more conveniently stored, and more easily administered to patients. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wedeking Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer Wedeking, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case No. 7:23-cv-07740 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12786-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. The International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big Blue -- http://www.ibm.com/-- is an American multinational technology corporation headquartered in Armonk, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 739-0622 Email: israel@israeldavidllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Jasmeet Ahuja, Esq. Hogan Lovells US LLP 1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 675-4667 Email: jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com - and - Peter William Bautz, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 918-3000 Email: peter.bautz@hoganlovells.com J CREW GROUP: Court Stays Babaeva Class Suit Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled EVGUENIA BABAEVA, Plaintiff v. J. CREW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01695-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, compelling arbitration and staying the case. The remaining Plaintiff, Evguenia Babaeva, alleges that when shopping online at the Factory outlet, she was misled by the posting of "Comparable Value" prices on the items she bought. The Defendant moves to dismiss on the basis that her claims are barred because she affirmatively agreed to an arbitration clause in the Defendant's terms of use. The Defendant alternatively moves to dismiss on the basis that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant separately moves to dismiss and strike the class action claims. Because the Court finds the claims are subject to arbitration, the Court denies the separate motion to strike as moot. The Plaintiff brings this action concerning the Defendant's sale and marketing of its "J. Crew Factory" branded products. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the Company by agreeing to the Defendant website's terms of use and then again when agreeing to the terms of conditions for its reward program. In the context of online transactions, courts routinely enforce contracts where (1) a consumer is expressly told that by clicking a button to complete a purchase or register on a website, they are agreeing to be bound by a set of terms of usage and (2) the website contains a link to the terms conspicuously and in proximity to the button that is clicked. Here, Judge White notes, at the time of the Plaintiff's online purchase, the checkout page conspicuously stated, "By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy." The underlined text provided a hyperlink to the full Terms of Use. In order to place her online order, the Plaintiff had to proceed through this page and had to proactively agree to the Terms in order to place the order. Also, as a member of the Defendant's reward program, the Plaintiff agreed to bound by the terms of the program. Having received emails, including one entitled "Important updates to our Terms & Conditions," Judge White opines that the Plaintiff was bound by the agreement to arbitrate claims related to her purchases under the rewards program. The applicable version of the website Terms' arbitration agreement broadly covers any dispute that the Plaintiff may have against the Defendant, including claims stemming from any prior purchases. Judge White finds that this broad provision encompasses the claims in this action. Similarly broad provisions are regularly enforced. Similarly, the reward term's arbitration clause -- which reads "ANY DISPUTE RELATING IN ANY WAY TO . . . THE PROGRAM" -- is broad enough to cover the current dispute. The Court does not find that the notices of the Company's regular updated terms and conditions nor the repeated advisements sent by email to its customers renders the arbitration provisions inconspicuous. Further, the Court does not find (and the Plaintiff does not contend) that the arbitration provisions in the terms of use or the rewards program were procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court enforces the arbitration provision for the Plaintiff's online purchases. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the claims are covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement and stays this action pending resolution by arbitration. Judge White directs the parties to file joint status reports every 180 days apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings, including when the stay may be lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8rvp67 from PacerMonitor.com. JBROOKS OF FARMINGTON: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JBrooks of Farmington Hills Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JBrooks of Farmington Hills Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09985 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JBrooks of Farmington Hills Inc. -- https://jbrooksmenswear.com/ -- is a men's clothing store in Farmington Hills, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chamberlain Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tamula Chamberlain, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., RB Health LLC, Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US), LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-04435 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Sq. 2001 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Email: jgolan@barrack.com JORDAN & SKALA: Faces Ruf Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON RUF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JORDAN & SKALA ENGINEERS INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-04196 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2023) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover overtime wages and other applicable penalties from the Defendant. Plaintiff Ruf worked for J&S as a plumbing designer from approximately November 2021 through August 2023. He asserts that he did not receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. J&S is a leading mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering firm with offices located throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com KGC INC: Fails to Comply Tip Regulations, Gabriel & Yeasem Say -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA A. GABRIEL and JASON YEASEMIS, on behalf of themselves and others, Plaintiffs v. KGC Incorporated and Stilianos Avlonitis, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01559 (E.D. Va., November 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid tips, minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and any other appropriate relief, as provided under Section 216(e)(2) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiffs, at Defendants' direction, began working for Defendants as a waiter and waitress. Plaintiff Gabriel worked from September 16, 2021, through March 12, 2022. Plaintiff Yeasemis worked from the end of January 2022 through May 31, 2022. In their class action complaint, Plaintiffs Gabriel and Yeasemis allege that, among other things, the Defendants did not Defendants fully comply with the FLSA tip credit statutory requirements related to their hourly compensation. They claim that the Defendants used the tips left by customers toward the overhead of the restaurant and not paid to the customarily tipped employees. KGC Incorporated is a Virginia corporation which operates a restaurant called Katerina's Greek Cuisine located at 9212 Center St. Manassas, VA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq., SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com KROGER CO: Suit Filed in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-00741-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger -- https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dylan James Gould, Esq. Spencer Davis Campbell, Esq. Terence Richard Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 500 Cincinnati, OH 45002 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Email: dgould@msdlegal.com scampbell@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com LENSAR INC: Continues to Defend Schaper Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- Lensar 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from Schaper class suit in the District of Delaware. In addition, on August 14, 2023, stockholders Ryan Schaper and Christopher P. Bolster filed a Verified Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and members of the board of directors ("Defendants") in the matter captioned Schaper v. LENSAR, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00692-GBW (D. Del.). On August 18, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation extending Defendants' time to respond to the complaint until a lead plaintiff is appointed and plaintiffs file a second amended complaint or designate the Verified Amended Class Action Complaint as operative. The Company vigorously denies that the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 20, 2023 was deficient in any respect. The Company believes the allegations and claims asserted in the Schaper Action are without merit and that supplemental disclosures were not required or necessary under applicable laws. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Lensar, Inc. -- http://www.lensar.com/-- is involved in next generation femtosecond laser technology for refractive cataract surgery. The LENSAR Laser System with Streamline II offers cataract surgeons automation and customization of essential steps of the refractive cataract surgery procedure with the highest levels of precision, accuracy, and efficiency, while optimizing overall visual outcomes. LOUISIANA: Court Enters Permanent Injunctive Relief in Lewis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana enters a permanent injunctive relief in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL. v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Case No. 3:15-cv-00318-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.). In 1989, the United States Department of Justice opened an investigation into the conditions of confinement at the Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP") at Angola ("Angola"). The Justice Department found that multiple conditions at Angola deprived inmates of their constitutional rights, among them the failure to provide adequate medical and psychiatric care. In 1992, a class action lawsuit was filed, alleging that the healthcare system in Angola was so deficient that it violated the United States Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The United States Department of Justice intervened in the lawsuit and joined in the allegations against Angola. In 2009, the Louisiana Department of Corrections engaged Wexford, a third-party consultant, to assess the medical care at Angola and report its findings to the Department. Wexford found multiple medical care deficiencies, which Angola disputes. Whether Wexford's findings were substantiated was not an issue in this case, but LSP and the Department of Corrections were aware as early as 2009 that Wexford had identified persistent health care deficiencies at Angola. All this to say that the healthcare of inmates at Angola has been the subject of consternation and criticism since 1989. In 2015, this Class Action suit was filed. The case alleges unconstitutional medical care provided at Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP"), as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA") at the prison. The Court bifurcated the case into separate liability and remedial phases. Following a trial on liability, the Court found that LSP violated the Eighth Amendment and found violations of the ADA and RA. After years of discovery, 21 days of trial, and two site visits to Angola by the Court, Judge Dick holds that the Plaintiffs proved that, rather than receiving medical "care," the inmates are instead subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by medical mistreatment. The human cost of these 26 years is unspeakable, Judge Dick says. In this Opinion, the Court made detailed and extensive findings about the callous and wanton disregard for the medical care of inmates at Angola. The finding is that the "care" is not care at all but abhorrent cruel and unusual punishment that violates the United States Constitution. The record reflects that the parties engaged in settlement negotiations with the assistance of the Magistrate Judge. When resolution appeared futile, in March 2021, the Court issued its 124-page Opinion finding constitutional and statutory violations. The Court set the matter for a remedy trial. The Parties stipulated and agreed that for the remedy phase of trial, Jan. 1, 2019, begins the relevant and appropriate time period ("Relevant Period") for the Court to assess whether the constitutional deficiencies listed in the Court's March 31, 2021 opinion have since been remedied and what (if any) injunctive relief is necessary in light of the findings at trial. The remedy trial was scheduled for June 2022, permitting LSP 15 months to address and rectify the constitutional and statutory violations. The Court held a two-week remedy phase trial in this matter and admitted evidence of current conditions to allow LSP to demonstrate, through proof, steps taken to address and/or cure these constitutional and statutory violations. While LSP made some changes during the pendency of this litigation, LSP steadfastly defends its healthcare system and denies that it was constitutionally deficient at any time. Following the remedy phase trial, the Court permitted the Parties to submit Post Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a Reply. Additionally, the Court encouraged the Parties to find common ground and settle or stipulate on any issues possible, and the Court provided the Parties significant time to reach an agreement themselves, which proved fruitless. The Court has considered the Parties' arguments, the record and trial evidence, and the applicable law in reaching the conclusion that injunctive relief is required in this case. Based on testimony and a review of evidence, the Court finds that the delivery of clinical care at LSP remains constitutionally deficient. The Court finds the barriers to sight and sound between patients and nurses, coupled with admitted staffing shortages and the resulting improper use of inmate orderlies, demonstrates unconstitutionally deficient infirmary care. The Court also finds that the medical leadership and organization at LSP has not been significantly remedied such that constitutional deficiencies no longer exist. The lack of leadership, supervision, and organization is the sin qua non to the unconstitutional care. Judge Dick opines that the failure to maintain proper credentialing records at LSP persists and contributes to the overall constitutionally deficient medical leadership and organization at LSP. The systemic leadership and management failures perpetuates the deliberate indifference and callous disregard that permeates the delivery of medical care at LSP. The Court finds that numerous architectural barriers remain at LSP that are not sufficiently ameliorated by orderlies. The Court finds that the physical barriers to program access necessitate injunctive relief to bring LSP's facilities into compliance with the ADA and RA, where legally applicable. The Court finds no pervasive pattern of orderly abuse and/or neglect of disabled patients at LSP. The Court concludes that there is no pervasive problem of orderly abuse of disabled patients at LSP. While there is insufficient evidence of orderly abuse/neglect, the Court finds that there is a serious lack of supervision or oversight of inmate orderlies by both medical staff and security personnel. This lack of supervision necessarily contributes to violations of the ADA and RA at LSP, Judge Dick points out. Based on the Court's factual findings, Judge Dick holds that LSP's methods of administration violate continue to violate the ADA and RA by failing to provide adequate access and accommodations to its disabled inmates due to neglect and/or failure to follow both Title II's implementing regulations and some of LSP's own ADA Directives. With the exception of exclusionary policies in duty status/work assignments, the Court finds, among other things, that all of the ADA violations identified by the Court in the liability ruling persist at LSP with no indication, except for the purported future partnership with Accessology, that changes are planned or thought to be necessary. The attitudes of those in medical leadership at the DOC and LSP easily demonstrate that injunctive relief is required in this case, Judge Dick holds. Accordingly, the Court will enter Permanent Injunctive relief by separate order. For these reasons, The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established their entitlement to permanent injunctive relief by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court will enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ubrex8t from PacerMonitor.com. LUCKY ELEPHANT: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Elephant Couture LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lucky Elephant Couture LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09982 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lucky Elephant offers branded merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com LUXURBAN HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hepburn Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN HEPBURN, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXURBAN HOTELS, INC., Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., November 15, 2023) seeks for overtime wages, minimum wages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Defendant LuxUrban has employed Plaintiff Hepburn since May 2022, and Hepburn has worked as a reservations specialist since August 2022. Allegedly, LuxUrban misclassified Plaintiff and the similarly situated reservations specialists as independent contractors to avoid paying employment taxes, benefits, minimum wages, and overtime. Headquartered in Miami, FL, LuxUrban owns and operates boutique hotels in major U.S. cities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com MASTEC INC: Liptock Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MasTec Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Liptock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MasTec Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05753-MDL (D.S.C., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. MasTec -- https://www.mastec.com/ -- is one of the nation's top power plant and renewable energy construction companies, specializing in building and engineering of natural gas power plants, alternative fuel power plants, wind farms and solar energy facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com MDL 2666: Three Suits Transferred to D. Minn. --------------------------------------------- In "In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation,"MDL No. 2666, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana; and one from the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen, for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The panel found that the actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2666, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Like the actions in the MDL, the three actions involves allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents suffered injuries caused by Bair Hugger warming blankets used during their surgeries with allegations that plaintiffs developed serious infections during their orthopedic surgeries due to the introduction of contaminants into their open wounds as a result of the use of a Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming System after his surgery. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2666-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 2873: Grosch's Conditional Transfer Order Vacated ----------------------------------------------------- In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order vacating conditional transfer of "Grosch, et al. v. Tyco Fire Products LP, et al." (C.A. No. 2:23−01259, D.N.J.) for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Plaintiff Grosch moved to vacate the panel's order arguing that transfer will inconvenience the parties and witnesses to this action. On September 15, 2023, the assigned judge in the District of Arizona granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court. Although the court has stayed remand for 30 days (to allow the removing party an opportunity to seek appellate review), transfer at this time would only introduce procedural inefficiencies with respect to this action. Accordingly, we grant plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the conditional transfer order, ruled the panel. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order to vacate is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Vacating_CTO-9-23.pdf MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Maryland v. 3M Suit to D.S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by defendant 3M Company to transfer the case captioned "State of Maryland v. 3M Company, et al. (C.A. No. 1:23−01836, D. Md.) to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. These defendants allegedly discharged their industrial wastewater to conventional wastewater treatment plants and dispose of other waste products in area landfills. PFAS from these waste products allegedly flows into the downstream waters. The panel concluded that transfer could disrupt the progress of the case. Any discovery or other overlap with the MDL can be minimized through coordination between the parties and the involved courts. The panel further clarified that discovery and pleading practice could demonstrate that an ostensibly non-AFFF action is, in fact, more properly treated as an AFFF case for which transfer to MDL No. 2873 is warranted. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-23.pdf MDL 2924: Love v. GSK Consolidated in Zantac Liability Row ---------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned as Love v. Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceutical Company, et al.," C.A. No. 1:23−00557 (W.D. Mich.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred its action to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2924. Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC opposed the motion to vacate. Plaintiff argued that transfer would cause him hardship, as he cannot file pleadings electronically and his mail is subject to delays due to his incarceration. But the panel held that transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole and looks to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation. Furthermore, there usually is no need for parties or witnesses to travel to the transferee court for depositions or court hearings. According to the panel, the action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924, sharing factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. Like the actions in the MDL, Love alleges that he developed cancer caused by his ingestion of Zantac. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 2924: Panel Denies Gallagher's Bid to Remand Case to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by plaintiff Anthony Gallagher to remand his action docketed as "Gallagher v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−23053 (S.D. Fla.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gallagher involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924; allegations that ranitidine, the active molecule in "Zantac" and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. The case was previously transferred from the Southern District of New York to MDL No. 2924 in the Southern District of Florida. After considering plaintiff's arguments, the panel concluded that remand is not appropriate at this time and deny plaintiff's motion. "In considering the question of Section 1407 remand, we accord great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings in the MDL," it ruled. Here, the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion of remand. Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion" and the plaintiff has not met that burden here since his sole argument in support of remand is that he is a prisoner and lacks internet access to review pretrial orders and rulings necessary to prosecute his claims, the panel concluded. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Order_Denying_Remand-9-23.pdf MDL 3017: Bayer v. Auson Consolidated in Xarelto Patent Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ In IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) ('310) PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 3017, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned as Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, et al. v. Auson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:23−03020 (D.N.J.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Richard G. Andrews for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants Auson Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Shanghai Auson Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. moved to vacate the panel's order conditionally consolidating the case. Plaintiffs Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer AG, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., opposed the motion and support the transfer. The actions in MDL No. 3017 involve common factual questions concerning alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310, entitled "Reducing the Risk of Cardiovascular Events" (the '310 patent), as a result of various pharmaceutical company applications to the FDA to manufacture and sell a drug product that allegedly is a generic version of Xarelto - specifically, 2.5 mg rivaroxaban tablets. Like the actions in the MDL, the Auson action involves alleged infringement of the '310 patent in connection with a company's application to manufacture and sell 2.5 mg rivaroxaban tablets and thus is appropriate for transfer. In opposition to transfer, defendants principally argued that Auson lacks common factual questions because plaintiffs' claims concerning said patent, in their view, likely will be dismissed, there is an additional patent at issue in Auson that is not shared with the other MDL actions and transfer would not be efficient considering the advanced posture of the MDL and the recent inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which held all claims in the '310 patent invalid. The panel ruled that since the Auson complaint on its face asserts that its New Drug Application infringes said patent, its assertion of no shared factual issues is premised on the success of its anticipated motion to dismiss, which Auson states will argue that all patented uses of said patent were specifically carved out of its NDA, and hence there can be no infringement. But the panel has long held that pending motions to dismiss does not usually weigh against transfer. Also, the involvement of an additional non-overlapping patent is no obstacle to transfer. The shared factual questions presented by a single overlapping patent may warrant transfer even where additional case-specific patents are asserted, added the panel. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3017-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 3074: Irvin Suit Consolidated in Cabela's Wiretapping Row ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned "Irvin V. Cabela's LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 1:23-00530 (M.D. Pa.), to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Mark A. Kearney for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: BPS Direct, LLC and Cabela's, LLC, Wiretapping Litigation," MDL No. 3074. BPS Direct and Cabela's, which are co-owned by Bass Pro, LLC, are retailers that sell hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor recreation merchandise, both in brick-and-mortar stores and online. Irvin alleges that defendants improperly record website visitors' activities and information through code embedded in their websites and that such recording constitutes illegal wiretapping. Plaintiff assert claims for violation of state wiretap statutes, the Federal Wiretap Act, or both, as well as various claims under state consumer protection or data privacy statutes and common-law claims for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, or unjust enrichment. "We find that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 3074, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," rules the panel. The actions will share questions of fact as to whether and how defendants record the activities and data of website users, whether that information is shared with the vendors that supplied the code, the purposes for which the information is used and by whom, how defendants' privacy policies are displayed, and where the alleged recording or interception occurs. The cases are likely to involve duplicative discovery and overlapping pretrial motions regarding standing, class certification and the interpretation of the wiretap statutes, the panel says. Both parties oppose centralization, arguing that Irvin's case differs from the MDL litigation in two ways. First, they assert that the cases centralized involve the use of Microsoft Clarity, whereas Irvin involves Meta's Pixel code. Although plaintiffs in most of the cases originally centralized alleged that defendants use Clarity, all alleged that defendants use multiple different session replay codes, and one specifically alleged that defendants use Quantum Metric code in addition to Clarity. Similarly, the consolidated class action complaint filed in the MDL on August 14, 2023, alleges that defendants' websites are embedded with a variety of session replay codes provided by multiple different third-party vendors. Thus, while the claims in the MDL all arise from defendants' use of session replay code, the MDL will involve discovery as to multiple versions of that code, multiple third-party providers of the code, and the extent to which defendants have provided adequate notice that they are employing these various codes. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that Pixel code captures and transmits largely the same types of information as session replay code, including visitors' identities and interactions with the websites and all information entered there. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3074-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 3083: 10 Suits Consolidated in MoveIt Data Breach Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: MoveIt Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3083, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 5 cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; 2 from the Eastern District of Louisiana; and one each from the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, and the District of Minnesota, all to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All actions can be expected to share factual questions arising from allegations that a vulnerability in Progress Software Company's "MOVEit Transfer" and "MOVEit Cloud" file transfer services was exploited by a Russian cybergang in May 2023, which to date is estimated to have compromised the personally identifying information (PII) of over 55 million people. On May 31, 2023, Progress posted a notice on its website stating it had discovered an SQL injection vulnerability in its MOVEit file transfer services and a related breach in its network and systems. Plaintiffs are individuals whose PII was potentially compromised who bring largely overlapping putative nationwide or statewide class actions on behalf of persons impacted by the exploitation of the MOVEit software vulnerability. Moreover, these actions can be expected to share common and complex factual questions as to how the MOVEit vulnerability occurred, the circumstances of the unauthorized access and data exfiltration, and Progress's response to it, as well as the response of various downstream MOVEit users and customer-facing defendants with whom plaintiffs did business. Centralization offers substantial opportunities to streamline pretrial proceedings; reduce duplicative discovery and conflicting pretrial obligations; prevent inconsistent rulings on summary judgment motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary, rules the panel. "We are persuaded that the District of Massachusetts is the appropriate transferee district for these cases. More cases are pending in this district than in any other district, and the owner of the MOVEit file transfer software, Progress Software Corp., is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. Relevant employees likely are based in this district, where potentially relevant databases, documents, witnesses, and other evidence also may be found," it adds. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3083-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 3085: 22 Suits Consolidated in Uber Sexual Assault Row ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 22 cases consisting of 9 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 3 from the Northern District of Illinois; 2 from the District of Colorado; and one each from the District of Massachusetts, Western District of Missouri, Eastern District of North Carolina, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas, District of Arizona, Middle District of Georgia and the Northern District of Georgia, all to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation," MDL No. 3085. These actions purportedly involve common questions of fact arising from allegations that Uber failed to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers, and that the plaintiffs suffered sexual assault or harassment as a result. Common factual questions include Uber's knowledge about the prevalence of sexual assault by Uber drivers, and whether Uber failed to conduct adequate background checks of its drivers, train drivers regarding sexual assault and harassment, implement adequate safety measures to protect passengers from sexual assault, and adequately respond to complaints about drivers. The panel contends that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel. A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3084-Transfer_Order-9-23.pdf MDL 3085: Panel Denies Centralization of Moody's Suits to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion to centralize cases "Moody v. Harry, et al.," C.A. No. 2:23−00770 (E.D. Pa.) and "Moody v. Wetzel, et al.," C.A. No. 3:18−00053 (M.D. Pa.) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Inmate Confinement Litigation," MDL No. 3085. Common plaintiff Brandon Moody, who is proceeding pro se, opposed centralization. The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Where a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. Movants have not met that burden here, notes the panel. While the two actions appear to present substantial factual overlap as to plaintiff's alleged disabilities and the conditions of his confinement at various Pennsylvania correctional facilities, the factual issues seem straightforward and discovery is not likely to be particularly time-consuming or complex; indeed, much of the necessary discovery already has been completed in the earlier-filed M.D. Pennsylvania action. A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3085-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-23.pdf ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Expert Reports Filing Extended to Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order extending the deadlines initially set in the Initial Case Management Order as follows: -- The Defendants' expert reports as to Dec. 19, 2023 class certification shall be filed by: -- Depositions of class certification Jan. 17, 2024 experts must be completed by: The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment. ME&I is a full-service maintenance and construction services company headquartered in Houston, Texas.[CC] MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------ Medical Properties Trust 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a second putative federal securities class action lawsuit, also alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Case No. 2:23-cv-00486. The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its tenants. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 29, 2023, we and certain of our executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-08597. The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the remaining open cases vigorously. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. MERRILL GARDENS: Escobedo Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elias Escobedo, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MERRILL GARDENS L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C23-02414 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05834-LB. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Period ; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Payroll Records; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq. Samantha A Botros, Esq HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Email: domalley@hansonbridgett.com sbotros@hansonbridgett.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Burr Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Burr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02081-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San Diego.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com MIDLAND FINANCIAL: Strucke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Darryl Strucke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Financial Co., Ipswitch Inc., Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00782 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12771-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Midland Financial -- https://www.midlandfinancial.net/ -- is a full-service independent financial planning and investment management company based in Rogers, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City Phone: (405) 235-1560 The Defendant is represented by: Anthony J. Hendricks, Esq. Timila S. Rother, Esq. William H. Hoch, III, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC Braniff Building 324 N Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 239-5411 Fax: (405) 272-5932 Email: Anthony.Hendricks@crowedunlevy.com timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com will.hoch@crowedunlevy.com - and - Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq. Larry D Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S. Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 232-4633 Fax: (405) 232-3462 Email: amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com MODIVCARE INC: To Settle Misclassification Suit in Missouri Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- ModivCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that as of September 30, 2023, the parties in a putative class action lawsuit filed against the company's subsidiary, ModivCare Solutions, LLC by Mohamed Farah, the owner of transportation provider Dalmar Transportation, in the Western District of Missouri have agreed on a settlement and are awaiting the arbitrator's approval. Case, filed on August 6, 2020, sought to represent all non-employee transportation providers contracted with ModivCare Solutions. The lawsuit alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Act, and asserts that all transportation providers to ModivCare Solutions in the putative class should be considered ModivCare Solutions' employees rather than independent contractors. On June 6, 2021, the court conditionally certified as the putative class all current and former In Network Transportation Providers who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099 payments from ModivCare Solutions for providing non-emergency medical transportation services for ModivCare Solutions for the previous three years. Notice of the proposed collective class was issued on October 5, 2021, and potential members of the class had until January 3, 2022 to opt-in. Plaintiff moved for class certification on August 15, 2022, and ModivCare Solutions filed an opposition to class certification on September 6, 2022. On January 13, 2023, the matter was transferred with the consent of the parties and the court to binding arbitration. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company that provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions for public and private payors and their members. MPOWER ENERGY: Silva Sues Over Deceptive Retail Energy Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- MAGDA SILVA and KIRK BURKEHAMILTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MPOWER ENERGY, LLC and MPOWER ENERGY NJ LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09849-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the New York General Business Law and materially identical consumer protection statutes of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Illinois. This action seeks to redress Mpower's deceptive and bad faith pricing practices that have caused tens of thousands of customers, including Plaintiffs, across the United States to pay considerably more for their electricity and natural gas than they should otherwise have paid. According to the complaint, Mpower's representations about its variable rate are false and deceptive, and designed to take advantage of customers' good faith and lack of knowledge about, and access to, accurate wholesale and retail energy pricing and cost information. In reality, Mpower did not provide its customers with prices based upon market pricing and the factors and costs included in its contract, but rather used a pricing methodology that focused on maximizing profits, says the suit. Mpower Energy LLC is an independent energy service company that sells electricity and natural gas in deregulated energy markets across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Jessica L. Hunter, Esq. Nathan A. Rice, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com jlh@wittelslaw.com nar@wittelslaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Andrey Belenky, Esq. KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP 80 Broad Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-5399 E-mail: abelenky@kblit.com NATIONAL ACCOUNT: MacGillivray Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Account Service Company, LLC. The case is styled as Lisa MacGillivray, Daniel MacGillivray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Account Service Company, LLC, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-12720 (D.S.C., Nov. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. National Account Service Co. LLC -- http://www.nasco.com/-- provides information technology products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com NCAA: Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Report by August 2, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH COLON, et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA), Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall J. Newman entered an order that: 1. The parties' agreed upon procedures for discovery is adopted. 2. The Defendant's request to limit the topics of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is denied. 3. No limits on the number of depositions allowed plaintiffs are ordered aside from those outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. 4. The Plaintiff's timeline for the deadline to submit expert reports related to their class certification motion is adopted. The Plaintiffs shall submit their expert report alongside their class certification motion, currently due by August 2, 2024. The Defendant's rebuttal expert report is due alongside its opposition to the class certification motion. The Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied in full. The Defendant shall produce the information in its possession. Plaintiffs may subpoena the member schools for additional information as needed, and the parties are counseled to continue working toward a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution to these cases. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1100 schools in the United States, and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49CCEZl at no extra charge.[CC] NCAA: Smart et al., Must Submit Expert Report by August 2, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SMART, et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall J. Newman entered an order that: 1. The parties' agreed upon procedures for discovery is adopted. 2. The Defendant's request to limit the topics of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is denied. 3. No limits on the number of depositions allowed plaintiffs are ordered aside from those outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. 4. The Plaintiff's timeline for the deadline to submit expert reports related to their class certification motion is adopted. The Plaintiffs shall submit their expert report alongside their class certification motion, currently due by August 2, 2024. The Defendant's rebuttal expert report is due alongside its opposition to the class certification motion. The Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied in full. The Defendant shall produce the information in its possession. Plaintiffs may subpoena the member schools for additional information as needed, and the parties are counseled to continue working toward a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution to these cases. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1100 schools in the United States, and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47hp0sS at no extra charge.[CC] NEW ENGLAND HEALTH: Beckwith Sues Over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- KRISTY BECKWITH, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ENGLAND HEALTH GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12689-DJC (D. Mass., Nov. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made telemarketing calls to residential numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, like Plaintiff Beckwith's telephone number, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to her for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. New England Health Group is a home renovation and remodel company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com NEW YORK HEALTH: Court OK's Withdrawing Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franck v. New York Health Care Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04955 (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order withdrawing motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. New York Health Care provides home care services to the Greater New York area since 1983.[CC] NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Simpson Suit OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned ARIEL SIMPSON, DOMINIQUE BROGDEN, TARA MARTINS, GREGORY SWANN, DANIELLE ROMANOFF, PERRY ROYSTER, and NINA FEZZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00747 (M.D. Tenn.). Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan" or "NNA") has filed a Motion to Dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs have filed a Response, and Nissan has filed a Reply. On Sept. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative Class Action Complaint against Nissan and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. pursuant to the laws of several states and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). On Jan. 31, 2023, Nissan filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation directed at the claims of two of the Plaintiffs: Dominique Brogden, who has asserted claims under Virginia law, and Perry Royster, who has asserted claims under North Carolina law. While that motion was pending, Nissan filed a Motion to Dismiss directed at all of the pending claims except two warranty-based claims brought by Tara Martins. On Aug. 9, 2023, the Court granted the Motion to Compel Arbitration, with the caveat that the Court was not making any ruling that the claims at issue were, themselves, subject to compulsory arbitration. Rather, the Court held that Nissan was entitled to have an arbitrator make the initial determination of the arbitrability of Brogden's and Royster's claims. The Court stayed its consideration of those claims, but did not otherwise stay litigation. The portions of the Motion to Dismiss involving claims by the Plaintiffs other than Brogden and Royster, therefore, remained pending. The Plaintiffs hope to represent a nationwide class consisting of all persons or entities, who purchased or leased any 2019-2023 Nissan Altima vehicle in the United States, as well several state-based subclasses consisting of the Plaintiffs in Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. The Plaintiffs state 15 causes of action, variously under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the laws of those respective states involving consumer protection, express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and/or fraud. The claims under Virginia law are asserted by no named plaintiff other than Brogden, so the Court will treat those claims--which are encompassed by the Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action--as stayed. Plaintiff Royster asserts claims under North Carolina law, but one of those claims--the Eleventh Cause of Action, for unfair and deceptive trade practices--is also being asserted by Fezza, so the Court can still consider that North Carolina claim. The Twelfth Cause of Action, for breach of implied warranties under North Carolina law, however, is asserted only by Royster, so the Court's consideration of that theory is stayed. Each of the Plaintiffs purchased a 2019 or 2020 Nissan Altima. Each of those vehicles was equipped with a type of transmission known as a "continuously variable transmission," or "CVT," which is the focus of this case. A set number of gears, however, means a set number of ratios that the transmission must, in effect, hop between, without the option to precisely target the particular, exact transmission rate ideal for a given situation. A CVT attempts to avoid that limitation by replacing this conventional system of gears with an alternative structure that allows a wheel to be driven at a continuous range of different rotational speeds--that is, the equivalent of "an infinite number of gear ratios. The Nissan CVT in the Plaintiffs' vehicles accomplishes this task by relying on a segmented steel belt between pulleys that can be adjusted to change the reduction ratio in the transmission. The Plaintiffs, however, say that the Nissan CVT was defective. They are not alone in having reached that conclusion; there have been a number of lawsuits filed regarding the Nissan CVT, including multiple cases in this Court. The lawsuits, however, have been marked by some degree of uncertainty regarding what, exactly, is supposedly wrong with the Nissan CVT--other than the general allegation that the system, as a whole, is prone to malfunction, Judge Trauger notes. These Plaintiffs define the "CVT Defect" simply to be one or more design and/or manufacturing defects that can cause the CVT to malfunction in the manners that they describe in their Amended Complaint. Outside of that fundamentally circular definition, however, the Plaintiffs do not offer a definitive account of the physical, mechanical details of how or why those malfunctions are occurring, although they do acknowledge some specific problems related to the buildup of metal debris in the CVT. Judge Trauger says that what the Plaintiffs lack in specificity, they seek to make up for with a wealth of anecdotal evidence of the transmission's problems, whatever their root cause. As the Plaintiffs point out, numerous 2019–2023 Altima owners have reported a significant delay in their vehicle's response while attempting to accelerate both from a stop and while in motion. Drivers have also reported "stalling, jerking, lurching, juddering, and/or shaking" during ordinary operation. The fact that many Nissan drivers have voiced such complaints is, by now, a matter of public record, confirmed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Nissan was aware of the Altima's CVT issues but actively concealed the true nature and extent of the problem. The CVT found in the relevant Altima models was the same or a substantially similar transmission as was included in prior model year Nissan vehicles equipped with a CVT. Nissan's experiences with those vehicles—as well as its later experiences with the Altima models at issue in this case—would have unavoidably alerted the company to the system's problems in a number of ways, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs also allege that Nissan Technical Service Bulletins, or "TSBs," issued by Nissan to its dealers demonstrate an awareness of problems with the CVT system. Several examples of these TSBs have been appended to the Amended Complaint. According to the Plaintiffs, Nissan would have been aware of these complaints because automobile manufacturers monitor the NHTSA database for consumer complaints regarding their automobiles as part of their ongoing obligation to identify potential defects in their vehicles, including safety-related defects. Each of the Plaintiffs claims to have experienced similar problems with his or her Altima. Their responses to the malfunctions, however, were not identical. Two of the Plaintiffs--Tara Martins and Gregory Swann--say that they brought their malfunctioning vehicles to a dealership. The other Plaintiffs, however, do not claim to have sought repairs from a dealership during their warranty periods. They do all state, however, that if they had known about the Altima's CVT issues, they would not have purchased one. The pending Motion to Dismiss raises six general arguments. First, Nissan argues that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission and consumer protection claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden to plead facts identifying the purported defect or showing that NNA was aware of any defect when their vehicles were sold. Second, Nissan argues that various of the claims fail because they run afoul of state-specific doctrines, particularly those involving restrictions on recovery for purely economic losses. Third, Nissan argues that all of the claims premised on implied warranties are deficient because the Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that their vehicles were either unmerchantable or inconsistent with their labeling. Fourth, Nissan argues that Swann's claim based on Nissan's express warranties should be dismissed because Swann did not grant Nissan a sufficient opportunity to repair his vehicle. Fifth, Nissan argues that, with only one exception--that is, Martins' claim--the Plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA fail because the MMWA claim is derivative of the underlying state law express and implied warranty claims and all but one express warranty claim fails under state law. Finally, Nissan argues that the Court should dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment on the ground that unjust enrichment is not available as a cause of action where the underlying transaction is already governed by an express contract, and each of the relevant vehicles was covered by a written warranty. Judge Trauger opines that Nissan is correct that courts considering automobile defect cases typically require at least some level of meaningful detail regarding what the defect that the Plaintiffs have alleged actually is--as opposed to simply the symptoms that it has caused. Browning v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 549 F. Supp. 3d 996 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and similar decisions are persuasive authority, and the Court does not doubt the general proposition that a plaintiff alleging an automobile defect must identify the defect with some degree of specificity, particularly when some of the claims he is pursuing sound in fraud and are, therefore, subject to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Nissan's briefing, however, Judge Trauger says, it goes beyond treating such cases as the persuasive examples they are and treats them as, in effect, creating special pleading requirements for automobile defect cases that every plaintiff must satisfy. It is not clear to the Court, however, why that should—or could—be the case. The pleading requirements for these causes of action, as with any cause of action, arise out of the application of the appropriate pleading standard to the substantive elements of the claims asserted—nothing more and nothing less, Judge Trauger points out. Nissan, however, has not identified any basis for the special pleading requirement stating that a plaintiff, who alleges that his transmission was defective absolutely must identify some faulty sub-component smaller than the transmission itself, Judge Trauger notes. What matters, Judge Trauger explains, is whether a product was defective and known to be so, not whether the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, or anyone else can provide a mechanical explanation for why it was defective. Even if the Court accepted Nissan's arguments regarding the standard for pleading a defect, those arguments would, at most, justify narrowing the Plaintiffs' claims to those associated with the more detailed technical defect that they have identified. There would be no basis for outright dismissal, Judge Trauger points out. The Court, accordingly, will not dismiss any claims based on the Plaintiffs' allegedly inadequate pleading of knowledge. Judge Trauger holds that the Court will not dismiss any of the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim based solely on their failure to plead unmerchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code's ("UCC"). The Court finds Plaintiff Swann has plausibly pleaded that the dealership, as Nissan's agent, affirmatively failed to honor the warranty. Because the Court is not dismissing any warranty-based state-law claims--only one of Fezza's statutory claims--it will not dismiss any claims under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that Nissan sold each of the vehicles at issue in this case with a powertrain warranty that covered the CVT. There is, accordingly, no plausible reading of the allegations of the Complaint, or any subset of those allegations, that would support a conclusion that the subject matter of this case was not covered by the warranties themselves, Judge Trauger opines. There is, therefore, no basis for permitting the unjust enrichment claims to proceed as an alternative theory of liability, and the Court will dismiss all such claims. For these reasons, Judge Trauger rules that Nissan's Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will dismiss the claims for unjust enrichment asserted by all Plaintiffs other than Brogden and Royster. The Court's denial of the motion will be without prejudice to any matter related to the claims of Brogden and Royster. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/37emad6d from PacerMonitor.com. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Stockley Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled JEAN STOCKLEY, BRIANNA WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH BURNS, LORETTA MUNFORD, DOROTHY ARDS, LEE SEVIGNY, JENNA HAINES, MAUREEN LOVE, SEAN CHAMBERS, and TAYLOR SIMMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00709 (M.D. Tenn.). Each of the ten plaintiffs owns a Nissan Rogue or Nissan Rogue Sport with a model year from 2017 to 2020. Those vehicles were equipped with a type of transmission known as a "continuously variable transmission," or "CVT," which is the focus of this case. A transmission is a system that, to somewhat simplify matters, transmits the power from the vehicle's engine to the wheels. Ordinary driving requires the wheels of the vehicle to receive different levels of power in different situations, depending on the need for acceleration, speed, or struggle against an incline. A transmission, therefore, must be capable of transmitting power at those different levels. Judge Trauger notes that all factual allegations are from the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint and are accepted as true for the purposes of the Motion to Dismiss. A set number of gears, however, means a set number of ratios that the transmission must, in effect, hop between, without the option to precisely target the particular, exact transmission rate ideal for a given situation. A CVT attempts to avoid that limitation by replacing this conventional system of gears with an alternative structure that allows a wheel to be driven at a continuous range of different rotational speeds—that is, the equivalent of an infinite number of gear ratios. The Nissan CVT in the Plaintiffs' vehicles accomplishes this task by relying on a segmented steel belt between pulleys that can be adjusted to change the reduction ratio in the transmission. The Plaintiffs, however, say that the Nissan CVT was defective. They are not alone in having reached that conclusion; there have been a number of lawsuits filed regarding the Nissan CVT, including multiple cases in this Court. The lawsuits, however, have been marked by some degree of uncertainty regarding what, exactly, is supposedly wrong with the Nissan CVT--other than the general allegation that the system, as a whole, is prone to malfunction. The Plaintiffs allege that Nissan was aware of the Rogue's CVT issues but "actively concealed the true nature and extent" of the problem. The CVT found in the relevant Rogue models was, the Plaintiffs point out, the same or a substantially similar transmission as was included in earlier model Nissan vehicles equipped with a CVT, including the 2014-2018 Nissan Rogue. Nissan's experiences with those vehicles, as well as its later experiences with the Rogue models at issue in this case, would have unavoidably alerted the Company to the system's problems in a number of ways, the Plaintiffs allege. First, the Plaintiffs assert that the CVT's poor functioning and tendency to fail should have been apparent from pre-production testing, pre-production design failure mode and analysis data, and production design failure mode and analysis data. Then, once vehicles using the CVT were on the road, Nissan would have received early consumer complaints made exclusively to Nissan's network of dealers and directly to Nissan. The Plaintiffs also allege, among other things, that Nissan Technical Service Bulletins, or "TSBs," issued by Nissan to its dealers demonstrate an awareness of problems with the CVT system. Several of these TSBs have been appended to the Amended Complaint. On Sept. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative Class Action Complaint against Nissan and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and the laws of their respective states. They hope to represent a nationwide class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or leased any MY2019-2022 Nissan Rogue or MY2017-2022 Nissan Rogue Sport vehicle in the United States, as well several state-based subclasses consisting of plaintiffs in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. The Plaintiffs state 27 causes of action, variously under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the laws of those respective states involving consumer protection, express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, negligence, and/or fraud. On May 8, 2023, Nissan filed a Motion to Dismiss directed at all claims. Judge Trauger notes that the pending Motion to Dismiss raises six general arguments. First, Nissan argues that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission and consumer protection claims should be dismissed because they do not meet their burden to plead facts identifying the purported defect or showing that Nissan was aware of the existence of that defect in their vehicles when they were sold. Second, Nissan argues that various of the claims fail because they run afoul of state-specific doctrines, particularly those involving timeliness, notice, and restrictions on recovery for purely economic losses. Third, Nissan argues that all of the claims premised on implied warranties are deficient because the Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that their vehicles were either unmerchantable or inconsistent with their labeling. Fourth, Nissan argues that the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims should be dismissed because they have failed to plausibly plead facts showing that Nissan was unable to or refused to repair a defect in materials or workmanship covered by the warranty. Fifth, Nissan argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims must be dismissed if the predicate state law breach of warranty claim is dismissed. Finally, Nissan argues that the Court should dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment on the ground that unjust enrichment is not available as a cause of action where the underlying transaction is already governed by an express contract, and each of the relevant vehicles was covered by a written warranty. Judge Trauger says Nissan is correct that courts considering automobile defect cases typically require at least some level of meaningful detail regarding what the defect that the Plaintiffs have alleged actually is--as opposed to simply the symptoms that it has caused. The Court, however, will not limit the Plaintiffs' claims to those involving obstruction of transmission fluid cooler, because the pleading standard that Nissan asserts simply does not exist. No source of law--either substantive or procedural--required the Plaintiffs to plead that the defect at issue in this case can be attributed to a specific subcomponent of the CVT or a specific mechanical process, Judge Trauger points out. The Plaintiffs were, rather, required to state allegations sufficient to put Nissan on notice regarding the defect at issue, as well as particularized facts sufficient to support their allegations of fraud. Judge Trauger finds that the Plaintiffs have complied with those standards, as applied to identification of the defect. In any event, even if a particularly heightened pleading standard applied to the Plaintiffs' assertions of knowledge, they would have met that standard, Judge Trauger holds. The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Nissan's history with the CVT, including its history with substantially the same CVT system in earlier vehicles, plainly supports an inference of knowledge, and that inference is supported by both TSBs and consumer complaints. The supposed defects in those assertions that Nissan has identified are, at most, arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence of knowledge. Those supposed shortcomings, however, do nothing to negate the sufficiency of the pleading under Rule 8 and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Trauger opines. The Court, accordingly, will not dismiss any claims based on the Plaintiffs' allegedly inadequate pleading of knowledge. Judge Trauger finds that Nissan's discussion of privity in the context of other arguments confirms that it accepts the general proposition that the Plaintiffs' Nissan warranties do not establish privity. The Court, therefore, will treat this issue as conceded by Nissan for the purposes of the motion to dismiss. Judge Trauger also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify an exception to Illinois' rule that privity is required to support a claim for breach of implied warranty, and that claim--the Seventeenth Cause of Action--will be dismissed. The mere fact that a vehicle covered by a warranty has malfunctioned does not, alone, support recovery for breach of express warranty, Judge Trauger says. The Court, accordingly, will not dismiss the breach of express warranty claims based on an insufficient opportunity to repair. Nissan argues that unjust enrichment is unavailable in this case, because each vehicle was subject to an express warranty covering the relevant subject matter. The Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that Nissan sold each of the vehicles at issue in this case with a powertrain warranty that covered the CVT. There is, accordingly, no plausible reading of the allegations of the Complaint, or any subset of those allegations, that would support a conclusion that the subject matter of this case was not covered by the warranties themselves, Judge Trauger opines. There is, therefore, no basis for permitting the unjust enrichment claims to proceed as an alternative theory of liability, and the Court will dismiss all such claims. For these reasons, Judge Trauger rules that Nissan's Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. The First, Tenth, Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Sixth Causes of Action will be dismissed, and the Twenty-Fifth Cause of Action will be dismissed, in part, as to the breach of implied warranty-based MMWA claims of Plaintiffs Williams, Love, Ards, and Chamber. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kexp4rj from PacerMonitor.com. NORTHWELL HEALTH: Heitzner Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------- ILISE HEITZNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 161199/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., November 15, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard its former and current patients' personally identifiable and financial information and protected health information, which was accessed by unauthorized parties during the data breach that occurred on or around March 27, 2023 to May 2, 2023 on PJ&A's systems and on or around April 7, 2023 to April 19, 2023 on Northwell's systems. The Defendants did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the Data Breach Incidents until November 3, 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII and PHI was compromised because of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect their PII and PHI; (ii) warn of Defendants' inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure equipment and the database containing protected PII and PHI using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents, says the suit. Northwell Health is a nonprofit integrated healthcare network that is New York State’s largest healthcare provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. Benjamin D. Baker, Esq NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com bbaker@nfllp.com NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Avila Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Hector A. Avila, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22593 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09598. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages at Time of Separation; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Payam Malakouti, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Payam.Malakouti@jacksonlewis.com OAK GROVE: Wisconsin Court Refuses to Dismiss Kluender FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled MICHELLE KLUENDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK GROVE ASSISTED CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00473-jdp (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiff Michelle Kluender brings this proposed class and collective action against Defendant Oak Grove Assisted Care, LLC, where she formerly worked as a Resident Care Aide. She contends that Oak Grove violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin wage law by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from hourly-paid, nonexempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed. Oak Grove moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff originally filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for both improper venue and for failure to state a claim. The court found that the venue was improper in the Eastern District and transferred the case, without deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Defendant argues that the complaint must be dismissed because the Plaintiff hasn't alleged enough facts to establish that her position was "nonexempt" under the FLSA, that she and the other class members had the same job duties, or the specific amount she and the other class members were allegedly underpaid. The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the Defendant as a Resident Care Aide, an hourly-paid, nonexempt position. The Defendant argues that this is not enough to state an overtime claim under the FLSA because the allegation that the Plaintiff is "nonexempt" is merely a legal label, unsupported by any allegations of fact. But it is the employer's burden to establish that an employee is exempt, and complaints need not anticipate, and attempt to plead around, potential affirmative defenses, Judge Peterson opines, citing Sanchez v. Haltz Const., Inc., No. 09 C 7531, 2012 WL 13514, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2012). Further, as the employer, Judge Peterson says the Defendant would know the duties of a Resident Care Aide and whether that position is exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff has not adequately pled a collective FLSA claim because it is unclear from the complaint whether the other proposed class members have the same job duties as the Plaintiff. Judge Peterson notes that the complaint does not provide a detailed description of the Plaintiff's job duties, but it does provide that (1) all the purported collective members had the same or similarly-titled positions, and substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, (2) the members all performed primarily nonexempt job duties and were paid hourly, (3) they all used the Defendant's allegedly unlawful electronic timekeeping system, and (4) they were all denied overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours a week. Judge Peterson opines that the complaint contains enough details to give the Defendant fair notice of what the claim is, the grounds upon which it rests, and the putative class, so it survives dismissal. Judge Peterson points out that the Defendant can challenge the appropriateness of proceeding collectively when the Plaintiff moves for conditional certification and issuance of class notification. The Plaintiff asserts two claims under Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws: (1) unpaid overtime pay; and (2) unpaid regular wages. The Defendant's challenges to the overtime claim mirror its objections to the FLSA claim. The Court rejects those challenges for the reasons just discussed. As for the claim for unpaid regular wages, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to state either an individual or class claim because she hasn't alleged the specific amount that the Defendant agreed to pay her, when her regular pay day was, the amount she allegedly was not paid on her regular pay day, and whether she ever demanded such payment, much less whether the other class members are similarly situated with respect to these missing details. Judge Peterson holds that the Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant maintained an electronic timekeeping system that deprived her and the other class members of their full rate of pay by shaving time from their timesheets is sufficient to state a claim for unpaid regular wages under state law. The amount of the resulting underpayment to the Plaintiff and the other class members is an issue more appropriately addressed at the damages phase. Hence, Judge Peterson denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2eudbswx from PacerMonitor.com. OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in PA ----------------------------------------------------------- Ocugen 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In June 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its agents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Court") (Case No. 2:21-cv-02725) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the announcement of the Company's decision to pursue the submission of a BLA for COVAXIN for adults ages 18 years and older rather than pursuing an EUA. In July 2021, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its agents in the Court (Case No. 2:21-cv-03182) that also purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on the same statements as the first complaint. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. In March 2022, the Court consolidated these two related securities class action lawsuits and appointed Andre Galan Bernd Benayon to serve as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2022. In March 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The lead plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the order that was entered in March 2023, which dismissed the action with prejudice. The lead plaintiff's appellant's brief and joint appendix were filed in July 2023. The Company's appellees' brief was filed in August 2023, and the lead plaintiff's reply brief was filed in September 2023. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Ocugen, Inc. operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company offers products for improving the body's ability to regenerate healthy cartilage, joint function, and prevention of degenerative diseases. Ocugen serves patients and orthopedist throughout the United States.[BN] ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Somogyi Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Organogenesis 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 9, 2023, that the motion to dismiss the Somogyi class suit is pending in court. On December 10, 2021, a class action complaint captioned Somogyi v. Organogenesis Holdings Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's securities against the firm and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court appointed Donald Martin as lead plaintiff. Mr. Martin filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2022 that brings claims on behalf of a purported class of all purchasers of its securities from August 10, 2020 through August 9, 2022 and alleges violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to, among other matters, revenue, sales growth and ability to compete in connection with its Affinity and PuraPly XT products. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unquantified damages as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The action is in the early stages of litigation. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them. On March 13, 2023, it filed its motion to dismiss the litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Briefing was completed on May 30, 2023 and the motion to dismiss is currently pending with the Court. Organogenesis Holdings Inc. is a regenerative medicine company focused on the development, manufacture, and commercialization of solutions for the advanced wound care and surgical & sports medicine markets. OS RESTAURANT: Guerra Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonia Castaneda Guerra, on behalf of the putative class v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES LLC dba FLEMING'S, Case No. C23-01702 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-05845. The Complaint alleges claims for: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory C. Cheng, Esq. Shannon Clawson, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: gregory.cheng@ogletree.com shannon.clawson@ogletree.com carolyn.hall@ogletree.com OUTCOMES INC: Cifuentes Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outcomes, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kaylee Cifuentes, Amber Carl, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Outcomes, Inc., Tony Posey, Case No. 5:23-cv-05197-PKH (W.D. Ark., Nov. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Outcomes -- https://www.outcomesnm.org/ -- is a leading consulting services and research firm providing unique and integrated offerings focusing on Technology and Healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy A. Steadman HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 975-5040 Fax: (501) 975-5043 Email: tim@johnholleman.net OWENS-BROCKWAY: Hillis Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cory Hillis, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-3206 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-01160. The Complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief, including: failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to maintain required records; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices; and seeking penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Candace Bertoldi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: cbertoldi@seyfarth.com - and – Robin E. Devaux, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: rdevaux@seyfarth.com P.L. ROHRER & BRO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.L. Rohrer & Bro., Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. P.L. Rohrer & Bro., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09981 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rohrer Seeds -- https://rohrerseeds.com/ -- is a 4th generation family business located in the heart of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PACESETTER: Bid to Dismiss Duran Suit Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYNALDO DURAN, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KENNETH JOEKEL, an individual, MARC PLOTKIN, an individual, PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., A Texas profit corporation, PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC., A Florida profit corporation, FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC., A Florida profit corporation, and TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., A Florida profit corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00558-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John E. Steele entered an order that: 1. Corporate Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint is denied without prejudice. 2. Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint is denied without prejudice. 3. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this Opinion and Order. 4. Discovery and disclosures relating to this case will be stayed pending further order of the Court. The Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition was filed on September 21, 2023. Also before the Court is Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed on August 2, 2023. Pacesetter provides employment services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MMUnn9 at no extra charge.[CC] PANINI AMERICA: Huerta Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination at Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dulce Huerta, Plaintiff v. PANINI AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02529-K (N.D. Tex., November 15, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff asserting claims against the Defendant for unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 United States Code Section 1981. Plaintiff Huerta, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated, seeks to hold Panini accountable for the racially discriminatory hostile work environment it has created and nurtured and furthermore rectify the racially charged environment that she and her colleagues endured. Plaintiff Huerta is Mexican-American and worked at Panini from 2017 to 2020. during her tenure, was subjected to derogatory comments, especially from Caucasian colleagues, including a manager named David. These comments often took the form of "jokes" racial and ethnic tropes targeting Mexicans and their attire. Beyond the derogatory comments, she experienced the company's preference for pushing employees to resign rather than addressing their grievances, says the Plaintiff. Panini is an operating subsidiary of Panini S.P.A., an entity which holds itself out as an international brand leader within the world of sticker and trading card collectibles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Lane Addison, Esq. THE WILHITE LAW FIRM 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 300 Dallas, TX 75219-6247 Telephone: (469) 870-0870 E-mail: laddison@wilhitelawfirm.com - and - Omid Zareh, Esq. WEINBERG ZAREH MALKIN PRICE LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 899-5470 (212) 899-5472 E-mail: ozareh@wzmplaw.com PARKMOBILE LLC: Class Cert Bid Briefing Deadlines Entered in Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, MIRIAM GEORGE, EMMA JACKSON, SAIT KURMANGALIYEV, GREGORY MANSON, HERIBERTO TRAVIESTO and JACK WEAVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered a corrected scheduling order as follows: The Court sua sponte corrects the scheduling order, as amended to provide clarification as to the class certification motion briefing dates as follows: Plaintiffs' file any Motion Class Six weeks after Rule 16.3 Certification Motion along with Class Conference Certification Expert Declarations in Support Defendant files any Opposition to Eight Weeks after service Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion of Plaintiffs' motion along with any Expert Declarations in Support Plaintiffs file any Reply in Support of Eight Weeks after service Motion for Class Certification [along of Defendants' opposition with any Rebuttal Expert Declarations in Support] Parkmobile provides mobile parking solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MRFIH4 at no extra charge.[CC] PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Ventrillo Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Ventrillo Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., CHAD RICHISON, and CRAIG BOELTE, Case No. 5:23-cv-01019-F (W.D. Okla., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Paycom securities between May 3, 2023 and November 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") and to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On July 6, 2021, Paycom released a press release entitled "Paycom Launches Beti, an Industry-First Employee-Driven Payroll Solution." (the "Beti Announcement"). Paycom characterized Beti (which stands for "Better Employee Transaction Interface") as the "industry's first self-service payroll technology allowing employees to do their own payroll, improving data accuracy, oversight and the user experience for businesses and their employees on each payroll cycle." In the Beti Announcement, Defendant Richison stated "with Beti, employees do their own payroll. It should have always been this way, but the tech didn't exist. Today it does, and employers and employees will win with it." The Class Period starts on May 3, 2023. On May 2, 2023, after market hours, the Company held its Earnings Call for the period ended March 31, 2023 ("the 1Q23 Earnings Call"). On the 1Q23 Earnings Call, Defendant Boelte stated "for fiscal 2023, we are raising our outlook and now expect revenue in the range of $1.713 billion to $1.715 billion or approximately 25% year-over-year growth at the midpoint of the range." The statement was materially false and misleading because the expected revenue range presented by Defendant Boelte was unlikely due to Beti, which is cannibalizing a portion of the Company's products and revenues. The statements the Defendants made were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Paycom's Beti product led to cannibalization of the Company's services and revenues; Paycom knew but failed to disclose that Beti was leading to cannibalization of the Company's services and revenues, and failed to warn of cannibalization as a general risk; As a result of cannibalization of revenue, Paycom missed its expected 3Q23 revenue and would have to revise its expected 2023 Revenues; the cannibalization issue resulted in projected 2024 year-over-year revenue growth to between 10% and 12%, well below expectations; and as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The price of Paycom stock plunged $94.28 per share, or 38.38%, to close at $150.69 per share on November 1, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Paycom securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Paycom purports to be a "leading provider of a comprehensive, cloud based human capital management ("HCM") solution delivered as "Software-as-a-Service" ("Saas").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com PHILO INC: N.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss May Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled TOMIKA MAY and MATTHEW KIRSCHENBAUM, Plaintiffs v. PHILO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01394-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant Philo, Inc.'s Motion, filed May 17, 2023, "to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint." Plaintiffs Tomika May and Matthew Kirschenbaum have filed opposition, to which Philo has replied. By order filed July 7, 2023, the Court, after considering the parties' respective written submissions, deferred ruling on the motion, finding the Plaintiffs were entitled to conduct discovery relevant to whether May has standing, an issue raised in the motion to dismiss, and afforded the Plaintiffs leave to file supplemental opposition following the completion of such discovery. Thereafter, by letter filed Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs advised the Court that the discovery had been completed and that they did not intend to file supplemental opposition. Accordingly, the Court, having again read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties' respective written submissions, vacates the hearing scheduled for Dec. 1, 2023. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Philo operates a digital subscription service where subscribers may view television shows and movies, that Philo has "installed" on its website "the Facebook Pixel," and that Philo disclosed to Facebook, through the Facebook Pixel, the FID of the subscribers and the specific video the subscribers requested or obtained. The Plaintiffs further allege that May has been a "Philo subscriber" since October 2021 and is a "Facebook user," that Kirschenbaum was a "Philo subscriber from 2019 through August 2021" and is also a "Facebook user," and that Philo disclosed to Facebook each Plaintiff's FID and the "title of the videos" each Plaintiff "requested or obtained." Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, a claim against Philo under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). Philo, in seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' VPPA claim, argues May lacks standing and that Kirschenbaum's claim is barred by Rule 41(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its July 7 Order, the Court found Philo's showing, if unrebutted, sufficient to establish May's lack of standing to assert a claim under the VPPA. As the Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to, and did conduct, jurisdictional discovery, and there being no evidence offered by the Plaintiffs to rebut Philo's showing, the Court, for the reasons stated in the July 7 Order, finds May lacks standing. Accordingly, to the extent Philo seeks dismissal of May's claim, Judge Chesney holds that the motion to dismiss will be granted. Judge Chesney notes that there is no dispute that Kirschenbaum was a named plaintiff in two prior actions in which the plaintiffs therein, including Kirschenbaum, asserted a VPPA claim based on the same allegations made in the instant action. It is also undisputed that, in both of those two prior actions, Kirschenbaum, along with the other plaintiffs named in the amended complaints filed in those actions, voluntarily dismissed the action. Philo argues that, in light of the two prior voluntary dismissals, Kirschenbaum's third action asserting a VPPA claim, i.e., the instant action, is barred by Rule 41(a)(1)(B). The Plaintiffs do not dispute that, given the two prior dismissals, application of Rule 41(a)(1)(B) would preclude Kirschenbaum from proceeding with the instant action. The Plaintiffs argue, however, that Philo should be judicially estopped from relying on Rule 41(a)(1)(B), because, they contend, Philo, in the two prior actions, took the position that Kirschenbaum was not a party to the amended complaints, whereas Philo, in the instant action, is taking the position that, in essence, Kirschenbaum was a party to those actions. According to the Plaintiffs, those two positions are obviously contradictory, and, consequently, Philo is barred, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, from relying on Rule 41(a)(1)(B). In each of the subject prior actions, Philo filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in which Kirschenbaum had been added as a plaintiff (see In re Philo Privacy Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-04296 HSG, Doc. No. 60; Bryant v. Philo, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-00135, Doc. No. 27 HSG), arguing that the plaintiffs in the initial complaint lacked standing and that, as a result, those plaintiffs could not amend to add new plaintiffs, such as Kirschenbaum. Although it is not clear Philo's earlier argument is contrary to the position it takes in the instant action, Judge Chesney points out that such earlier argument, even if contrary to its instant position, does not give rise to an estoppel, as the district court to whom each of the prior actions was assigned did not decide either motion to dismiss; rather, the plaintiffs in each prior action voluntarily dismissed their claims before the district court ruled on said motions. Under such circumstances, Judge Chesney explains, the doctrine of judicial estoppel is inapplicable, the Ninth Circuit having restricted the application of judicial estoppel to cases where the court relies on, or accepted, the party's previous inconsistent position. Accordingly, to the extent Philo seeks dismissal of Kirschenbaum's claim, Judge Chesney holds that the motion to dismiss will be granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr56ub8s from PacerMonitor.com. POLARIS INC: Lindstrom Files Suit in D. Alaska ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Polaris, Inc., et al. The case is styled as John H. Lindstrom, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class and Montana subclass of similarly situated individuals v. Polaris, Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., Polaris Sales Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00137-SPW-TJC (D. Alaska, Nov. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Polaris Inc. -- https://www.polaris.com/en-us/ -- is an American automotive manufacturer headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq. David K.W. Wilson , Jr., Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N Last Chance Gulch PO Box 557 Helena, MT 59624 Phone: (406) 442-3261 Fax: (406) 443-7294 Email: rfolsen@mswdlaw.com kwilson@mswdlaw.com - and - John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com POST UNIVERSITY: Bid for More Time to File Class Certification OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. POST UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04234-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of deadline to move for class certification: The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on or before a date to be approved by the Court pursuant to the parties' jointly proposed schedule. Post University grants baccalaureate and graduate degrees. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ujTImJ at no extra charge.[CC] POSTMEDS INC: Williams Sues to Remedy Harms Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public v. POSTMEDS, INC. d/b/a TRUEPILL, Case No. 3:23-cv-05813 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought seeking to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose highly sensitive and confidential Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and electronically stored Protected Health Information ("e-PHI") was stolen in the data breach. On August 31, 2023, Postmeds identified a cybersecurity incident that compromised files containing patients' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and electronically stored Protected Health Information ("e-PHI"). The information that was breached included patient name, prescription information, medication type, prescribing physician and demographic information. On October 30, 2023, Postmeds filed a notice of data breach with the California Attorney General, and began notifying patients of the incident (the "Data Breach Notice Letter"). The Data Breach Notice Letter downplayed the severity of the intrusion stating "Importantly, your social security number was not involved as Postmeds does not receive this information." The letter does not offer free access to credit or identify monitoring services and instead encourages the data breach victims to "regularly review their information for accuracy, as a best practice, including information they receive from their healthcare providers." Further, the Data Breach Notice Letter did not contain any information about what demographic information was compromised, the details of the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. Given the highly sensitive and confidential nature of the e-PHI compromised in this incident, Plaintiff and Class members will be required to expend significant time and effort to mitigate the effects of this failure by Defendant to safeguard sensitive information, such as monitoring their credit reports and accounts for fraud. Postmeds' failure to comply with HIPAA and other laws and/or guidelines as alleged herein by, among other things, failing to take reasonable steps to safeguard patients' highly sensitive and confidential e-PHI, has directly resulted in injury to Plaintiff and the Class. Given the secret nature of, among other things: Postmeds' policies, procedures, systems, and controls; the result of the "investigation" into the incident disclosed in the Data Breach Notice Letter; and communications among Postmeds and/or the cybersecurity professionals who conducted the investigation concerning the data breach referenced in the Data Breach Notice Letter, Plaintiff believes that further evidentiary support for their claims will be unearthed after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. The Plaintiff and Class members bring claims for invasion of their privacy interests, as established through California's privacy laws and California's Constitution. In addition, Postmeds' actions constitute negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, as well as violations of several state consumer protection and privacy laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to provide his private e-PHI to Defendant as a condition to obtaining services at Postmeds. Postmeds which operates under the name TruePill, is a business-to-business vendor that fulfills prescription orders for a nationwide network of digital pharmacies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com PROG LEASING: Williams Files Suit in D. Utah -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prog Leasing LLC. The case is styled as Melanie Williams, Joey Diaz, Laura Robinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Prog Leasing LLC doing business as: Progressive Leasing, Case No. 2:23-cv-00837-DAK (D. Utah, Nov. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Prog Leasing LLC doing business as Progressive Leasing -- https://progleasing.com/ -- provides a rental-or lease- purchase agreement or in certain states, a rent-to-own agreement, a consumer rental-purchase agreement, or a lease agreement with an option to purchase.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Ste. 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC 10 EXCHANGE PL STE 350 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com PROVIDENCE ST: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH FOUNDATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation doing business as PROVIDENCE, and DOES 1-20, Case No. MDL 2873 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01723. The Complaint asserts 3 causes of action against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class, including: violation of RCW 49.58.110; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd L. Nunn, Esq. Patrick M. Madden, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Phone: +1 206 623 7580 Fax: +1 206 623 7022 Email: todd.nunn@klgates.com patrick.madden@klgates.com QUASI CORPORATION: Sinkfield Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Quasi Corporation of America, Etc. The case is styled as Deon Sinkfield, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Quasi Corporation of America, Etc, Case No. 1:23-cv-01883-KM (M.D. Pa., Nov. 13, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. A quasi-corporation is an entity that exercises some of the functions of a corporation, but has not been granted separate legal personality by statute.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. RADIUS GLOBAL: Hudgins' Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denies the Plaintiff's motion for limited jurisdictional discovery in the lawsuit captioned Bobbie Hudgins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03025-ECT-TNL (D. Minn.). The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bobbie Hudgins's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and to Extend the Deadline to Amend Her Complaint, and her Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendant Radius Global Solutions, LLC ("Radius Global") has not yet appeared in this action. Further, as no hearing date was obtained or hearing requested, the Court has determined this matter on the papers. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A), which provides that a federal court will have original jurisdiction over a class action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, and any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. As initially alleged, Radius Global is a limited liability corporation, whose principal place of business is in Minnesota. The magistrate judge previously assigned to this matter issued an order directing the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. The Order noted that the initial Class Action Complaint lacked information about the citizenship of the members of Radius Global to confirm that at least one class member is a citizen of a state different than Radius Global. The Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended Complaint curing the jurisdictional deficiency by adequately pleading the jurisdictional facts with respect to Radius Global's citizenship. The matter was subsequently transferred to Judge Leung as related to other matters brought against Radius Global. The Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion, seeking limited discovery for purposes of determining (1) the citizenship of the members and any sub-members of Radius Global; and (2) the states to which Radius Global sent notices to individuals of the subject data breach. The Plaintiff's motion detailed her investigation to date into Radius Global's members and their citizenship. The Plaintiff also sought additional time to file her amended complaint. A few days later, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint. In the Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant Radius Global Solutions, LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with a principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and that Defendant Radius Global, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of NGI Acquisitions, LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of NGI Investments, LLC. NGI Investments, LLC, has reported in court filings that it has 475 members, and at least some have citizenship in Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, Florida, and Minnesota. As a result, the Defendant is a citizen of the state of Minnesota. Judge Leung holds that the Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice as to the request for early jurisdictional discovery and denied as moot with respect to the request for additional time to file an amended complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is satisfied that the Amended Class Action Complaint has adequately addressed the jurisdictional deficiency identified in the prior Order for purposes of alleging the minimal diversity required under Section 1332(d)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is no good cause for expedited discovery at this time. Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, Judge Leung denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and to Extend the Deadline to Amend Her Complaint. Such denial is without prejudice as to the request for early jurisdictional discovery and as moot with respect to the request for additional time to file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/6vrvd9md from PacerMonitor.com. RICHARD MONTGOMERY: Thomas Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Montgomery, et al. The case is styled as Carvin Thomas, Terrell Lawrence, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Richard Montgomery, as Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Parole; Zane Duncan, as a Member of the Tennessee Board of Parole; Gary Faulcon, as a Member of the Tennessee Board of Parole; Tim Gobble, as a Member of the Tennessee Parole Board; Mae Beavers, as a Member of the Tennessee Board of Parole; Roberta Kustoff, as a Member of the Tennessee Parole Board; Barrett Rich, as a Member of the Tennessee Board of Parole; Case No. 3:23-cv-01204 (D. Alaska, Nov. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Richard Montgomery -- https://www.tn.gov/bop/about-us/information/abtus-info-board-members.html -- is the Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Parole.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew Justice, Esq. THE JUSTICE LAW OFFICE 1902 Cypress Drive Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Phone: (615) 419-4994 Fax: (877) 768-8271 Email: drew@justicelawoffice.com ROCK GATE: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Vito Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rock Gate Capital, LLC, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-15879 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 11, 2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the IMWL Class Members regularly worked in excess forty hours in a given workweek. However, Rock Gate failed to pay Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the IMWL Class Members any overtime whatsoever for their work which was in excess of forty hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiff worked no less than 86.67 hours. However, Plaintiff was not paid any overtime whatsoever for the hours which he worked that were in excess of forty hours in either week that pay period. The IMWL Class Members and the Collective Members were likewise paid a base wage with the opportunity to earn non-discretionary commissions and bonuses. The IMWL Class Members and the Collective Members likewise worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek during the three-years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. The IMWL Class Members and the Collective Members likewise were not paid any overtime whatsoever for their work which was in excess of forty hours in any given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Rock Gate as a sales representative from February, 2020 through October, 2023. Rock Gate owns and operates 160 Driving Academy, a school that provides truck driver training classes at dozens of locations nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Seaworld Entertainment 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Burns class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 27, 2022, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company captioned Quinton Burns individually and Next Friend of K.B., a minor v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-09941. The complaint states the putative class consists of Quinton Burns and K.B. Burns and similarly situated Black people. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding an additional seven adult and seven minor class representative plaintiffs in which they allege the class consists of themselves and similarly situated minority persons and also disclosed an additional 89 families and 125 children represented by Plaintiffs' counsel who are allegedly members of the purported class (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges the Company engaged in disparate treatment of class members based on their race and in so doing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Pennsylvania common law. The First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs as well declarative and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts and a motion to strike certification of the class. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the negligent training and hiring claims, without prejudice as to the negligent supervising claim, and denied the motion as to the 42 USC 1981 and negligence per se claims. Regarding the motion to strike class certification, the Court denied the motion on the grounds it is premature. The Company intends to refile the motion to strike class certification if and when the Plaintiffs file a motion to certify the class. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United States. SET ENTERPRISES: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAZZMYN WALLACE AND ALISHIA TALIAFERRO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated entertainers, Plaintiffs v. THE SET ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA THE CHEETAH HALLANDALE, JULIE RODRIGUEZ, AND JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-24261 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2023) seeks to recover the applicable minimum wage under Florida law, including unlawful "kick-backs," liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs Wallace and Taliafero were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers to work at adult entertainment club The Cheetah Hallandale from 2018 to 2022. The Set Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates the adult entertainment club based in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com STAKE CENTER: Kinsey Sues Over Company's Unfair Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- JAQUAN KINSEY, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 161185/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., November 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Stake Center Locating, Inc. Plaintiff Kinsey worked for SCL as a Utility Locator (also referred to as a "Field Technician") in and around New York, NY from approximately August 2019 until August 2022. Throughout his employment, SCL subjected Kinsey to its uniform practice of requiring him to clock out for 30 minutes a day for so-called "meal breaks." But throughout his employment, SCL required Kinsey to perform compensable work during his "off the clock" meal breaks without pay. In addition, SCL subjected Kinsey to its uniform "on-call" shift practice, forcing him to be "on-call" 24/7 and respond to unscheduled tickets without the required 72-hours' advance written notice. The Plaintiff further asserts that he also received a taxable automobile allowance as compensation that SCL intentionally excluded when calculating his regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Headquartered in Greensboro, NC, SCL provides utility locating services in 48 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STAR RENOVATIONS: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- ENOCH BROWN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. STAR RENOVATIONS NY LTD. d/b/a STAR RENOVATIONS NY, and ELI ZIKRY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08319 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Earned Safe and Sick Time Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to fixed salary, (2) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to Defendants' time-shaving policy, (3) unpaid "spread of hours" premium, (4) compensation for late payment of wages, (5) statutory penalties for failing to provide wage and hour notices upon hiring and as legally required thereafter, (6) statutory penalties for failing to provide proper wage statements for each payment period, (7) liquidated damages, and (8) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges, on an individual basis, that Defendants violated the New York State Earned Safe and Sick Time Act when they refused to allow Plaintiff to seek medical attention when he had an accident on the job. When Plaintiff complained and asserted his rights under the ESSTA, Defendants fired him, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in April 2023 to work as a construction driver. He was employed by Defendants until on or about July 2023, when his employment with Defendants ended. Star Renovations NY Ltd. is a home improvement contractor based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 STATE FARM: $65K Awarded to Class Representatives in Arnold Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry F. Moorer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Northern Division, grants service awards to the named plaintiff and class representatives in the lawsuit entitled ANNIE ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00148-TFM-C (S.D. Ala.). Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Unopposed Renewed Motion for Service Awards to the Class Representatives, filed May 2, 2023, accompanied by the brief in support. The Defendant also files its separate statement, in which it takes no position as to the motion. On Oct. 4, 2022, the Court approved the class action settlement and granted the motion for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, but denied without prejudice the request for service awards. The Court held in abeyance its determination on the request for service awards for the Named Plaintiff and Additional Class Representatives based upon some developing law within the Eleventh Circuit. The Court notes some contradictory legal authority based on the recent holdings in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020). Specifically, Johnson held that awards that compensate a class representative for his time are prohibited. However, Johnson was in the context of federal claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Following Johnson, a number of district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have found class representative service awards are still permitted under certain circumstances. The Court agrees with its several sister courts in this Circuit that Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), is inapplicable in diversity jurisdiction cases where the underlying claims arise under state law. Here, the Court is sitting in diversity jurisdiction and the Plaintiffs' claims arise under Alabama law. Thus, under the Erie doctrine, state law determines whether service awards for class representatives are permitted (see Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817. 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)). Thus, because the underlying claims in this action arise out of state law, the Court finds that class representative service awards are permitted here. Having determined that class representative service awards are permissible, the Court now turns to the specific amounts requested and the appropriateness of the request as a whole. Class Counsel requests service awards in the amount of $20,000 Annie Arnold (Named Plaintiff and Class Representative) and the $15,000 to each of the Additional Class Representatives Bobby Abney, Tina Daniel, and Kenneth Scruggs. As noted in its prior order approving the settlement, only after the negotiated settlement did the Parties negotiate potential attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. State Farm's payments to Class Members will not be reduced by the separate amounts paid for class service awards. Instead, the attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses will be paid "over and above" the amounts paid to class members. Therefore, Judge Moorer says, the service awards will not reduce the recovery by any class member. The representative service awards to be paid by State Farm, likewise are fair and reasonable under the circumstances, Judge Moorer holds. The Court finds that this case went through several years of litigation prior to the approval of the settlement to include heavily contested motions, an extensive discovery process, and a contested class action certification. Judge Moorer points out that the amounts sought are reasonable under the circumstances presented in this case. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Renewed Motion for Service for Service Awards to the Class Representatives. Therefore, the Court awards Annie Arnold (Named Plaintiff and Class Representative) $20,000 and awards Bobby Abney (Additional Class Representative), Tina Daniel (Additional Class Representative), and Kenneth Scruggs (Additional Class Representative) $15,000 each. The Court directs that State Farm will pay such amounts pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The Court previously entered a Partial Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as to the remaining matters presented in this case. The resolution of the class representative awards resolves the final outstanding matter in this case. Therefore, the Court will separately enter final judgment in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vwnexyf from PacerMonitor.com. STEEL PARTNERS: Reith Class Suit Trial Set for September 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the court set trial schedule for Reith class suit in September 2024. Reith v. Lichtenstein, et al. On April 13, 2018, a purported shareholder of STCN, Donald Reith, filed a verified complaint, Reith v. Lichtenstein, et al., 2018-0277 (Del. Ch.) (the "Reith litigation") in the Chancery Court. The plaintiff sought to assert class action and derivative claims against the Company and several of its affiliated companies, together with certain of members STCN's board of directors, as well as other named defendants (collectively, the "defendants") in connection with the acquisition of $35,000 of STCN's Series C Preferred Stock by an affiliate of the Company and equity grants made to three individual defendants. The complaint includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all the individual defendants as STCN directors; claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company; a claim for breach of fiduciary duty as controlling stockholder against the Company; and a derivative claim for unjust enrichment against the Company and the three individuals who received equity grants. The complaint demands damages in an unspecified amount for STCN and its stockholders, together with rescission, disgorgement and other equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead demand futility and failure to state a claim. On June 28, 2019, the Chancery Court denied most of defendants' the motion to dismiss, allowing the matter to proceed. The defendants and plaintiff (the "parties") subsequently participated in document discovery. On August 13, 2021, the parties, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") in connection with the settlement of the Reith litigation. Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants agreed (subject to court approval) to cause their directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers to pay to STCN $2,750 in cash. The Company's insurance carrier agreed to pay $1,100 of the settlement and STCN's insurance carrier agreed to pay the remaining $1,650. Following the parties' entry into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the "Proposed Settlement Agreement") on February 18, 2022, on March 17, 2022, the Chancery Court granted, with modifications, a scheduling order (the "Scheduling Order") in connection with the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, during April 2022 the insurers completed the wiring of the settlement payments into an account jointly controlled by counsel for plaintiff and STCN, where the funds are to remain until final court approval of the settlement. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, certain of the individual defendants who are also current and former employees of the Company—Warren Lichtenstein (Executive Chairman), Jack Howard (President), and William Fejes (former Chief Operating Officer)—entered into separate letter agreements (the "Surrender Agreements") with STCN whereby they each agreed to surrender to STCN an aggregate 3,300,000 shares which they had initially received in December 2017 in consideration for services to STCN. Pursuant to the MOU and the Surrender Agreements, on August 17, 2021, Mr. Lichtenstein surrendered 2,133,333 Steel Connect shares (1,833,333 vested shares and 300,000 unvested shares), and Mr. Howard surrendered 1,066,667 Steel Connect shares (916,667 vested shares and 150,000 unvested shares). Also pursuant to the MOU and the Surrender Agreements, Mr. Fejes surrendered 100,000 vested shares in December 2021. After the parties filed papers in support of court approval of the settlement, and an objector filed papers in opposition to approval of the settlement, and after hearings held on August 12 and August 18, 2022, and after the parties and insurers agreed to modify the proposed settlement to increase by $250 the cash to be paid by the insurers, the court ruled on September 23, 2022 that it was denying approval of the settlement. The funds previously paid into escrow were returned to the insurance carriers. In connection with rejection of the settlement, it was no longer probable the Company had a liability for the proposed settlement liability nor receivable for the related insurance coverage and therefore both amounts were no longer accrued. On September 12, 2023, the court approved a stipulated pretrial and trial schedule culminating in a trial scheduled for September 2024. The possible liability, if any, with respect to this dispute cannot be determined as of this date. STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Vendor Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that the company was named in a purported class action lawsuit arising out of a data breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who hosted the company's ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach. Case captioned "Copeland v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey on October 27, 2022. Copeland also named Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as a defendant. By agreement of the parties, Copeland was dismissed, without prejudice, and consolidated with another case pending in Connecticut. On January 20, 2023, five plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint naming the company and Freestyle Software, Inc. as defendants. The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on a variety of grounds. The matter has been briefed fully, and a decision is pending. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is principally engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers and manufactures investment castings made from steel alloys and metal injection molding parts for internal use in its firearms and for sale to unaffiliated, third-party customers. TEACHERS INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andre Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-06956 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12772-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund -- https://www.tiaa.org/public/ -- is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 739-0622 Email: blake.yagman@davidllc.com israel@israeldavidllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com - and - Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 773-5700 Email: rharlow@orrick.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Marshall Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patricia Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-08087 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12787-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund -- https://www.tiaa.org/public/ -- is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4954 The Defendants are represented by: Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Newman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joyce Newman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-08641 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12788-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund -- https://www.tiaa.org/public/ -- is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Sylvan Landau, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900a New York, NY 10038 Phone: (646) 873-7654 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Smuda Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gwendolyn Smuda, Steven Checchia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-07020 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12773-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund -- https://www.tiaa.org/public/ -- is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Shamis SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com The Defendants are represented by: Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com - and - Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 773-5700 Email: rharlow@orrick.com TELEPHONE & DATA SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (TDS) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. An amended complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names TDS, UScellular, and certain current UScellular officers and directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 regarding, among other things, UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. TDS is a diversified telecommunications company that provides communications and wireless services through its 83%-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular Corporation (UScellular). TDS also provides broadband, video and voice services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TDS Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom). TDS operates entirely in the United States. UScellular and TDS Telecom are reporting segments of TDS. TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Hendrix Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan D. Hendrix, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; W.G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Mississippi corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22804 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09600. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Provide Rest Periods; Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Termination; Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert R. Roginson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: robert.roginson@ogletree.com - and - Michael J. Nader, Esq. Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com paul.smith@ogletree.com TRADITIONS HEALTH: Arnett Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rebecca Arnett, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRADITIONS HEALTH LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MARY BRACKETT, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2305219 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02324. In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts ten causes of action for: "Failure To Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure To Pay Minimum Wages"; "Failure To Provide Meal Periods"; "Failure To Provide Rest Periods"; "Waiting Time Penalties"; "Wage Statement Violations"; "Failure To Timely Pay Wages"; "Failure To Indemnify"; and "Unfair Competition".[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com TRINITY MANAGEMENT: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trinity Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Angela Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Trinity Management LLC, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610421 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Trinity Management LLC -- https://trinitymanagementllc.net/ -- specialize in managing properties in urban communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com - and - Joshua Samson Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite No 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (818) 456-6168 Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com TWIN CITIES COMICS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin Cities Comics, LLC. The case is styled as Emily Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twin Cities Comics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09986 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Twin Cities Comics -- https://twincitiescomics.com/ -- is a collectibles company specializing in celebrity signed memorabilia & CGC graded comics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com UNIQUE FABRICATING: Eaton Files Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unique Fabricating, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Timothy Eaton, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those similarly-situated v. Unique Fabricating, Inc., Unique Fabricating Inc., Case No. 23-50760-KBO (D. Del., Nov. 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy). Unique Fabricating Inc. -- https://www.uniquefab.com/ -- is engaged in the engineering and manufacture of multi-material foam, rubber, and plastic components utilized in noise, vibration and harshness, acoustical management, water and air sealing, decorative and other functional applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 - and - James E. Huggett MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A Phone: (302) 888-1112 Fax: (302) 888-1119 Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com The Defendants appear pro se. UNITED STATES: Faces Tang Suit Over Unlawful Biometric Fee Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TONY TANG and GILBERTO TORRES GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09885 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2023) is a class action lawsuit under the Tucker Act to recover biometric fees that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services unlawfully charges millions of immigrants, including Plaintiffs, in many instances more than once, in contravention of its statutory and regulatory mandates. According to the complaint, the fees violate the authorizing statute, which requires USCIS to set fees at the level needed to recover the costs of its correlated services, because USCIS itself admits that these fees are set much higher than that maximum level. And the fees violate USCIS' own implementing regulation because for millions of applicants, USCIS does not provide the services that the regulation requires it to provide to collect these fees. Immigration applicants who are required to pay the biometric fee end up paying this $85 fee -- often more than once -- on top of the hundreds of dollars of other fees charged by USCIS. Despite USCIS' repeated public statements that filing fees are not intended to generate general revenue, these inflated and unauthorized biometric fees generate millions of dollars in surplus revenue for the agency each year, says the suit. Plaintiff Tang is a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated from Canada and currently owns a marketing agency in New York City. Plaintiff Gomez is a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated from Mexico and currently works as a project administrator for a construction consulting company in New York City. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the country's naturalization and immigration system.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geng Chen, Esq. Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. Dinis Cheian, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: GChen@susmangodfrey.com BFranklin@susmangodfrey.com DCheian@susmangodfrey.com UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Protection Service, LP, et al. The case is styled as Amarjeet Singh, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Universal Protection Service, LP, Case No. 23CV011738 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 15, 2023). Universal Protection Service was a private security company in the United States.[BN] VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verrica 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 9, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gorlamari class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 6, 2022, plaintiff Kranthi Gorlamari, or Gorlamari, filed a putative class action complaint captioned Gorlamari v. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors ("Defendants"). Gorlamari filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2023. The amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where its contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for the VP-102 drug device and that such deficiencies posed a risk to the prospects for regulatory approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of Gorlamari and all other persons and entities which purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between May 19, 2021 and May 24, 2022. Briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was completed on May 23, 2023. The litigation is still in the early stages, and it intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company developing medications for skin diseases requiring medical intervention. W6LS INC: Lizama Files RICO Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W6LS, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Lizama, Christine Correia, Individually and On Behalf of all others similarly situated v. W6LS, Inc. d/b/a WITHU Loans, Caliber Financial Services, Inc., Clarity Services, Inc., Case No. 2:23-at-01171 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. W6LS, Inc. doing business as WithU Loans -- https://www.withuloans.com/ -- offers personal loans up to $2,500.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com WALT DISNEY: Fails to Apply Anti-Slip Products in Pools, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT THOMPSON, individually and as parent and guardian of his Minor Child A.T., and DANIELLE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09441 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, since at least 2013, Disney has known or should have known that it's pool area surface is slippery and that it should apply anti-slip products and/or technology on the ground to prevent slipping of visitors to Disney Aulani and that it should provide adequate warnings prior to and at the time of their arrival that it's grounds are particularly slippery and that it has failed to apply anti-slip products and/or technology on the ground to decrease the likelihood of slips and falls. The Defendant has advertisements and marketing that create a false impression that their facilities are safe and are for families of all ages and that they were designed with families in mind, says the suit. Because Disney does not have, and has never had, an adequate corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to prevent slipping on its pool grounds, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against Disney requiring that Disney, the suit contends. As a result of Disney's alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions, Plaintiff Thompson, natural father and guardian of A.T. (a minor), booked a stay at Aulani, A Disney Resort and Spa, for her family. On the date of arrival, A.T. slipped on the floor of the pool deck near the slides. The Walt Disney Co. is engaged in the sale and marketing of family vacations, family hotel and resort stays, and family friendly entertainment, including stays at Aulani, A Disney Resort and Spa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plz. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com WASHINGTON FINE WINE: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacob Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company doing business as TOTAL WINE & MORE; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 23-3-19212-5 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01737. The Plaintiff alleges that WFW&S violated the Revised Code of Washington by failing to post the wage scale or salary range for a Seattle-based "Sales Associate" job. The law became effective January 1, 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 207-9281 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com - and - Mathew A. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KeyBank Building 88 East Broad Street, Suite 2025 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 Email: mathew.parker@ogletree.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 3,388 Active PI Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, and its business segment, Air & Liquid Processing, has recorded 3,388 total active claims, for the nine months ended June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts. The Corporation and Air & Liquid are parties to a series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreement"') with insurers having coverage obligations for the Asbestos Liability (the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for the Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the majority of insurance policies providing coverage for claims for the Asbestos Liability. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5sxdnr88 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has $50.6MM A&E Net Loss Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has reported $50.6 million net loss reserves for the asbestos and environmental exposures in its run-off lines, for the nine months ended September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Run-off Lines include liabilities associated with other liability policies that were issued in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, as well as the former risk-management business and other business no longer underwritten. Through our subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Company ("Argonaut"), we are exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through claims filed against our direct insureds, as well as through its position as a reinsurer of other primary carriers. Argonaut has direct liability arising primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s, which pre-dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure. The majority of the direct policies were issued on behalf of small contractors or construction companies. We believe that the frequency and severity of asbestos claims for such insureds is typically less than that experienced for large, industrial manufacturing and distribution concerns." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7emssw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reports $427MM Asbestos Litigation Reserve ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., in its news release dated November 8, 2023, has reported $427 million in asbestos litigation reserve, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n948mbx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 317 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon Products, Inc., as of September 30, 2023, has reported 317 individual cases pending (during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2023, 163 new cases were started and 74 were dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved), according to the Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of these actions involve several co-defendants, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the subsidiary Avon's Products, were designed to contain asbestos. A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydpt4myf ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 55 Pending Claims as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. There remained approximately 55 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2023. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of both September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, BNS Sub has accrued $1,389 and $1,418 respectively, relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckfm448 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Faces Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Electric Co. is a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims, including those involving general and product liability (including asbestos) and other matters, several of which claim substantial amounts of damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that future costs (including legal fees and expenses) will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based on developments to date; management's estimates of the outcomes of these matters; and the Company's experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. The Company engages an outside expert to develop an actuarial estimate of its expected costs to resolve all pending and future asbestos claims, including defense costs, as well as its related insurance receivables. The reserve for asbestos litigation, which is recorded on an undiscounted basis, is based on projected claims through 2065. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company historically has been largely successful in defending itself against claims and suits that have been brought against it, and will continue to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. While the Company believes a material adverse impact is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a remote possibility exists that a future development could have a material adverse impact on the Company. The Company enters into certain indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business in which the indemnified party is held harmless and is reimbursed for losses incurred from claims by third parties, usually up to a prespecified limit. In connection with divestitures of certain assets or businesses, the Company often provides indemnities to the buyer with respect to certain matters including, for example, environmental or unidentified tax liabilities related to periods prior to the disposition. Because of the uncertain nature of the indemnities, the maximum liability cannot be quantified. As such, contingent liabilities are recorded when they are both probable and reasonably estimable. Historically, payments under indemnity arrangements have been inconsequential. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fxs8t6s ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $741MM Net A&E Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------ Enstar Group Limited has recorded net liabilities relating to defendant A&E exposures of $741 million, as of September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/amaecy3t ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Has $0.3MM Loss Contingency Reserve ------------------------------------------------------------- FG Group Holdings, Inc., as of September 30, 2023, has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, which represents the Company's estimate of its potential losses related to the settlement of open cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In the ordinary course of our business operations, we are involved, from time to time, in certain legal disputes. We and certain of our subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to us. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intend to continue to defend these lawsuits. During 2022 and the first nine months of 2023, we settled three cases, which resulted in payments totaling $53 thousand. When appropriate, we may settle additional claims in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycb2twt9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 700 New PI Claims ------------------------------------------------------ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by the Company or present in certain of its facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "During the first nine months of 2023, approximately 700 claims were filed against us and approximately 1,500 were settled or dismissed. The amounts expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution by us and our insurers during the first nine months of 2023 was $12 million. At September 30, 2023, there were approximately 36,400 asbestos claims pending against us. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j5kr2ut ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, products made by us, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The claims in the Company’s current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs’ places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts. The Company cannot provide any assurances that any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner as previous lawsuits. As of September 30, 2023, the Company was subject to the claims noted above, as well as other potential claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which the Company is, or may become, a party to cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made for the majority of the claims, management does not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrrscu78 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Defends 132 New Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC, beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 301 cases pending against the Company as of September 30, 2023 with Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases, as compared with 247 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2022. During the nine months ended September 30, 2023, 132 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 54 cases and settled 24 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fxu2t86 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faces 1,924 New Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, has received approximately 1,924 and 1,962 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykh3uuth ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 548 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ MRC Global Inc., as of September 30, 2023, is a named a defendant in approximately 548 lawsuits involving approximately 1,113 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements is remote." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/fyj2w93p ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Estimates $15MM to $25MM A&E Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending, threatened and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of September 30, 2023, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these combined liabilities, the Company's estimated range of reasonably possible losses was approximately $15 million to $25 million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/zm9a7kuw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 101 Product Liability Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of October 13, 2023, the Company is currently named in 101 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025, with the earliest trial date commencing in November 2023. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8r3t66 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Numerous Personal Injury Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. is a defendant in numerous cases, related to its pharmaceutical and other products wherein plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. "Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries. "There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpxc7j2u ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Reading International, Inc., from time to time, receives claims brought against them relating to the exposure of former employees to asbestos and/or coal dust, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers1555. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdffbayn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Rexnord Industries, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 372 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Rexnord PMC business' Stearns brand of brakes and clutches and/or its predecessor owners." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fhwyf6b ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has $20MM Asbestos Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., has reported asbestos liabilities, net of related insurance coverage, of $20.0 million and $14.3 million as of September 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims. Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. "Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp3je8ba ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 231 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary, as of September 30, 2023, was a defendant in approximately 231 lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, seven plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana and 15 plaintiffs in the aggregate have claims pending in either Illinois or Missouri, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we can provide no assurance as to whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September 2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins making payments in 2024. Together with a coverage in place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4yx3knfz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Faces 7,500 PI Claims as of Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp. and numerous other unrelated companies, as of September 30, 2023, were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,500 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. "As of September 30, 2023, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately $79.0 million, of which Zurn expects approximately $58.0 million to be paid in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $79.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve for asbestos claims within the condensed consolidated balance sheets. "Management estimates that the available insurance to cover this ten year estimated potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2023 is $72.1 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vewysvv ********* 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 ***