/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 11, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 247 Headlines ABSOPURE WATER: Bid for Summary Judgment v. Guy Partly OK'd ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Dsuvia Plaintiffs Files TAC AJI-LIMON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vega Alleges ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Simon and Simon Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Class Status Bid Partly OK'd ALTRU HEALTH: Class Settlement Prelim Approval Sought AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Suit Seeks Class Certification AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence 401(k) Suit Seeks Class Status AMERICAN SAFETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Dell Alleges AMP LTD: Agrees to Settle Class Suit for $100M Financial Advisers AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Kain Securities Suit ANYWHERE REAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to May 1, 2024 APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Crypto Payments Restrictions AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aceves Alleges BALL STATE: Supreme Court Rejects Bid for COVID Tuition Fee Refund BEACON SALES: Santamaria Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court BLACKSTONE INC: Fund Mismanagement Suit Stayed BLUETRITON BRANDS: Asaad Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit BRISTOL HOSPICE: Olmos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CAROL MICI: Parties in Diggs Suit Seek Class Certification CASH 4 KEYS: Faces Class Suit Over TCPA Violations CHUG A LUG: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Gomez Alleges CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations COGNIZANT BUSINESS: Herold Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. COLUMBIA BANKING: Sued for Aiding Unit in Alleged Ponzi Scheme CONIFER REVENUE: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger CORTEVA INC: Court Certifies Class Reps in Cockerill Lawsuit CORTEVA INC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Cockerill Suit CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Action Partly Gets Conditional Certification CYBELANGEL USA: Completion of Mediation Extended to Feb 7, 2024 DEER OAKS: Solomon Files Contract Class Suit in W.D. Texas EBY LLC: All Fact Discovery Completion Due August 23, 2024 EF INSTITUTE: Expert Discovery in Grabovksy Suit Due Jan. 23, 2024 EMBODIED INC: Transmits Unwanted Marketing Calls, Radvansky Says EYEBROWS ON 125TH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sharma Alleges EYEMED VISION: Filing for Class Status Bid Due May 30, 2024 FACEBOOK INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Dec. 14 FORT POINT: Price Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Tate Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Emergency Bid to Stay Chapman Suit H.I.S. GUAM: Class Cert Status Hearing Continued to Jan. 30, 2024 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Class Certification Bid HORIZON BANK: Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Provision Ok'd HYATT CORP: Belloso Wage-and -Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Levine Shareholder Suit in Florida Court ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Okaro Shareholder Suit in Florida Court INTRUSION INC: Court Sets Jan. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing K & B AUTO: Vogt Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification K.B. WALLWORX: Collective in Castillo Gets Prelim Certification KANSAS HIGHWAY: Erich Wins Bid for Permanent Injunction KANSAS HIGHWAY: Shaw Wins Permanent Injunction Bid KANSAS: Glendening Suit Seek Class Certification KEVIN M. CAHILL: Sued Over Allege Institutional Negligence LIBERTY MUTUAL: Discovery Depositions in Vonbergen Due May 10, 2024 LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Prelim OK LINCARE INC: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery Morris Class Suit MARTEN TRANSPORT: Mora Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. MINDGEEK USA: Court OK's Class Status in Sex Trafficking Suit MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 2, 2024 MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in New York Court NESTLE USA: Court Tosses Bid to Set Class Certification Briefing NESTLE USA: Parties Seek Setting of Briefing Schedule NEW YORK NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Gomez Suit NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Kelly NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Medina OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Suit Settled PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: State Court Junks Shareholder Suit PENSION BENEFIT: Harris Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass. PERRY JOHNSON: Belov Sues Over Property Damage in D. Nev. PORNHUB: Court Certifies Suit Over Child Sexual-Abuse Material PRACTICEMAX INC: Tetef Files Contract Suit in D. Arizona PREMIERFIRST HOME: Class Cert. Filing Due June 7, 2024 PRIME HEALTHCARE: Seeks to File Materials in Opposition Errata PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Loses Bid for Class Certification PUBLIX SUPER: Department Managers Join Class Suit Over Unpaid Work PUP CULTURE: Vilella Wins Conditional Class Certfication ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY: Violates Civil Rights, Ortiz Suit Alleges SABERT CORP: Harris-Morrison Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Certification Bid Due March 8, 2024 SECURITY NATIONAL: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Court SEPHORA USA INC: Bondshu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHALLU CONSTRUCTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 19 SONY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Monopoly Class Suit Denied SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Denial of Caccuri Class Cert Bid SPLUNK INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Feb. 22, 2024 STANLEY STEEMER: Kaled Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in Ohio STATE FARM: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 15, 2024 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Decertify Class in Bouissey Suit TENNANT SALES: Faces Bezzek Labor Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. THOMAS JEFFERSON: Ortiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. TRANSYSTEMS CORP: Heras Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ULTA SALON: Yount Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. UNITED STATES: Violates Trafficking Victims Protection Act UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Court Dismisses Black Sheep's $750M Class Suit US CELLULAR: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit VEEVA SYSTEMS: Liu Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Suit Over Drop in Share Price VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE: Faces Manasia Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court VIVINT INC: Nowland Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court WALMART INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. WALSH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over ADA Violation in W.D.N.Y. WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Apr. 25, 2024 ********* ABSOPURE WATER: Bid for Summary Judgment v. Guy Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN GUY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ABSOPURE WATER COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12734-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order granting in part and denying in part Absopure's motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Absopure wholesales and distributes water products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4a0TFwu at no extra charge.[CC] ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Dsuvia Plaintiffs Files TAC --------------------------------------------------- AcelRx 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 14, 2023, that the plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint for the DSUVIA securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 8, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The plaintiff is a purported stockholder of the Company. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On December 16, 2021, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the Company and three of its officers and continued to allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The amended complaint also asserted a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for alleged insider trading. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On September 1, 2022, the Court held oral hearings on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice that was filed on July 21, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the Court issued a formal written opinion, or the First Opinion, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims against the Company and the named defendants with leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On November 28, 2022 the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On July 7, 2023, the Court issued a formal written opinion, or the Second Opinion, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims against the Company and the named defendants with leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint in part and without leave to amend in part. On September 5, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for use in medically supervised settings. The company is based in Hayward, California. AJI-LIMON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vega Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ROSELY VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJI-LIMON LLC DBA AJI LIMON PERUVIAN RESTAURANT; CLARI ARANDA; and ROBERTO ANDIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-22627 (D.N.J., Nov. 26, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Vega was employed by the Defendants as a waiter. AJI-LIMON LLC DBA AJI LIMON PERUVIAN RESTAURANT is a family owned and operated Peruvian Restaurant, located in Clifton, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Email: www.stillmanlegalpc.com ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Simon and Simon Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON AND SIMON, PC, et al., v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03754-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part and denying in part class certification: -- The motion to certify a class of direct purchasers of scanners is denied, because the named plaintiffs did not purchase scanners during the class period. As discussed at the November 16 hearing, denial is without leave to file a renewed motion for class certification in this case on behalf of scanner purchasers. -- The motion to certify a class of direct purchasers of aligners is granted. -- The motion to certify the injunctive and damages classes of indirect purchasers of aligners is also granted. The Court intends to issue an explanatory opinion by December 1. The parties should review the following revised class definitions and inform the Court by November 21 if they believe the definitions contain any errors or wording problems: Direct Purchasers Class "All persons or entities in the United States that purchased Invisalign Aligners directly from Defendant Align Technology, Inc. during the period beginning January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2023." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (2) all federal or state government entities or agencies. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class "All persons or entities in the United States that purchase, pay, and/or provide reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Invisalign aligners acquired for personal use, until such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged has ceased (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (2) all federal or state government entities or agencies. State Indirect Purchaser Classes "All persons that purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Invisalign Treatments that used any of the following types of Invisalign products – "Comprehensive", "Moderate", "GO", "Teen", "Assist Product Tracking", "Lite", "Express Ten", "Multi-stage Comprehensive", or "Assist" treatment -- while residing in a relevant state, acquired for personal use during the period beginning July 1, 2018 until such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein has ceased. The relevant states are: Arizona, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon. Excluded from the Class are: (1) insurance providers; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (3) all federal or state government entities or agencies. Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RrqJXn at no extra charge.[CC] ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Class Status Bid Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, et al., v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part and denying in part class certification: -- The motion to certify a class of direct purchasers of scanners is denied, because the named plaintiffs did not purchase scanners during the class period. As discussed at the November 16 hearing, denial is without leave to file a renewed motion for class certification in this case on behalf of scanner purchasers. -- The motion to certify a class of direct purchasers of aligners is granted. -- The motion to certify the injunctive and damages classes of indirect purchasers of aligners is also granted. The Court intends to issue an explanatory opinion by December 1. The parties should review the following revised class definitions and inform the Court by November 21 if they believe the definitions contain any errors or wording problems: Direct Purchasers Class "All persons or entities in the United States that purchased Invisalign Aligners directly from Defendant Align Technology, Inc. during the period beginning January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2023." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (2) all federal or state government entities or agencies. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class "All persons or entities in the United States that purchase, pay, and/or provide reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Invisalign aligners acquired for personal use, until such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged has ceased (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (2) all federal or state government entities or agencies. State Indirect Purchaser Classes "All persons that purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Invisalign Treatments that used any of the following types of Invisalign products – "Comprehensive", "Moderate", "GO", "Teen", "Assist Product Tracking", "Lite", "Express Ten", "Multi-stage Comprehensive", or "Assist" treatment -- while residing in a relevant state, acquired for personal use during the period beginning July 1, 2018 until such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein has ceased. The relevant states are: Arizona, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon. Excluded from the Class are: (1) insurance providers; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees; and (3) all federal or state government entities or agencies. Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T2Vjrv at no extra charge.[CC] ALTRU HEALTH: Class Settlement Prelim Approval Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANA R. ROSENKRANZ, JOAN MONDRY and RAMONA DRISCOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALTRU HEALTH SYSTEM, THE ALTRU HEALTH SYSTEM RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:20-cv-00168-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Plaintiffs file unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement entered into with Defendant, approval of class notice, and scheduling of a fairness hearing (motion for preliminary approval). Altru is an American healthcare provider headquartered in Grand Forks, North Dakota. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NaMYxY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTEFANY MARTINEZ, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00502-BAH (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class certification: The Plaintiff challenges the legality of standardized and company-wide pay policies that Amazon.com Services has imposed on all putative class members and respectfully moves for the following relief: First, Plaintiff asks the Court to certify this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The proposed class is defined as follows: "All individuals (or "associates") who, during any time between November 18, 2018 and March 31, 2020, were employed by Defendant at its BWI2 (2010 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224), DCA1 (1700 Sparrows Point Boulevard, Sparrows Point, MD 21219), or MDT2 (600 Principio Parkway West, North East, MD 21901) Maryland fulfillment centers and paid an hourly wage." Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint the undersigned law firms to serve as "Class Counsel." Third, Plaintiff asks the Court to approve both (i) the "Notice of Class Action Lawsuit" form attached as Exhibit A and (ii) the class notice protocols and procedures detailed in Section II.C of the accompanying brief and paragraph 4 of the accompanying proposed order. Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sPTnYM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Markovitz, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence 401(k) Suit Seeks Class Status -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN P. SPENCE, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(K) PLAN and the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(K) PLAN FOR PILOTS, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and the AMERICAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Case No. 4:23-cv-00552-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan and/or the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan for Pilots from June 1, 2017 through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants and any of their directors, officers, or employees with responsibility for the Plan’s investment or administration." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter an order appointing his counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46LQohI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Stephens, Esq. Heather Gebelin Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 399-3022 E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW LLP 4280 West 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com AMERICAN SAFETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Dell Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CHACE O'DELL; STEVEN O'DELL; and BEN WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SAFETY SERVICES, INC. D/B/A SIGNAL SAFETY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01054 (D.N.M., Nov. 26, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as safety representatives. AMERICAN SAFETY SERVICES, INC. D/B/A SIGNAL SAFETY SERVICES, INC. was founded in 2002. The company's line of business includes providing various business services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com AMP LTD: Agrees to Settle Class Suit for $100M Financial Advisers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Nichols of Business News Australia reports that Financial services group AMP (ASX: AMP) has agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class action brought by financial advisers who had their exit payments dramatically cut by the company in 2019. The payout follows a Federal Court ruling in July that found in favour of the financial advisers, including lead applicant Equity Financial Planners which claimed losses of $813,560 from AMP's actions. AMP landed in hot water in 2019 after making a strategic move to cull the scale of its financial advisor network. Through its AMP Financial Planning (AMPFP) arm, AMP cut payments to financial planners that it had sought to shed from its network to 2.5 times the value of their ongoing revenue from four times previously. The class action alleged that this change made by AMPFP to its Buyer of Last Resort (BOLR) policy was invalid. While AMP made a provision of $50 million in its FY23 first-half results following the Federal Court ruling on 5 July 2023, news of the $100 million settlement has led to an immediate impact on AMP shares which rose almost 9 per cent to a high of 82.5c in early trading. AMP, which says it makes no admission of liability following its agreed settlement, notes that sum announced November 23, 2023 'covers the class action in its entirety, including where there has been no judgment'. The settlement remains subject to the execution of a deed of settlement and approval by the Federal Court. "This is an important step forward for our Advice business and for AMP more broadly, as it allows us to put this legacy matter behind us, which has impacted relationships with our valued advisers," says Alexis George, AMP's chief executive. "We've worked very hard in recent years on rebuilding the relationship with advisers and we're looking forward to working with them in the delivery of quality financial advice, at a time when Australians need it more than ever." Uncertainty over the extent of the financial settlement has dogged AMP since the class action was first brought against the company in July 2020. The settlement was reached through a mediation process after a rumoured appeal by AMP against the July Federal Court decision failed to materialise. [GN] AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Kain Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampio 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 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Kain securities fraud class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On August 17, 2022, a putative Ampio shareholder filed a securities fraud class action against the Company, its current CEO Michael A. Martino and two former executives, Michael Macaluso and Holli Cherevka, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Kain v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 22-cv-2105. The Complaint alleges that Ampio and the individual defendants made various false and misleading statements regarding the efficacy, clinical trials and FDA communications relating to Ampio's lead product, Ampion, and its treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the knee in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint also asserts control person liability against the individual defendants under Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The Complaint relies largely on Ampio's announcement on May 16, 2022, that it had formed a special Board committee to investigate the statistical analysis of Ampio's AP-013 clinical trial and the unauthorized provision of Ampion to various individuals who were not participating in clinical trials, and Ampio's further announcement on August 3, 2022, that the investigation had revealed that various employees were aware that the AP-013 trial did not demonstrate efficacy for Ampion's primary endpoints and did not fully and timely report the results of the trial and the timing of unblinding data from the trial. Based on the Company's reports, the Complaint asserts that various statements made by the Company during the Class Period were false and misleading because they: (i) inflated Ampio's ability to successfully obtain FDA approval for Ampion; (ii) inflated the results of the AP-013 clinical trial and failed to disclose the timing of unblinding the data from the study; and (iii) overstated the Company's business, operations and prospects. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On October 17, 2022, six putative shareholders filed motions seeking to be named lead plaintiff. On November 7, 2022, two of the movants filed oppositions to each other's motions; the remaining movants either withdrew their motions or filed non-oppositions to another putative shareholder's motion. On August 9, 2023, the Court ruled on the competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff, and appointed Tao Wang and SynWorld Technologies Corporation as lead plaintiffs and approved the firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as lead counsel. The August 9, 2023, order also lifted the stay that had been in place and ordered the parties to jointly contact the magistrate judge to schedule a status conference or such other proceeding as the magistrate judge deemed appropriate to move the litigation forward. Pursuant to the Court's order, on August 10, 2023, lead plaintiffs and defendants advised the magistrate judge that lead plaintiffs intended to file an amended complaint in the action and that the parties intended to submit a joint proposed scheduling order by August 18, 2023. On August 14, 2023, the Court entered a minute order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2023. On August 15, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion with a schedule for lead plaintiffs to file the amended complaint and a deadline for defendants to answer or file a motion to dismiss, along with a briefing schedule for any potential motion to dismiss. On August 16, 2023, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' joint motion. The order vacated the August 30, 2023 scheduling conference and any related deadlines and set lead plaintiffs' deadline to file an amended complaint as October 16, 2023. It provided that defendants shall file an answer or motion within sixty days of service of the amended complaint. It set a briefing schedule for any potential motion to dismiss, providing that lead plaintiffs' response would be filed within 45 days and allowed defendants to file any reply briefs 30 days thereafter. The order further provided that if defendants answer the amended complaint or any motion to dismiss does not fully resolve the case, the parties are required to contact the magistrate judge within 5 business days thereafter to schedule a scheduling conference. On September 19, 2023, defendant Michael Macaluso's counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to Mr. Macaluso's death and the lack of a personal representative to represent Mr. Macaluso's interest. On September 20, 2023, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to refiling and ordered Mr. Macaluso's counsel to file a Statement Noting the Death pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further noting that, if the claims are not extinguished against Mr. Macaluso by his death, any party may file a motion to substitute within 90 days of the filing of the Statement Noting the Death or Mr. Macaluso will be dismissed from the case. On September 20, 2023, Mr. Macaluso's counsel filed a Suggestion of Death as directed by the Court and renewed his motion to withdraw adding additional information about his efforts to communicate with Mr. Macaluso's family and the status of any probate proceedings. On September 27, 2023, the Court granted counsel's renewed motion to withdraw. On October 16, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, asserting the same claims against the Company and adding several additional defendants (namely the Company's current CFO, Dan Stokely, and former directors David Bar-Or, Philip Coelho and Richard Giles), in addition to the previously named individual defendants Michael Martino, Michael Macaluso and Holli Cherevka. Pursuant to the Court's order, Defendants have until December 15, 2023 to file answers or motions to dismiss in response to the Amended Complaint. Ampio intends to defend itself vigorously against this action. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pre-revenue stage biopharmaceutical company based in Colorado. ANYWHERE REAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to May 1, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOODWILL v. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE INC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00407 (D. Maine, Filed Dec. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: -- A class certification motion shall be filed by May 1, 2024. -- Discovery shall be completed by July 29, 2024. -- Any notice of intent to file a summary judgment motion and request for pre-filing conference shall be filed by August 5, 2024. -- Dispositive motions and Daubert/Kumho motions shall be filed by August 19, 2024. -- The case shall be ready for trial on October 7, 2024. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Anywhere is an American publicly owned real estate services company.[CC] APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Crypto Payments Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------- CoinEdition of Binance Square reports that technological giant Apple reportedly faces a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of customers who accuse the company of restricting peer-to-peer payment alternatives and crypto payments on IOS payment apps. The complaint filed in a California District Court alleges that Apple entered into anti-competition agreements with PayPal's Venmo and Block's Cash App. In addition, the customers claim Apple has restricted the use of decentralized technology in payment apps, which has caused users to pay "rapidly inflating prices" on alternative options. The dissatisfied customers allege the anti-competition practices were made possible through Apple's use of "technological and contractual restraints." Furthermore, they mentioned that App Store policies and limitations on web browsers give the company power to control every app installed on iOS devices. As a result, the customers contend that the control Apple exerts allows it to force apps to abide by certain restrictions. According to the filing, that includes forcing new P2P payment apps to restrict crypto options "as a condition for entry." "These agreements limit feature competition -- and the price competition that would flow from it -- marketwide, including by barring the incorporation of decentralized cryptocurrency technology within existing or new iOS peer-to-peer payment apps," the filing says. Per the filing details, the customers stated that Apple's policies have forced them to pay inflated fees for trades on the iOS P2P payment market. Furthermore, the 58-page class action detailed that the customers seek to recover the excessive fees paid. In addition, the customers want injunctive relief barring Apple from continuing to enter into and enforce anti-competitive agreements, especially against new P2P payment market entrants and competitors. Earlier in April, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit claimed that Apple's app policies had broken California's antitrust laws. The court found that the company prohibited its applications from linking customers to payment options not affiliated with Apple. The post Apple Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Crypto Payments Restrictions appeared first on Coin Edition. [GN] AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aceves Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR ACEVES, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-09960 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names and Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. AUTOZONE, INC. is a retailer of automotive replacement parts and accessories. The Company offers an extensive product line for cars, sport utility vehicles, vans, and light trucks, including new and remanufactured automotive hard parts, maintenance items, accessories, and non-automotive products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com BALL STATE: Supreme Court Rejects Bid for COVID Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------ Niki Kelly of Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that the Indiana Supreme Court on November 22, 2023 sided with the state legislature over a Ball State University student who wants a refund for his pandemic-interrupted classes in early 2020. The 5-0 decision made three key findings: The law passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2021 barring class action COVID-19 suits doesn't violate constitutional separation of powers. The student doesn't have the right to sue on behalf of others. The law doesn't unconstitutionally impair the student because he can still pursue individual claims against Ball State. College student Keller Mellowitz was enrolled at Ball State for the Spring 2020 semester when the university "sent students home, cancelled in-person classes and closed campus facilities as a result of COVID-19," according to court filings. He filed a class action complaint against the university and its board of trustees in Marion County Superior Court in May 2020, accusing them of "breach of contract and unjust enrichment" over decisions to cancel in-person classes and close campus facilities due to the pandemic. Specifically, Mellowitz cited Ball State’s retention of tuition and "numerous" fees, including those for student services, university technology, student recreation, student health, and student transportation. The lawsuit estimated as many as 20,000 Ball State students were due some sort of reimbursement. The General Assembly, however, enacted a retroactive law in 2021 that prohibited class-action complaints against state universities related to COVID-19. Instead, Mellowitz -- and any other students impacted -- would have to file individual suits. On November 22, 2023's ruling said the legislature didn't encroach on judicial powers because the law's scope was limited to a narrow category of COVID-19 claims and had a public policy objective -- "reducing postsecondary educational institutions' litigation exposure for their emergency responses to the pandemic." The decision also reinforced that Mellowitz can sue for his own damages -- but isn't entitled to class-action status on behalf of other students. During oral arguments in the case, his attorney said individual suits aren't feasible due to only a few thousand dollars being at stake. "The purpose of a class action is … to provide a remedy where often the claims are too small to even viably gain counsel," he said. "As shown in this case, the defense of Ball State is vigorous." [GN] BEACON SALES: Santamaria Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JOSE CORTEZ SANTAMARIA, Sr., et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 23CV012110 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., November 21, 2023). A case management conference is set for November 1, 2024. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. is a company that wholesales and distributes building materials, headquartered in Virginia. [BN] BLACKSTONE INC: Fund Mismanagement Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Blackstone 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 in March 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky stayed a July 2021 putative class action against the company pending the resolution of the Attorney General's suit where in December 2017, eight pension plan members of the Kentucky Retirement System filed a lawsuit in the Franklin County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The original January 2021 action was filed by certain former plaintiffs in the latter action against Blackstone asserting various breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the company's investment in a hedge fund managed by Blackstone Alternative Asset Management L.P. Blackstone derives revenue primarily from third party assets under management and draws primarily on the long-term committed capital of its limited partner investors to fund its investment requirements. BLUETRITON BRANDS: Asaad Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NANCY ASAAD, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2304363, 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 November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09868 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts: (1) failure to pay all wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation; (3) failure to permit rest periods or provide compensation; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) violation of unfair competition law; and (7) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is an American beverage company based in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that Company continues to defend itself from the Sporn securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 1, 2023, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09630 (the "Complaint"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Securities Action"). The Securities Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants, relating to NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, the Company's submissions to and communications with the FDA in support of the approval of NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, and the prospects of future approval of NurOwn by the FDA. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 15, 2022 and September 27, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., operates as a biotechnology company, which develops innovative adult stem cell therapeutic products. It currently focuses on utilizing the patients own bone marrow stem cells to generate neuron-like cells that may provide an effective treatment initially for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. The company was founded on September 22, 2000 and is headquartered in New York, NY. BRISTOL HOSPICE: Olmos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BEATRICE OLMOS, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. BRISTOL HOSPICE - INLAND VALLEY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - COACHELLA VALLEY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - INLAND EMPIRE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - SACRAMENTO, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - SAN DIEGO, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - SAN JOSE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - SIMI VALLEY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRISTOL HOSPICE - STOCKTON, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2323211, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02374 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Bristol Hospice-Inland Valley, LLC is a hospice provider in Riverside, California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lara Prodanovich Besser, Esq. Gonzalo Morales, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Lara.Besser@jacksonlewis.com Gonzalo.Morales@jacksonlewis.com CAROL MICI: Parties in Diggs Suit Seek Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE DIGGS, ET AL. v. CAROL MICI, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-40003-MRG (D. Mass.), the parties request that the Court enter an order: 1. Certifying under Rule 23(b)(3) a damages class consisting of "all individuals incarcerated at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center who were subjected to uses of force from January 10, 2020, to February 6, 2020"; 2. Certifying, or denying certification of, a damages subclass consisting of "all Black and Latinx individuals incarcerated at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center who were subjected to uses of force from January 10, 2020, to February 6, 2020"; and 3. Certifying under Rule 23(b)(2) a class seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as defined by either Plaintiffs' proposed definition, that is, "all individuals who are now, or who will be in the future, incarcerated at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center," or Defendants' proposed definition, that is, “all individuals who were incarcerated at SBCC and subjected to uses of force from January 10, 2020, to February 6, 2020." The parties submit this joint motion for class certification, along with separate requests for orders pertaining to class certification. Specifically, the parties jointly seek to certify, under Rule 23(b)(3), a damages class of prisoners at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC) who allege that they were subjected to excessive force by correction officers from January 10, 2020, to February 6, 2020. The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a subclass of Black and Latinx prisoners at SBCC who allege they were subject to racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause; Defendants oppose the creation of this subclass. The parties jointly seek to certify, under Rule 23(b)(2), a class of prisoners at SBCC seeking injunctive relief, but do not agree on the scope and definition of this class. Plaintiffs seek to define the injunctive class as "all individuals who are now, or who will be in the future, incarcerated at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center." Defendants seek to define the injunctive class as “all individuals who were incarcerated at SBCC who were subjected to uses of force from January 10, 2020, to February 6, 2020." A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uDPIO1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Petit, Esq. James R. Pingeon, Esq. David Milton, Esq. Kristyn J.E. Huey, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS 50 Federal Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 E-mail: lpetit@plsma.org jpingeon@plsma.org dmilton@plsma.org khuey@plsma.org - and - Anthony E. Fuller, Esq. Gregory F. Noonan, Esq. Alexandra G. Watson, Esq. Courtney A. Caruso, Esq. Kayla H. Ghantous, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 125 High Street, Suite 2010 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 371-1000 E-mail: anthony.fuller@hoganlovells.com gregory.noonan@hoganlovells.com alexandra.bailey@hoganlovells.com courtney.caruso@hoganlovells.com kayla.ghantous@hoganlovells.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Caffrey, Esq. Brittni Wipper, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 70 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 727-3300 E-mail: stephanie.m.caffrey@doc.state.ma.us CASH 4 KEYS: Faces Class Suit Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- St. Louis Record reports that a Missouri resident claims a real estate company violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending advertising messages to her phone number listed with the National Do-Not-Call Registry Mandi Elizabeth Potterf of Festus, Missouri, filed the potential federal class action November 3 against Cash 4 Keys. According to the complaint, Potter says she has received dozens of unsolicited text messages from Cash 4 Keys, a Missouri-based company engaged in marketing and real estate, despite being registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC Registry) since 2018. She claims these messages refer to her by name and discuss an offer to purchase a real estate property from her she does not own. The complaint says the defendant violates TCPA provisions prohibiting entities from delivering more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the DNC Registry without consent and prohibits entities from delivering these advertising messages without providing information about themselves. Potter claims to have suffered harm as a result of the defendant's actions, including invasion of privacy, intrusion into her life, nuisance and frustration. She seeks certification of her class action status and damages plus attorney fees, court costs, and other relief. She also seeks an injunction against the defendant to stop any further violations of the TCPA. Potter is being represented by Alex D. Kruzyk of Pardell, Kruzyk & Giribaldo in Austin, Texas. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number 4:23-cv-01402. [GN] CHUG A LUG: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Gomez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- HUGO SANCHEZ GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHUG A LUG, INC. d/b/a CHUG A LUG PUB & GRILL; and SILKEN N. PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-16191 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 22, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Gomez was employed by the Defendants as cook. CHUG A LUG, INC. is an Illinois corporation that operates the Chug A Lug Pub & Grill restaurant located on South Halsted Street in Glenwood, Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and off its premises. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- GINA CHRISTOPHERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03614-JWB-LIB (D. Minn., Nov. 22, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated, and continues to violate, the VPPA by knowingly and intentionally disclosing their consumers' personally identifiable information when they purchase movie tickets and watch trailers on the Defendant's Website www.cectheatres.com. Every time a consumer who is also a logged-in Facebook user purchases a movie ticket or watches a trailer on the Defendant's Website, the Defendant discloses to Meta the name of the movie title the specific Facebook user purchased a ticket to see or the name of the trailer the user watched. Because many, if not most, Facebook users stay logged-in to Facebook for prolonged periods of time, discovery will show that the Defendant has transmitted PII to Meta/Facebook for thousands of consumers on tens of thousands of occasions, in violation of the VPPA, says the suit. CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT CORP. operates as a theatre. The Company offers indoor exhibition of motion pictures. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Cockson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 Email: Michael.Cockson@faegredrinker.com -and- Ben Hutman, Esq. SADIS & GOLDBERG LLP 551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10176 Telephone: (212) 947-3793 Email: bhutman@sadis.com COGNIZANT BUSINESS: Herold Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as VANESSA HEROLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; COGNIZANT HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; COGNIZANT MORTGAGE SERVICES CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 23-2-19796-8 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 November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01787 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks remedies under Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.58.070 for actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000, whichever is greater. The Plaintiff also seeks her attorneys' fees through final judgment under RCW. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to be named the class representative under Superior Court Civil Rule 23. Cognizant Business Services Corporation provides consulting, information technology, and business process outsourcing services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: EBushaw@perkinscoie.com KyleNelson@perkinscoie.com COLUMBIA BANKING: Sued for Aiding Unit in Alleged Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Columbia Banking System, 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 it is facing an August 2020 class action complaint filed in the United States District Court against its wholly owned subsidiary, Umpqua Bank, alleging aiding and abetting claims against associated with the failure of two commercial real estate investment companies, Professional Financial Investors, Inc. and Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc., allegedly effected through a Ponzi scheme. Both companies maintained their primary deposit account relationship with Umpqua Bank's Novato, Marin County, California branch office, acquired by Umpqua from Circle Bank. Umpqua's motion to dismiss was denied in January 2021, and its motion for summary judgment was denied in December 2022, and at the same time the District Court certified the plaintiffs' proposed class. Columbia Banking System, Inc. operates as the holding company of Umpqua Bank that provides commercial and retail banking services. CONIFER REVENUE: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SHANNON SPENCER, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company doing business as CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC and CONIFER HEALTH; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 23-2-19345-8 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 November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01790 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks remedies under Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.58.070 for actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000, whichever is greater. The Plaintiff also seeks her attorneys' fees through final judgment under RCW. Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC provides comprehensive revenue cycle services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 E-mail: mathew.parker@ogletree.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Cornerstone Building Brands, 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 in June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the company's disclosures issued in connection with the March 2022 merger where the investment funds managed by Clayton, Dubilier and Rice, LLC became the indirect owners of all the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Cornerstone Building Brands, were materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is captioned "Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building Brands et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and officers issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve the CD&R Merger at an unfair price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. is a Delaware holding company that owns the largest exterior building products manufacturer by sales in North America and serves residential and commercial customers across new construction and the repair and remodel end markets. It is organized in three reportable segments: Aperture Solutions, Surface Solutions and Shelter Solutions. CORTEVA INC: Court Certifies Class Reps in Cockerill Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Baylson entered an order certifying Cockerill, Major, and Benson as representatives for their respective Classes: -- The Court CERTIFIES the Early Retirement Class for Counts I, IV, and V under Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). -- The Court CERTIFIES the Optional Retirement Class for Counts II, IV, V, and VI under rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). This ERISA case involves claims made by individuals who allege they were adversely impacted by a corporate restructuring of the centuries' old corporation previously known as the E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company, which took place in a series of transactions planned in 2015 and executed in 2019. The Named Plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes (Employees), asserting the Defendant corporations (Employers) violated multiple sections of ERISA by both misinterpreting the Pension and Retirement Plan Document and making misrepresentations and omissions that resulted in significant diminutions or eliminations of retirement rights that they had enjoyed. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GntMcC at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Cockerill Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order certifying two classes for the following counts: a. Early Retirement Class "All Plan participants who were less than age 50, with at least 15 years of service under Title I of the Plan as of May 31, 2019, and were employed by Historical DuPont or any other participating employer of Title I of the Plan, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off, by New DuPont or one of its subsidiaries that did not participate in Title I of the Plan until they reached age 50, and beneficiaries or estates of such participants." i. Plaintiff Cockerill will serve as class representative. ii. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Newton’s request to serve as class representative. iii. This class is certified for Counts I, IV, and V. iv. This class is certified under Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2)b. Optional Retirement Class: All Plan participants who were over age 50, with at least 15 years of service under Title I of the Plan as of May 31, 2019, and who were employed by Historical DuPont or any other participating employer of Title I of the Plan, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off, by New DuPont or one of its subsidiaries that did not participate in Title I of the Plan, and the beneficiaries or estates of such participants. The class does not include anyone who received or was eligible for unreduced Early Retirement Benefits at the time of the spinoff. The class does not include anyone whose Early Retirement Benefits, at spin-off or through present, would be equal to, or greater than their Optional Retirement Benefit. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T6nHZy at no extra charge.[CC] CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Action Partly Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN SANTIAGO, v. CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02675-OEM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court further orders that: (1) within 14 days of this Order, by November 30, 2023, the parties are to meet and confer in good faith, and by December 18, 2023, the parties shall submit a revised Proposed Notice and consent form that complies with the directives set forth herein; (2) within 14 days of this Order, by November 30, 2023, the Defendants are to produce to Plaintiffs a spreadsheet including the "names, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers" of all Covered Employees, i.e. former or current non-exempt employees, including, but not limited to, baristas, juicers, counter persons, servers, cooks, food preparers, and bakers, among others employed by at any Defendants time from the April 10, 2017 to the present;" and (3) within 30 days of final approval by the Court, Plaintiffs or their designated representative shall cause a copy of the notice form to be disseminated to the Covered employees by first class mail, email, text message. The Plaintiff initiated this action on April 10, 2023, alleging, inter alia, violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The complaint also contains FLSA collective action allegations and class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The FLSA violations include alleged failures "to pay overtime wages to [Santiago] and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek at the proper overtime rate that is at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay," "unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving" and unpaid wages in general. Cuisine by Claudette is a beach restaurant. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Az3tx at no extra charge.[CC] CYBELANGEL USA: Completion of Mediation Extended to Feb 7, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koeller v. CybelAngel USA Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00319 (E.D. Mo., Filed March 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order that the Plaintiff must file a response to the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification by no later than December 1, 2023. Additionally, the deadline to complete mediation is extended to February 7, 2024. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CybelAngel is a cybersecurity startup detecting data-leaks company.[CC] DEER OAKS: Solomon Files Contract Class Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deer Oaks Mental Health Associates, P.C., doing business as Deer Oaks Behavioral Health. The case is captioned as DARRLYN SOLOMON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEER OAKS MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATES, P.C. d/b/a DEER OAKS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 5:23-cv-01465 (W.D. Tex., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged contract violations. Deer Oaks Mental Health Associates, P.C., doing business as Deer Oaks Behavioral Health, is a behavioral health firm based in San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com EBY LLC: All Fact Discovery Completion Due August 23, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EBY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01466-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered an case management order as follows: 1. Joining Additional Parties. The final date for the joining of additional parties shall be January 5, 2024. 2. The final date for the amendment of pleadings shall be January 5, 2024. 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by August 23, 2024. 4. Expert reports will be due from the plaintiff on or before September 30, 2024; from the defendant on or before October 30, 2024; Supplementations, if any, by either party will be due on or before November 21, 2024. Expert Discovery shall be completed by January 3, 2025. 5. Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by December 21, 2024. Motions to Dismiss based on jurisdiction shall be filed by February 16, 2024. 6. Class Certification. Motion for Preliminary Class Certification, if any, shall be filed on or before June 24, 2024. 7. Defendant's opposition brief shall be filed on or before July 15, 2024. Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be filed on or before July 22, 2024. EBY is a membership-based company driving profits with purpose. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uN4vpz at no extra charge.[CC] EF INSTITUTE: Expert Discovery in Grabovksy Suit Due Jan. 23, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D. Mass., Filed Sept 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order allowing in part and denying it in part motion for extension of time to complete Discovery. -- The Court allows it to the extent that it sought to extend the deadline for completion of the Defendant's expert disclosures to Nov. 30, 2023 and the close of expert discovery until Jan 23, 2024. -- The Court denies the motion to the extent that it sought extension of subsequent deadlines to certain dates, but does extend the subsequent dates as follows: Motion for class certification is now due on: Feb. 28, 2024 Opposition to same is due on: March 28, 2024 Any reply is due on: April 4, 2024 The hearing regarding same is set for April 24, 2024 at 2:00PM. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. EF Institute provides educational services.[CC] EMBODIED INC: Transmits Unwanted Marketing Calls, Radvansky Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embodied Inc. The case is captioned as ETHAN RADVANSKY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EMBODIED INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00224-TCB (N.D. Ga., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Embodied Inc. is an artificial intelligence company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. James Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC Suite 500 5550 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. Suite 2400 350 Lincoln St. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (615) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com EYEBROWS ON 125TH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sharma Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BINITA SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. EYEBROWS ON 125TH INC.; and SAMIRA NAK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10309 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Sharma was employed by the Defendants as an esthetician. EYEBROWS ON 125TH INC. operates as a beauty salon, offering eyebrows, waxing, eyelash, and facial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel. (212) 939-7229 EYEMED VISION: Filing for Class Status Bid Due May 30, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDRA TATE, et al., v. EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the case schedule. Substantial completion of document production: Feb. 15, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification expert report(s) and designation(s): May 9, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification motion: May 30, 2024 Defendant's class certification expert report(s) and designation(s): June 20, 2024 Defendant's opposition to class certification motion: July 18, 2024 Rebuttal class certification expert report(s) and designation(s): Aug. 1, 2024 Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification motion: Aug. 29, 2024 Plaintiffs' merit expert report(s) and designation(s): Oct. 29, 2024 Fact discovery deadline: Nov. 21, 2024 Defendant's merit expert report(s) and designation(s): Dec. 5, 2024 Rebuttal merit expert report(s) and designation(s): Dec. 31, 2024 Disclosure of lay witnesses: Jan. 28, 2025 Expert discovery deadline: Jan. 28, 2025 Dispositive motion deadline: March 18, 2025 EyeMed Vision is a leader in vision insurance benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T4ue7a at no extra charge.[CC] FACEBOOK INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Dec. 14 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein, et al., v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 3, 2020), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order: -- The expert proceeding set for December 5, 2023, is continued to March 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. -- The class certification and Daubert motion hearings set for December 14, 2023, are vacated pending further order by the Court. The nature of suit states Antitrust Antitrust Litigation. Facebook is an online social media and social networking service owned by American technology giant Meta Platforms.[CC] FORT POINT: Price Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fort Point Beer Company, et al. The case is captioned as JOHN PRICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FORT POINT BEER COMPANY, et al., Case No. CGC23610592 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., November 21, 2023). A case management conference is set for April 24, 2024, before Judge Anne-Christine Massullo. Fort Point Beer Company is a brewery company headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 971-9450 FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Tate Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH A. TATE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated persons; v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 6:22-cv-01922-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: In sum, the plaintiff cannot state a claim for emotional distress damages under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and cannot state a claim for damages for fees for loan servicing under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The Defendant's motions to strike, class allegations, made together with its motion to dismiss, is denied without prejudice. The Defendant's motion to strike pleadings, made together with its motion to dismiss, is denied. The parties are directed to contact the Court to schedule a status conference to propose next steps in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant's motions to dismiss or strike the class allegations are premature and are denied, but without prejudice as to the defendant's ability to move to strike or dismiss the class allegations if class certification is sought. The Plaintiff also seeks to assert claims on behalf of a class, proposing the following class definition: "All residential loan borrowers for whom [defendant] acknowledged in writing having received a QWR/NOE correspondence at the specific address it publishes for such correspondence since three years before the commencement of the action pursuant to 12 U.S.C.A. section 2605 and 12 C.F.R. section 1024.35." Excluded from the class are any borrowers who obtained a discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code after the date [defendant] received their QWR/NOE or any borrowers whose inquiries to [freedom] were mailed to any other address other than the one designated by it pursuant to 12 C.F.R. section 1024.35(c). The Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of himself and others against defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation for alleged violations of RESPA, and the Oregon UTPA, ORS 646.608. Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, and in the alternative, to strike plaintiff's class allegations. The Court grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion to dismiss; denies Defendant's motion to strike class allegations, and denies the Defendant's motion to strike pleadings. Freedom operates as a mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NaiSeh at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Emergency Bid to Stay Chapman Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK CHAPMAN, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order denying emergency motion for stay. The Court concludes that the sweeping and immediate stay of proceedings GM is requesting is unwarranted. GM's motion for a stay is denied, and briefing on dispositive motions shall continue as currently scheduled. The denial is without prejudice to renewal should the Sixth Circuit issue any decision favorable to GM in In re Gen. Motors LLC, Case No. 23-0104 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023), or In re Nissan N. Am., Case No. 23-0501 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023) that directly affects the merits of the class certification decision in this case. Ultimately, the Court finds that GM has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits that would be sufficient to justify granting a sweeping and indefinite stay of proceedings in this case. The Court concludes that, at this juncture, the possibility of irreparable harm does not weigh strongly in favor of a stay. GM has filed an "emergency" motion seeking a stay of proceedings in this matter pending the Sixth Circuit's decision on whether to accept GM's petition to appeal this Court's March 31, 2023 decision to certify a class and, if that petition is granted, to also stay the proceedings pending the determination of the appeal itself. ECF No. 195. In the alternative, GM asks for proceedings to be stayed until the Sixth Circuit resolves two other appeals in class-action auto-defect cases. Plaintiffs oppose the request. This lawsuit began in 2019, when a group of plaintiffs filed a complaint against GM, alleging that GM knowingly equipped diesel trucks with defectively designed and manufactured fuel pumps—unsuitable for use with American diesel fuel—and lied to consumers about it. These plaintiffs proposed to prosecute breach-of-warranty claims on behalf of a nationwide class and also to assert additional claims on behalf of smaller, state-specific classes. After receiving and reviewing the supplemental briefing, as well as several additional submissions of supplemental authority by both parties, the Court entered orders resolving the class certification and Daubert motions in March 2023. The orders declined to exclude any of the parties' experts during class certification and certified the following seven-state specific classes: 1. California Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in California from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified California Class, on claims for: (i) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.; (ii) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750 et seq.; and (iii) violation of the implied warranty of merchantability under California law, Cal. Civ. Code section 1791 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [A.I]. 2. Florida Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Florida from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified Florida Class, on a claim for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act." 3. Illinois Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Illinois from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified Illinois Class, on a claim for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq." 4. Iowa Class: "All persons who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Iowa from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified Iowa Class, on a claim under the Iowa Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds Act." 5. New York Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in New York from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified New York Class, on a claim for violation of the New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349(a)." 6. Pennsylvania Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Pennsylvania from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified Pennsylvania Class, on a claim for violation of the implied warranty of merchantability under Pennsylvania law, 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. section 2314, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act." 7. Texas Class: "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Texas from March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered notice to the Certified Texas Class, on a claim for violation of the implied warranty of merchantability under Texas law, Tex. Bus. & Com., and Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act [A.I]." General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rn0BwI at no extra charge.[CC] H.I.S. GUAM: Class Cert Status Hearing Continued to Jan. 30, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S. GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Bordallo entered an order continuing status class certication hearing. This case is scheduled to come before the court for a status hearing on November 21, 2023. The court notes that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, is still pending, and the Chief Judge has asked for supplement briefs from the parties. Based on the current posture of the case and the potentially dispositive nature of the pending motion, the court continues the status hearing to January 30, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. If a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel has been issued before said hearing, then the parties shall file a revised Scheduling and Planning Conference Report no later than January 23, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/480HWwi at no extra charge.[CC] HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berry et al v. Hennepin County et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-02189 (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order that motion to certify class will be decided on the paper submissions and taken under advisement as of November 21, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Hennepin County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. The county extends from Minneapolis to the suburbs and outlying cities in the western part of the county.[CC] HORIZON BANK: Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Provision Ok'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin M. Britos and Kimberly A. Jones of Faegre Drinker report that the Eastern District of Kentucky recently became the latest court to weigh in on arbitration and class action waiver provisions in ERISA-governed defined contribution plans. In Merrow v. Horizon Bank, the court found such a provision enforceable and compelled arbitration of the plaintiffs’ ERISA breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims. The three plaintiffs were former employees of P.L. Marketing (PLM), who were vested participants in the P.L. Marketing, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). They filed an action against Horizon Bank, the Plan's trustee, asserting that defendants violated ERISA by causing the Plan to overpay for company stock. Plaintiffs brought three ERISA claims, arguing: 1) Horizon participated in a prohibited transaction; 2) Horizon breached its fiduciary duty as the Plan administrator; and 3) the selling shareholders knowingly participated in ERISA violations under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(3). [GN] HYATT CORP: Belloso Wage-and -Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled BLANCA E. BELLOSO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION d.b.a. HYATT REGENCY HUNTINGTON BEACH, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 30-2023-01355826-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02178 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and a putative class, which Plaintiff generally defines as "all of Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees in California during the four years immediately preceding the filing of this action through the present." Hyatt Corporation is an American multinational hospitality company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Levine Shareholder Suit in Florida Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Icahn Enterprises L.P. 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 a putative securities class action lawsuit has been filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities laws, captioned "Levine v. Icahn Enterprises L.P. et al.," Case No. 23-22009 (S.D. Fla.). Said lawsuit has been consolidated into another suit. Icahn Enterprises L.P. is a master limited partnership, a diversified holding company owning subsidiaries currently engaged in the following continuing operating businesses: investment, energy, automotive, food packaging, real estate, home fashion and pharmaceuticals. ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Okaro Shareholder Suit in Florida Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Icahn Enterprises L.P. 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 a putative securities class action lawsuit has been filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities laws captioned "Okaro v. Icahn Enterprises L.P. et al.," Case No. 23-21773 (S.D. Fla.). Said lawsuit has been consolidated into another suit. Icahn Enterprises L.P. is a master limited partnership, a diversified holding company owning subsidiaries currently engaged in the following continuing operating businesses: investment, energy, automotive, food packaging, real estate, home fashion and pharmaceuticals. INTRUSION INC: Court Sets Jan. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NATHAN PRAWITT, derivatively on behalf of INTRUSION, INC., Plaintiff, v. JACK B. BLOUNT, MICHAEL L. PAXTON, B. FRANKLIN BYRD, P. JOE HEAD, GARY DAVIS, JAMES F. GERO, ANTHONY SCOTT, ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO, KATRINKA B. MCCALLUM, JAMIE M. SCHNUR, GREGORY K. WILSON, Defendants, -and INTRUSION, INC., Nominal Defendant. Civil Action No.: 1:22-cv-00735-MN SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, STIPULATION OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTRUSION, INC. ("INTRUSION"), OR EITHER OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY, AS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned action (the "Action") have reached a settlement to resolve the issues raised in the Action (the "Settlement"). PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a hearing will be held on the 17th day of January, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Maryellen Noreika at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N. King Street, Courtroom 4A, Wilmington, DE 19801-3555, to determine: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered; and (iii) such other matters as may be necessary or proper under the circumstances. If you are a current Intrusion Shareholder, you may have certain rights in connection with the proposed Settlement. You should obtain a copy of the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Action, at the Investor Relations portion of Intrusion's website at https://ir.intrusion.com/overview/default.aspx or by contacting Rigrodsky Law, P.A. by telephone at (302) 295-3510 or in writing at Rigrodsky Law, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210, Wilmington, DE 19801. If you are a current Intrusion shareholder and do not take steps to appear in this Action or to object to the proposed Settlement, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court, you will forever be barred from raising an objection to such Settlement in this or any other action or proceeding, and certain claims that you might have may be released. CURRENT INTRUSION SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. You may obtain further information by writing Rigrodsky Law P.A. at the address above. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Date: October 17, 2023 By order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. K & B AUTO: Vogt Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILLIAN LOUISE MORGAN VOGT, individually and as the Representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. K & B AUTO SALES LLC and PROGRESSIVE CAUSALTY INUSRANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00385-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting her motion for class certification; -- Appointing The Simon Law Firm, P.C. as counsel for the Class; and -- Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances The Plaintiff moves the Court for class certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and states the following in support: 1. Since 2015, Progressive violated Missouri law over 42,000 times by obtaining clean titles for salvage vehicles it obtained when settling total loss claims. MO. REV. STAT. section 301.010(55)(c). 2. This systematic title laundering was not accidental. It allowed Progressive on some occasions to receive more than double the Vehicle's true salvage value, at the expense of unknowing consumers and in conscious disregard to the safety everyone who drives on Missouri roads. 3. Proof of the scheme is straightforward: Progressive’s corporate titling guidelines violate Missouri law. And every element of liability is proven -- for every class member -- through Progressive's admissions, internal documents, and a claims spreadsheet that identifies every violation. 4. This motion is not brought to determine liability. Rather, it is brought to establish that this case, including the issue of liability, can be determined on a class wide basis. 5. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes: i. The "(55)(c) " Class: All individuals who purchased and currently own a vehicle which Progressive had previously declared salvage as a result of settlement of a claim but for which Progressive obtained a clean title. ii. The "(55)(a) " Class: All individuals who purchased and currently own a vehicle previously sold by Progressive which was damaged during a year that is no more than six years after the manufacturer's model year designation for such vehicle to the extent that the total cost of repairs to rebuild or reconstruct the vehicle to its condition immediately before it was damaged for legal operation on the roads or highways exceeds eighty percent of the fair market value of the vehicle immediately preceding the time it was damaged but for which Progressive obtained a clean title. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJMJGR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Simon, Esq. Kevin M. Carnie Jr., Esq. Patrick R. McPhail, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C 800 Market Street, Ste. 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com kcarnie@simonlawpc.com pmcphail@simonlawpc.com K.B. WALLWORX: Collective in Castillo Gets Prelim Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alejandro Castillo, et al., v. K.B. Wallworx Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00798-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' preliminary certification motion. -- The collective, as defined in this order, is preliminarily certified. -- Spencer's shall provide Plaintiffs with all known contact information including email addresses for the collective by December 8, 2023. -- The notice of this lawsuit shall be sent via email and First Class U.S. Mail and include a stamped self-addressed return envelope. On May 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Alejandro Castillo and Gary Humm filed this Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) collective action against Spencer's Air Conditioning & Appliance Incorporated, doing business as Spencer's TV & Appliance. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former delivery and installation employees (the installation employees) working for KB Walworx at any time during the last three years delivering and installing televisions, appliances and other items bought at Spencer's TV & Appliance stores." KBWallWorx provides wall covering solutions for residential and commercial spaces. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uCDmpr at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS HIGHWAY: Erich Wins Bid for Permanent Injunction ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ERICH, et al., v. ERIK SMITH, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP), Case No. 6:20-cv-01067-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order on a permanent injunction against KHP consistent with the rulings and the parties' proposed injunctions and contemporaneously with the order. The Clerk will enter final judgment after entry of the permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's response as untimely filed November 13, 2023 is overruled. The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendant's response as untimely and motion for leave to file out of time filed November 13, 2023 is sustained. Kansas Highway is a law enforcement agency dedicated to the Service, Courtesy, and Protection. Kansas Highway is a law enforcement agency dedicated to the Service, Courtesy, and Protection. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47uUpbz at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS HIGHWAY: Shaw Wins Permanent Injunction Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAINE FRANKLIN SHAW, et al., v. ERIK SMITH, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-01343-KHV (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order on a permanent injunction against KHP consistent with the rulings and the parties' proposed injunctions and contemporaneously with the order. The Clerk will enter final judgment after entry of the permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's response as untimely filed November 13, 2023 is overruled. The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendant's response as untimely and motion for leave to file out of time filed November 13, 2023 is sustained. Kansas Highway is a law enforcement agency dedicated to the Service, Courtesy, and Protection. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N8vodX at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS: Glendening Suit Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GLENDENING, as next friend of G.W.; AUDRA ASHER, as next friend of L.P.; COLIN SHAW, as next friend of C.B. and N.K.; and LAURA VALACHOVIC, as next friend of E.K., v. LAURA HOWARD, Secretary of Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services, in her official capacity, MIKE DIXON, State Hospitals Commissioner, in his official capacity, and LESIA DIPMAN, Larned State Hospital Superintendent, in her official capacity, Case No. 5:22-cv-04032-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying action as a class action with the class defined as: "All individuals who: (1) are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Kansas; and (2) are ordered to receive a mental competency evaluation or restoration treatment under K.S.A. § 22-3302 or K.S.A. section 22-3303;" 2. Appointing Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing the ACLU of Kansas, the National Police Accountability Project, and Stinson LLP as Class Counsel. The Department of Aging and Disability is responsible for planning and coordinating a system to meet the needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GnBmnF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sharon Brett, Esq. Karen Leve, Esq. Kunyu Ching, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF KANSAS 10561 Barkley St, Suite 500 Overland Park, KS 66212 Telephone: (913) 490-4100 E-mail: sbrett@aclukansas.org kleve@aclukansas.org kching@aclukansas.org - and - Lauren Bonds, Esq. Keisha James, Esq. Eliana Machefsky, Esq. NATIONAL POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1403 Southwest Boulevard Kansas City, KS 66103 Telephone: (620) 664-8584 E-mail: legal.npap@nlg.org keisha.npap@nlg.org fellow.npap@nlg.org - and - George F. Verschelden, Esq. Mark D. Hinderks, Esq. Benjamin Levin, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 691-2706 E-mail: george.verschelden@stinson.com mark.hinderks@stinson.com ben.levin@stinson.com KEVIN M. CAHILL: Sued Over Allege Institutional Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------- J.G.; and K.K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEVIN CAHILL, JR. as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF KEVIN CAHILL, M.D.; KEVIN M. CAHILL, M.D., P.C.; CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AND COOPERATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 952359/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov. 24, 2023) alleges Defendants' violation of the New York Adult Survivor's Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring the action alleging personal injuries sustained as result of institutional negligence and failures, and the sexual offenses perpetrated against them while under the care of above named Defendants. CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AND COOPERATION, INC. was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes membership organization of professional persons for the advancement of the interests of their profession. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Fitzgerald, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER H. FITZGERALD 14 Wall Street, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 226-2275 Email: cfitzgerald@chflegal.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Discovery Depositions in Vonbergen Due May 10, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY VONBERGEN, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-04880-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered a second amended order: 1. All discovery shall proceed promptly and continue in such manner as will assure that all request for, and responses to, discovery will be served, noticed, and completed by Sept. 17, 2024. 2. On or before Feb. 5, 2024, the proponent(s) of any issue as to which an expert will be offered shall identity and submit curriculum vitae for all expert witnesses on liability and damages and shall serve reports for all such witnesses. 3. On or before March 18, 2024, the respondent(s) as to any such Issue who will offer an opposing expert shall identify and submit curriculum vitae for all expert witnesses on liability and damages who have not yet been identified and shall serve reports for all such opposing expert witnesses. 4. Discovery depositions, if any of expert witnesses may be taken on or before May 10, 2024. Liberty Mutual provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t2bmv1 at no extra charge.[CC] LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 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 October 25, 2023, the court preliminarily approved a settlement in a putative securities class action filed on August 10, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to LifeStance Health Group, Inc.'s (LifeStance) approximately $828 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock where the company was an underwriter. Its subsidiary, Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in said suit. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include LifeStance and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 10,580,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $190 million. On December 19, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on April 10, 2023, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. LINCARE INC: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery Morris Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, v. LINCARE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to stay discovery, or alternatively, to bifurcate discovery. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Janet Morris, sues Lincare for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act for sending unsolicited and unconsented to prerecorded voice calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The Defendant's motion requests the Court stay discovery pending a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the Court bifurcate discovery to allow the parties to address first the merits of Plaintiff's claim and thereafter, if necessary, conduct discovery related to the putative class claims. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to bifurcate discovery. Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services for patients in the home. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N8nqll at no extra charge.[CC] MARTEN TRANSPORT: Mora Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled HECTOR MORA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTEN TRANSPORT LTD, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 23CV424420, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06004 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law based on alleged failure to pay for all hours worked. Marten Transport Ltd. is a provider of transportation and logistics services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3802 Telephone: (415) 576-3000 Facsimile: (415) 576-3099 E-mail: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com - and - Kimberly F. Rich, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 1900 North Pearl Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-3000 Facsimile: (214) 978-3099 E-mail: kimberly.rich@bakermckenzie.com - and - Lily S. Duong, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-4728 Facsimile: (310)201-4721 E-mail: lily.duong@bakermckenzie.com MINDGEEK USA: Court OK's Class Status in Sex Trafficking Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MINDGEEK USA INCORPORATED, MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., MG FREESITES, LTD, D/B/A PORNHUB, MG FREESITES II, LTD, MG CONTENT RT LIMITED, and 9219-1568 QUEBEC, INC. D/B/A MINDGEEK, Case No. 8:21-cv-00338-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: -- Granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification, -- Denying Defendants' motion to exclude declaration of Dr. Brian levine, and -- Denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion to Exclude declaration of Robert mills. The case is about whether one of the world's largest pornography companies systematically participated in sex-trafficking ventures involving tens of thousands of children by receiving, distributing, and profiting from droves of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The Plaintiff Jane Doe brings this putative class action against the Defendants alleging they violated sex trafficking and child pornography laws. MindGeek is an adult entertainment conglomerate. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RlBtGs at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 2, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN E. RAMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order setting case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for Joining Additional Parties Jan. 5, 2024 Close of Discovery Sept. 20, 2024 Deadline for Disclosure of Expert June 24, 2024 Reports by the party with the burden of proof on an issue Deadline for Disclosure of Rebuttal Aug. 5, 2024 Reports by the party without the burden of proof on an issue Class Certification Motion Deadline Oct. 2, 2024 Class Certification Opposition Deadline Oct. 23, 2024 Class Certification Reply Deadline Nov. 6, 2024 Molina provides health insurance to individuals through government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Goncm3 at no extra charge.[CC] MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley 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 it is currently defending itself in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al." Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the company, along with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDO). Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, treble damages. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 5, 2023, defendants sought leave to appeal this ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management. Morgan Stanley, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. NESTLE USA: Court Tosses Bid to Set Class Certification Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE, v. NESTLE USA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order denying joint motion to set class certification motion briefing schedule: Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Y25mn at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE USA: Parties Seek Setting of Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the parties jointly propose and request the Court enter an order setting the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Jan. 19, 2024 certification (including any expert reports Plaintiff intends to rely upon for class certification) -- The Defendant's opposition to class Feb. 23, 2024 certification (including any expert reports Defendant intends to rely upon in opposing class certification): -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of March 22, 2024 class certification, if any: Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N8wuqd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George V. Granade, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. Aya Dardari, Esq. Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. John C. Washington, Esq. Catherine E. Sweetser, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com jfields@sshhzlaw.com adardari@sshhzlaw.com hoffpaul@aol.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Perlette Jura, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com pjura@gibsondunn.com NEW YORK NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Gomez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez v. New York City Department Of Corrections et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03983 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting 1-week extension of the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The requested extension would move the deadline for Defendants' opposition papers from November 24, 2023, to December 1, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply papers from December 15, 2023, to December 22, 2023. New York City Department of Correction is the branch of the municipal government of New York City responsible for the custody, control, and care of New York City's imprisoned population. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NaIXtt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David S. Thayer, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2649 Facsimile: (212) 356-1148 E-mail: dthayer@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Kelly ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. New York City Department of Corrections et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-03990 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting 1-week extension of the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The requested extension would move the deadline for Defendants' opposition papers from November 24, 2023, to December 1, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply papers from December 15, 2023, to December 22, 2023. New York City Department of Correction is the branch of the municipal government of New York City responsible for the custody, control, and care of New York City's imprisoned population. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47UMrs5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David S. Thayer, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2649 Facsimile: (212) 356-1148 E-mail: dthayer@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Briefing Schedule in Medina ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Medina v. New York City Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03985 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting 1-week extension of the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The requested extension would move the deadline for Defendants' opposition papers from November 24, 2023, to December 1, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply papers from December 15, 2023, to December 22, 2023. New York City Department of Correction is the branch of the municipal government of New York City responsible for the custody, control, and care of New York City's imprisoned population. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N87IXb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David S. Thayer, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2649 Facsimile: (212) 356-1148 E-mail: dthayer@law.nyc.gov OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Suit Settled ------------------------------------------ Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 on April 25, 2023, following notice to class members and a hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment approving a settlement of a purported securities class action lawsuit, which became effective May 25, 2023, upon the expiration of the period for appealing the court's judgment. The company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, were named as defendants in said suit, brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purported to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It sought monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. It alleged that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the company's leases and certain receivables. The plaintiffs and defendants executed a stipulation of settlement dated December 9, 2022 which provided for dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants by a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired company securities from February 8, 2017 through October 31, 2017 without any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company or the individual defendants. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, invests in healthcare-related real estate properties located in the United States and the United Kingdom. Its core business is to provide financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with a particular focus on skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and to a lesser extent, independent living facilities, rehabilitation and acute care facilities. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: State Court Junks Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Paramount Global 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 in February 2023, the New York Supreme Court dismissed all claims against the company while allowing the claims against the underwriters to proceed. The plaintiffs and underwriter defendants have appealed the ruling. Earlier, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were heard in January 2023. In August 2021, Camelot Event Driven Fund filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and in November 2021, an amended complaint was filed that, among other changes, added an additional plaintiff. Complaint is purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the company's Class B Common Stock and 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to public securities offerings completed in March 2021, and was filed against the Company, certain senior executives, members of our Board of Directors, and the underwriters involved in the offerings. It asserts violations of federal securities law and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including through an alleged failure to adequately disclose certain total return swap transactions involving Archegos Capital Management referenced to the company's securities and related alleged risks to its stock price. In December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the outside director defendants from the lawsuit, which the court subsequently ordered. Paramount Global is a global media, streaming and entertainment company that creates premium content and experiences for audiences worldwide. It owns CBS Television Network which merged with Viacom Inc. PENSION BENEFIT: Harris Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KELLY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02075, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12816 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all other individuals whose sensitive personal information was disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach that exploited a vulnerability in software technology called MOVEit on May 27, 2023. Pension Benefit Information, LLC provides audit and address research services for insurance companies, pension funds, and other organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Charles Richard Toomajian, III, Esq. June Pineda Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Nicholas Colella, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. 600 West Peachtree Street, Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30265 Telephone: (404) 201-6900 The Defendant is represented by: Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Paulyne Gardner, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Telephone: (267) 930-4770 Facsimile: (267) 930-4771 E-mail: cmccarron@mullen.law pgardner@mullen.law - and - Emily Liebman, Esq. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON EDELMAN BORMAN BRAND LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 750-0548 E-mail: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com - and - Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S 9th St., Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 373-8394 E-mail: hhorrell@greeneespel.com PERRY JOHNSON: Belov Sues Over Property Damage in D. Nev. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. The case is captioned as Belov et al. v. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01925-APG-BNW (D. Nev., Nov. 20, 2023). The complaint is brought against the Defendant over alleged damages to personal property. The case is assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. is a U.S. owned and operated technology company specializing in health information technology solutions and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Britany A. Kabakov, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 - and - Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. Valerie Christian, Esq. Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP, LLC 2350 W Charleston Blvd, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 851-2180 Facsimile: (702) 851-2189 E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com vchristian@blgwins.com jfornetti@blgwins.com PORNHUB: Court Certifies Suit Over Child Sexual-Abuse Material -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Cassens Weiss of ABA Journal reports a federal judge in California has certified a class action lawsuit alleging that online pornography companies were willfully blind to child sexual-abuse material that appeared on their websites. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California certified a class of plaintiffs who were younger than age 18 when they appeared in a video or image uploaded to websites operated by Mindgeek USA Inc. and its affiliates, including the video-sharing platform Pornhub. Pornhub is a "tube site," meaning that much of its content comes from users who can share the revenue from their uploaded videos. The suit alleges that Mindgeek contributed to child sex-abuse by making the content easier to find, partly with playlist titles that included "less than 18" and by suggesting search terms such as "middle school girls." The lead Jane Doe plaintiff alleges that the websites' policies failed to curb child sex-abuse material, partly due to a quest for profits. The suit alleges violation of federal and California sex-trafficking laws and a federal law banning the distribution of child pornography in interstate commerce. Doe's ex-boyfriend uploaded sex videos showing her at age 16. She is seeking statutory damages under Section 2255 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which allows child-pornography victims to sue for actual damages or for $150,000 in liquidated damages. Punitive damages are also available. The Doe plaintiff is represented by Susman Godfrey. In a press release, the law firm said the case is the first to certify a class for the receipt and distribution of child pornography under Section 2255. Common questions to be resolved in the class action include whether the defendants benefited from child sex-abuse material on their websites, whether their policies allowed or even encouraged the posting of such material, and whether they knew what was happening, Carney said in his Nov. 17 opinion. Carney said a class action is a superior way to litigate claims regarding the defendants' practices and polices related to child sex-abuse material. "Coming forward as a survivor of child pornography and trafficking is an extremely difficult task," Carney wrote. "Here, individual survivors face one of the world's largest pornography companies, in an aggressive litigation posture, who have retained law firms with considerable reputations. . . . Few, if any, individual survivors could muster comparable resources, nor is there any guarantee they could find counsel willing to work pro bono or on a contingency basis." The defendants argued that individual plaintiffs had an adequate incentive to pursue claims on their own because the statutes at issue allow substantial damages. "This assertion is troubling," Carney said. "The concern in this case has never been that individual damages are too small to warrant any single plaintiff's efforts. The concern is that any individual's efforts to litigate this case involve reliving considerable trauma. To say that a given sum of money is an 'adequate incentive' for survivors to relive the unconscionable acts they experienced as children and continue to live with is willfully blind to the unimaginable suffering defendants allegedly inflicted." Besides damages, the class action seeks an injunction that would require Mindgeek to obtain government-issued identification confirming that all performers are older than age 18. The case is Jane Doe v. Mindgeek USA Inc. Law360 had coverage of the decision. Susman Godfrey partner Krysta Kauble Pachman commented in a press release. "It's taken tremendous courage and strength for Jane Doe to bring this case, and we are very proud to represent her and the certified class," she said. The defendants are represented by Dechert and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, according to Law360. Lawyers from Dechert forwarded a statement from Aylo, which was formerly known as Mindgeek. "Out of respect for the integrity of court proceedings, our policy is not to comment on ongoing litigation. We look forward to the facts being fully and fairly aired in that forum," the statement said. Aylo also sent a link to a statement about resolution of a 30-month investigation of entities and affiliates of Aylo Holdings. The investigation by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York "did not find that Aylo or its affiliates violated any federal criminal laws prohibiting sex trafficking or the sexual exploitation of minors, including child pornography," the statement said. The company did, however, enter into a deferred prosecution agreement regarding allegations that Aylo engaged in an unlawful monetary transaction with the production company GirlsDoPorn/GirlsDoToys. Aylo "now understands" that consent forms provided by those companies were obtained by fraud, the statement said. The statement also said Aylo has "implemented a state-of-the-art compliance program" that includes a review of uploaded content before it is published. [GN] PRACTICEMAX INC: Tetef Files Contract Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PracticeMax Incorporated, et al. The case is captioned as SUE TETEF, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PRACTICEMAX INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02432-SPL (D. Ariz., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over alleged contract violations. PracticeMax Incorporated is a provider of business management and information technology solutions, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Allen Knapp, Esq. David Simon Friedman, Esq. KNAPP & ROBERTS PC 8777 N. Gainey Center Dr., Ste. 181 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 991-7677 Facsimile: (480) 991-0058 E-mail: knapp@krattorneys.com friedman@krattorneys.com - and - James M. Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (858) 375-7385 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 PREMIERFIRST HOME: Class Cert. Filing Due June 7, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campbell, et al., v. Premierfirst Home Health Care Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00199 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Jan. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Algenon L Marbley entered an order granting joint motion to amend case schedule. -- Close of Paper Opt-In Discovery: Dec. 22, 2023 -- The parties are ordered to file Dec. 27, 2023 a Notice of Compliance with the paper discovery deadline by: -- Close of All Fact Discovery: April 5, 2024 -- Deadline to File Motion for Rule June 7, 2024 23 Class Certification and/or Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Certification Motion due by: -- Dispositive motions due by: June 7, 2024 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premierfirst is a Medicare certified home health agency.[CC] PRIME HEALTHCARE: Seeks to File Materials in Opposition Errata -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Prime Healthcare ERISA Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01529-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file materials in the errata supporting their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal under Civil Local Rule 79-5.2.2 of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Document Page(s) Redactions Exhibit 02 to Declaration 24355-24362; 24341- Highlighted of Rachel P. Kaercher 24348; 24349-24354 Text (Maria Ornelas Account Statements) Exhibit 03 to Declaration 8341-8346; 8247-8252; Highlighted of Rachel P. Kaercher 8279-8284; 8311-8318; Text (Brian Horton Account 8347-8354; 24281- Statements) 24288; 24295-24302; 24311-24318; 24333- 24339 The Plaintiffs should be filed under seal, dating back to the Parties’ initial conferral regarding such matters in advance of the summary judgment deadline on July 7, 2023. The Defendants request that the Court grant their Application for an Order Permitting Defendants to File Materials in the Errata Supporting their Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Under Seal. Prime Healthcare is a United States privately held healthcare company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T6j4it at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Darren E. Nadel, Esq. Bradley J. Crowell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 16th Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 Facsimile: (303) 629-0200 E-mail: dnadel@littler.com bcrowell@littler.com - and - Wesley E. Stockard, Esq. Rachel P. Kaercher, Esq. James Fielding, Esq. Pamela S.C. Reynolds, Esq. Sara Zimmerman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 443-3502 Facsimile: (404) 393-5353 E-mail: wstockard@littler.com rkaercher@littler.com jfielding@littler.com preynolds@littler.com szimmerman@littler.com PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY KROEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104-SHL-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen H. Locher entered an order denying Kroeger's Motion for Class Certification: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Universal Insurance Company to an Iowa resident where the claim was submitted from March 25, 2012, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." -- Kroeger's Allegations When a car is totaled in an accident, Progressive's form insurance policy promises to pay the Actual Cash Value ("ACV") of the vehicle to the policyholder. The Policy states that ACV "is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs." Progressive's "uniform policy" is to base total-loss appraisals on the valuation report of a third-party vendor, Mitchell International, Inc. Plaintiff Kroeger, acting individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, alleges that Progressive’s methodology for calculating ACV systematically understates the value of total-loss vehicles. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rqy6hM at no extra charge.[CC] PUBLIX SUPER: Department Managers Join Class Suit Over Unpaid Work ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernadette Berdychowski of Tampa Bay Times reports that last month, three former assistant department managers from different states filed a federal lawsuit against Publix claiming Florida's largest grocer did not pay them for overtime work. Now, department managers can also join the collective action suit. An amended complaint filed on November 21, 2023 in Tampa's federal court added hourly managers from store departments like bakery, deli, meat, produce, seafood and grocery. They face many of the same problems that assistant department managers experienced, the lawsuit said. The suit claims Publix required employees to work before and after their shifts, during unpaid lunch breaks and when they were away from the store, often handling scheduling and supplement management issues. Assistant department managers and department managers worked about three to five hours overtime without pay every week, according to the lawsuit. That would be a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a federal law requiring employers to pay workers the minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. Publix did not immediately respond to requests for comment on November 21, 2023. Last month, director of communications Maria Brous stated that the grocer would look into the assistant department managers' claims and "respond accordingly." The original lawsuit names employees who worked at stores in Tennessee, Georgia and Florida, including an employee from a Spring Hill store. Two more names were added to the lawsuit -- one from Bradenton and the other in the Atlanta area -- on behalf of Publix department managers in similar situations over the past three years. The plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys at Morgan & Morgan and Shavitz Law Group. Unlike a class action lawsuit, where employees in similar situations are automatically included in the lawsuit, a collective action suit requires workers to opt in to be able to receive any damages or settlement money. So far, 37 assistant department managers and 18 department managers have joined, according to Morgan & Morgan attorney Ryan Morgan. They expect more employees to join. Publix -- which announced this week it will have a new CEO and president -- is Florida's largest grocer with more than 1,300 locations across Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and soon Kentucky. The employees are asking the court to make the Florida grocer pay for the unpaid work and legal fees and for the grocer to fix its practices. [GN] PUP CULTURE: Vilella Wins Conditional Class Certfication -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY VILELLA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. PUP CULTURE LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE, PUPCULTURE DUMBO LLC d/b/a/ PUPCULTURE DUMBO, PUPCULTURE FIDI LLC d/b/a/ PUPCULTURE FIDI, PUPCULTURE TRIBECA LLC d/b/a/ PUPCULTURE TRIBECA, PUPCULTURE UWS LLC d/b/a/ PUPCULTURE WEST 57, JOHN DOE CORPORATION d/b/a PUPCULTURE SOHO, and IBRAHIM ALIMIMEH, Case No. 1:23-cv-02291-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order that the motion for conditional class certification is granted as modified. The Plaintiff is directed to meet and confer with Defendants and to submit a revised notice consistent with this opinion by December 1, 2023. Finally, the Defendants assert that opt-in plaintiffs should be required to mail their signed consent forms to the Clerk of Court, rather than to Plaintiff's counsel as Plaintiff proposes. Specifically, the Defendants posit that having collective action members mail their consent forms to Plaintiff's counsel "can discourage opt-in plaintiffs from retaining independent counsel." The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), and asserting claims for unpaid overtime wages, improper time rounding, and a policy of time-shaving. Vilella was employed at Pupculture from early 2017 until January 2022. Id. ¶ 34. Pupculture is a New York corporation and parent company of five wholly-owned subsidiary stores located in New York City that operate day care services for dogs. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GkAKPC at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY: Violates Civil Rights, Ortiz Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockhurst University. The case is captioned as JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01213-JLS (W.D.N.Y., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act. Rockhurst University is a private Jesuit university in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Gregory K. Markham, Esq Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal SABERT CORP: Harris-Morrison Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TAMIKO HARRIS-MORRISON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SABERT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2023-CH-08057, 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 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16120 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. She specifically alleges that in June 2019, she was required to submit to a physical examination as a requirement of her employment with Defendant, and during that physical examination, the provider verbally requested [Plaintiff] to disclose her family medical history, including whether medical conditions with genetic predispositions has manifested in her parents, including cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments. Sabert Corporation manufactures and distributes plastic containers and other food packaging products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Ward, Esq. John Litchfield, Esq. Patrick McMahon, Esq. Samantha Saddler, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 Facsimile: (312) 832-4700 E-mail: cward@foley.com jlitchfield@foley.com pmcmahon@foley.com ssaddler@foley.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Certification Bid Due March 8, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, JOHN BARONE, LINDA CHESLOW, BETTY FELLOWS, MICHAEL FALCO, MELISSA ALDRIDGE, and LEE WEINMAN, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01942-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order enlarging time for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for class certification. Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Class certification motion due Jan. 12, 2024 Mar. 8, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification Jan. 12, 2024 Mar. 8, 2024 expert disclosures due Class certification opposition due Mar. 15, 2024 Jun 7, 2024 Defendant's class certification Mar. 15, 2024 Jun 7, 2024 expert disclosures due Defendant's class certification Mar. 15, 2024 Jun 7, 2024 Daubert motions due Class certification expert Apr. 5, 2024 Jun. 28, 2024 discovery cut-off Class certification reply due Apr. 12, 2024 Jul. 12, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification Apr. 12, 2024 Jul. 12, 2024 Daubert motions and oppositions to Defendant's Daubert motions due Defendant's oppositions to May 10, 2024 Aug. 9, 2024 Plaintiffs' Daubert motions due Sanofi-Aventis develops, manufactures,, and markets pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47FOLTY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Randi Singer, Esq. David R. Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: randi.singer@weil.com david.singh@weil.com SECURITY NATIONAL: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-23194-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted as to the request for a remand and denied with respect to the request for attorneys' fees and costs. 2. The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. All pending deadlines and hearings are terminating, and any pending motions, including the Defendant's motion to dismiss, are denied as moot. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand -- which, after careful review, we grant in part and deny in part. The Plaintiffs sued two Defendants (Security National Insurance Company and General Security National Insurance Company) in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, asserting one count for a pure bill of discovery. Security offers property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49ZKhsZ at no extra charge.[CC] SEPHORA USA INC: Bondshu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Taylor Bondshu, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated employees v. Sephora USA, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. CGC23610622 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Sephora -- https://www.sephora.com/ -- is a French multinational retailer of personal care and beauty products with nearly 340 brands, along with its own private label, Sephora Collection, and includes beauty products such as cosmetics, skincare, fragrance, nail color, beauty tools, body lotions and haircare.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5824 Phone: (310) 982-2984 Fax: (818) 963-5954 Email: jeremy@mossbollinger.com SHALLU CONSTRUCTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Granda Chica et al v. Shallu Construction Corp. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00869 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- The deadline for the parties to take the first step in dispositive motion practice or seek class certification is extended to March 19, 2024. -- The Court will not grant further extensions of time to complete discovery. -- An in-person status conference will be held on Feb. 7, 2024 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 13C South before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shallu is a Construction company.[CC] SONY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Monopoly Class Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------- Jessica Davies of Proactive reports that a class action lawsuit against Sony Group Corp (NYSE:SONY) is expected to go ahead after a UK tribunal threw out the Japanese conglomerate's attempts to dismiss the case. The Competition Appeal Tribunal said in a statement on November 21, 2023 that it was satisfied that the authorisation and eligibility conditions had been met for the case, and granted a collective proceedings order. Consumer rights campaigner Alex Neill filed the class action lawsuit against Sony last year, accusing the company of over-charging for products at their PlayStation store. The class action lawsuit claims Sony has a monopoly on the sale of digital games and add-on content through its control of the PlayStation store. The lawsuit argues that Sony charges "excessive and unfair prices" that are "out of all proportion" to its costs. It also claims Sony charges publishers and developers unfair levels of commission, amounting to 30% on every purchase of digital games and in-game content on the PlayStation stores. [GN] SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Denial of Caccuri Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CACCURI, et al., v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03361-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, denying certification of the named Plaintiffs' proposed class. The Court should deny certification of the named Plaintiffs' proposed class because: 1. The named Plaintiffs and nearly all putative class members are subject to class-action waivers. 2. Nearly all putative class members are subject to arbitration agreements, so the proposed class is overbroad and invalid. The named Plaintiffs' proposed class includes everyone in the United States who purchased a digital video game (or related content) from the PlayStation Store from April 1, 2019, through the present. Sony develops, markets, and sells the popular PlayStation video-game console A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uAjMtV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John F. Cove, Jr., Esq. Patrick T. Hein, Esq. Brian C. Hauser, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP 535 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 616-1100 E-mail: john.cove@shearman.com patrick.hein@shearman.com brian.hauser@shearman.com SPLUNK INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Feb. 22, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Splunk 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 28, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set the federal securities class suit settlement final approval hearing on February 22, 2024. A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”) against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and itsr former Chief Financial Officer. The operative complaint, filed by lead plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding our marketing efforts, hiring practices, and retention of personnel. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On January 30, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, subject to Court approval. The settlement resolves all claims asserted against the Company and the other named defendants without any admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by defendants. Under the terms of the settlement, it has caused $30 million to be paid into a settlement escrow account, of which $4.6 million has been paid by the Company in satisfaction of the retention limit of its primary Director & Officer ("D&O") insurance policy and $25.4 million will be paid by our insurers, in return for a release of claims and dismissal of the case. On February 7, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which attaches the stipulation of settlement. On September 26, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for February 22, 2024. During the three months ended October 31, 2023, the Company's insurers funded the settlement escrow account and as a result it derecognized the related liability and receivable. Splunk Inc. provides solutions for security and observability that empower security operations, IT operations, and development operations teams to maintain resilient systems by monitoring and securing them more quickly and efficiently. STANLEY STEEMER: Kaled Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Steemer International, Inc. The case is captioned as JULIA KALED, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. STANLEY STEEMER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00770-JPH (S.D. Ohio, November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over alleged personal injury claims. Stanley Steemer International, Inc. is a carpet cleaning company, headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com STATE FARM: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA GULICK, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-02573-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Teresa J. James entered an Amended Phase I Scheduling Order as follows: Event Deadline/Setting Class certification expert discovery: Plaintiff's expert disclosures and reports Oct. 20, 2023 for class certification Defendant's expert disclosures and reports Jan. 16, 2024 for class certification Motion for class certification; Defendant's Feb. 15, 2024 motion for summary judgment on individual claims or issues; any motions to exclude expert testimony under Rule 702 to be filed by Responses to the above motions March 13, 2024 Replies to responses to the above motions April 3, 2024 All Phase I discovery completed April 3, 2024 Parties to email chambers of Magistrate Within two weeks Judge to schedule Phase II scheduling or of the Court's status conference ruling on class Certification State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46zEXtq at no extra charge.[CC] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Decertify Class in Bouissey Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD BOUISSEY and RICHARD HODGES, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03203-VAP-kk (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the class certified on September 27, 2023. Swift provides transportation services. A copy of the Parties' dated Nov. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Z8nlP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Robert E. Mussig, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com rmussig@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com TENNANT SALES: Faces Bezzek Labor Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennant Sales and Service Company. The case is captioned as ROBERT BEZZEK, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06663 (W.D.N.Y., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over alleged labor law violations. Tennant Sales and Service Company is a manufacturer of indoor and outdoor environmental cleaning solutions and specialty floor coatings, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com THOMAS JEFFERSON: Ortiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas Jefferson University. The case is captioned as JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLS (W.D.N.Y., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act. Thomas Jefferson University is a private research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Gregory K. Markham, Esq Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal TRANSYSTEMS CORP: Heras Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as STEPHANIE HERAS, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Missouri Stock Corporation, OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23LBCV01958, 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, Western Division, on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09843 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a single cause of action under California's Private Attorney General Act. However, that single cause of action seeks statutory penalties for multiple types of alleged violations, including: a. failure to provide employment records; b. failure to pay overtime and double time; c. failure to provide meal and rest periods; d. failure to pay minimum wages; e. failure to keep accurate and provide itemized wage statements; f. failure to pay reporting time; g. failure to pay "split shift" premiums; h. failure to timely pay wages during employment; i. failure to timely pay wages upon termination; j. failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs; and k. failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. TranSystems Corporation provides consulting services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie M. Francis, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Telephone: (602) 279-1600 Facsimile: (602) 240-6925 E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com ULTA SALON: Yount Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of herself and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ULTA BEAUTY; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 23-2-20149-3 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, on November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01782 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks remedies under Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.58.070 for actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000, whichever is greater. The Plaintiff also seeks her attorneys' fees through final judgment under RCW. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is an American chain of beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 E-mail: mathew.parker@ogletree.com UNITED STATES: Violates Trafficking Victims Protection Act ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; JANE DOE 3; and JANE DOE 4, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS; FIRST LADY CECILE DE JONGH; GOVERNOR KENNETH MAPP; SENATOR CELESTINO WHITE; ATTORNEY GENERAL VINCENT FRAZER; GOVERNOR JOHN DE JONGH; SENATOR CARLTON DOWE; DELEGATE STACEY PLASKETT; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10301 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2023) alleges violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that the Defendants, as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, knowingly aided and abetted, facilitated, and directly participated in Epstein's illegal venture through financial and non-financial transactions that originated in this District. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS are a group of Caribbean islands and islets. A U.S. territory, it's known for white-sand beaches, reefs and verdant hills. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan K. Merson, Esq. Annette Hasapidis, Esq. Jordan Rutsky, Esq. Kimberly Kramer, Esq. MERSON LAW PLLC 950 Third Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 603-9100 Email: jmerson@mersonlaw.com kkramer@mersonlaw.com agh@hasapidislaw.com UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Court Dismisses Black Sheep's $750M Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kory Grow of Rolling Stone reports that the choice was United States District Judge Jennifer Rochon's since she had the power to dismiss Black Sheep’s class action lawsuit against UMG. Earlier this year, the rap duo, whose biggest hit "The Choice Is Yours" came out in 1991, alleged that the world's largest record label had engaged in a "sweetheart" deal with Spotify that boxed them out of royalties due to them per the 1990 contract they signed with Universal imprint Polygram. According to Pitchfork, however, Judge Rochon believes the duo waited too long to file their suit since it wasn't covered by the statute of limitations for their contract, and argued that UMG was not in breach of contract. Reps for Black Sheep and UMG have not replied to Rolling Stone's requests for comment. In January, Black Sheep members Andres "Dres" Titus and William "Mista Lawnge" McLean filed a class action lawsuit intended to include other UMG artists, seeking $750 million in damages. They claimed that UMG accepted cash and stock from Spotify in exchange for providing music to the platform. The deal allegedly allowed Spotify to pay lower royalties. Black Sheep also accused UMG of paying smaller amounts to its artists and depriving them of stock due to them per their contracts. The artists claimed that their contract guaranteed them half of Universal's "net receipts" for any exploitation of their music. This deal, they claimed, should have provided Universal’s artists with 50 percent of its Spotify stock, which, in 2021, was worth $1.7 billion. Although Black Sheep didn't name any fellow plaintiffs in the suit, they claimed the "class" could include thousands of artists. They said that only Universal knew how many artists would be covered. In January, a UMG spokesperson told Rolling Stone that the company felt the lawsuit lacked merit. "Universal Music Group’s innovative leadership has led to the renewed growth of the music ecosystem to the benefit of recording artists, songwriters and creators around the world," the spokesperson said. "UMG has a well-established track record of fighting for artist compensation and the claim that it would take equity at the expense of artist compensation is patently false and absurd. Given that this is pending litigation, we cannot comment on all aspects of the complaint." [GN] US CELLULAR: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------- United States Cellular 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 a final settlement hearing was held on October 4, 2023 with regards to the settlement of a consolidated class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and two of the company's officers. On May 19, 2023, the court granted its preliminary approval of said settlement and the notice to class members with regards In June 2023, the $31.1 million of settlement funds were deposited in escrow and are included within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the company's consolidated balance sheet as of July 31, 2023. US Cellular owns, operates, and invests in wireless markets throughout the United States. UScellular is an 83%-owned subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (TDS). VEEVA SYSTEMS: Liu Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DONGQI LIU, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 23-2-20173-6 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 November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01784 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of individuals who applied to job openings with the Defendant where the job postings did not include the wage scale, salary range, or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered in direct violation of the Wash. Rev. Code. Veeva Systems, Inc. is an American cloud-computing company focused on pharmaceutical and life sciences industry applications.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 E-mail: mathew.parker@ogletree.com VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN M. ERWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERADIGM INC.; PAUL M. BLACK; RICHARD J. POULTON; and LEAH S. JONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-16205 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 22, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Veradigm common stock between February 26, 2021 and June 13, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against Veradigm and its most senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants emphasized Veradigm's strong revenue, gross margin, and EBITDA growth to investors during the Company's quarterly earnings calls. These and similar statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made. Allegedly, Veradigm has still not remediated the material weakness in its financial controls, rectified its misstatement of its prior financial results, regained compliance with Nasdaq listing requirements, or filed its overdue periodic filings with the SEC. By the end of the Class Period, the price of Veradigm stock had fallen to just $11.49 per share, half the Class Period high, inflicting substantial financial losses and economic damages on plaintiff and the Class, the suit contends. VERADIGM INC. operates as an integrated data systems and services company that combines data-driven clinical insights with actionable tools to help healthcare stakeholders. The Company focuses on healthcare providers providing point-of-care clinical software, practice management solutions, and patient outreach platforms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE: Faces Manasia Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, et al. The case is captioned as Michael Manasia, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE ASSESSOR OF THE VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE, et al., Case No. 618944/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., November 21, 2023). The case type is stated as SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer). The Village of Rockville Centre is a tax office in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP 132 Spruce Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 VIVINT INC: Nowland Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint, Inc. The case is captioned as NATE NOWLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VIVINT, INC., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0012482 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., November 21, 2023). A case management conference is set for May 20, 2024, before Judge Barbara Kronlund. Vivint, Inc. is a security company headquartered in Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan N. Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 612-2627 E-mail: mh@melmedlaw.com WALMART INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as SHANNON SPENCER, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., a foreign for-profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 23-2-19402-1 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 November 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01793 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks remedies under Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.58.070 for actual damages or statutory damages of $5,000, whichever is greater. The Plaintiff also seeks her attorneys' fees through final judgment under RCW. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 E-mail: mathew.parker@ogletree.com WALSH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over ADA Violation in W.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walsh University. The case is captioned as JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALSH UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01216 (W.D.N.Y., November 21, 2023). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walsh University is a private university in North Canton, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Apr. 25, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Fact discovery cut-off Feb. 22, 2024 Expert disclosures Feb. 29, 2024 Rebuttal expert disclosures Mar. 22, 2024 Expert discovery cut-off Apr. 12, 2024 Last day to file motion for Apr. 25, 2024 class certification Last day to file dispositive July 25, 2024 and Daubert motions Pretrial conference Nov. 21, 2024 Jury Trial Dec. 9, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sYaV4W at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***