/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231225.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 257 Headlines AUTOASSURE LLC: Court Okays FLSA Class Settlement in Roach Suit AUTUMN LAKE: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Hall Suit BHB INVESTMENT: Myers Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Cintra & Other Suits Denied BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Dykes Suit BPS DIRECT: Cornell's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice BPS DIRECT: Hernandez's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice BPS DIRECT: Moore's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice BPS DIRECT: Vonbergen's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Leave to File Instanter Second Notice CABELA'S LLC: Calvert's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice CABELA'S LLC: Durham's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice CABELA'S LLC: Irvin's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice CABELA'S LLC: Montecalvo's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cherveny Suit Transferred to Judge Traum CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Martin Suit Over Advance Notice Bylaw CORTEVA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in ERISA Suit to 3rd Cir. COSTCO WHOLESALE: $3.7M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Corker Suit DGS CONSTRUCTION: Amaya Awarded $624K in Fees, Costs & Incentives EAH HOUSING: Suarez Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Villa Suit ELERAS GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in McGuire Suit GEICO: Class Cert Bid Deadlines in Reloj Continued GREATER ROCHESTER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Konish Says INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Keown Files Suit Over Data Breach KAISER FOUNDATION: Doe Suit Parties to File Edited MPO by Dec. 22 M&N SERVICES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in AW Suit MARS INC: Faces Jimenez Suit for Invasion of Privacy MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH: Land Files Suit in D. Alaska MDL 3074: Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice in Wiretap Suit MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Pauli Suit Removed to S.D. Florida META PLATFORMS: Bloom Suit Transferred to N.D. California NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Meeks Suit Removed to S.D. Florida OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Hardin's Bid for Production of Docs Partly OK'd PEOPLECONNECT INC: Allowed to File Opposition Under Seal PEOPLECONNECT INC: Nolen May File Portions of Reply Under Seal PRO CUSTOM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 31, 2023 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid PROSPECT MEDICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Roma Due Dec. 1, 2024 PURE ATLANTA: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida QUICK BOX: Tan Wins Bid for Leave to File Class Cert. Supplemental RADIUS GLOBAL: French Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RADIUS GLOBAL: Madden Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RADIUS GLOBAL: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RIGHT NOW ROOFING: Packard Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Pizl Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SBKU SERVICES: Faces Ruiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Sues Over Cement Price-fixing SIX FLAGS: Consolidated Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Urinary Tract Meds SPRUCE POWER: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATE FARM: Court Amends Preliminary Pretrial Order in Nichols STERIGENICS US: Class Action & PAGA Settlement Gets Final Nod SVB FINANCIAL: Court Consolidates Cases in Securities Litigation TAIJI ORIENTAL: Court OK's Yang Bid for Conditional Certification TD AMERITRADE INC: Jeanfort Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TELEPERFORMANCE SE: WGERS Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bids Due March 13, 2025 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bids in Fusca Due March 13, 2025 TENNESSEE: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification TK SUPPLEMENTS: Faces Aviles False Advertising Suit TORY BURCH: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts' Bid to Certify Sup. Ct. Questions Denied TREX COMPANY: Court Grants Bid to Enforce Judgment in Roth Suit TWITTER INC: Morgan Appeals Court Orders to 9th Cir. U-HAUL INT'L: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11, 2024 UNITED SERVICES: Court Junks Leavitt Bid for Recusal UNITED STATES: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rueda v. Treasury UNITED STATES: Bid for Voluntary Remand in Springs v. Navy Denied UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Strege v. FBI Without Prejudice USAA GENERAL: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Tarkett Suit VA CLAIMS INSIDER: Warriors Sues Over Unfair and Illegal Scheme VALDEZ PAINTING: Coberley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit WAKE COUNTY, NC: McDougal Hits Gender-Based Promotions WEBCOLLEX LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 17, 2024 WELLS FARGO: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Senior Premier Bankers WINGATE UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YOUNG LIVING: Wins Bid to Seal Documents ZUFFA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ********* AUTOASSURE LLC: Court Okays FLSA Class Settlement in Roach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement, and Renewed Joint Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Settlement Agreement Under Seal Indefinitely in the lawsuit titled DALLAS ROACH, Plaintiff v. AUTOASSURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00484-SEP (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff Dallas Roach brought this putative collective and class action against his former employer, AutoAssure, LLC, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a sales representative selling vehicle service contracts by phone. He claims that at times, he and other sales representatives worked more than 40 hours a week, but the Defendant failed to pay them the required overtime rate. The Plaintiff sued in his individual capacity and on behalf of "all other workers similar to Plaintiff who worked in Missouri and who were not paid time and a half for all hours worked above 40 in any workweek during the previous three years." The parties reached a settlement. Judge Pitlyk finds that the parties provide compelling reasons that warrant sealing. Based on the parties' representations, the Settlement Agreement would not have been achieved if the parties had believed that the terms would become public. In this case, that interest outweighs the public's interest in the redacted information. Most of the Settlement Agreement will be available to the public. Only the settlement amount and distribution are redacted. The settlement amount is an important term of the agreement, but the Court's reasons for approving the settlement are found primarily in the Complaint, Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement, and the unredacted terms of the Settlement Agreement. The publicly filed version of the Settlement Agreement discloses important terms, including the parties' mutual discharge of claims, a statement that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, and a list of acknowledgements by the Plaintiff. Judge Pitlyk notes that the Complaint includes important information about the length of time the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant and his earnings. Those documents give the public enough information to monitor the Court's work and understand why it approved the Settlement Agreement. The parties also request that "the seal be made indefinite" because the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement also extends indefinitely. Public disclosure of the settlement terms would defeat the purpose of the Parties' bargained-for confidentiality provision and weaken the Defendant's bargaining positions for negotiations in pending and future copycat claims. The Court agrees with the parties' reasoning and orders the Settlement Agreement sealed indefinitely. Although the settlement was achieved early in litigation, Judge Pitlyk says there is sufficient evidence that it resolves a bona fide dispute. The Defendant answered the Plaintiff's Complaint and denied any wrongdoing. The Settlement Agreement also represents that the Defendant denies the material allegations in the complaint, but the parties have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, disruption, and uncertainty of continued litigation. The settlement is the product of the respective assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses, the damages allegedly owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the risks and costs of moving forward with this litigation. Judge Pitlyk holds that is enough to establish that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute. Judge Pitlyk also holds that the proposed settlement is also fair and equitable to the parties, and the Settlement Agreement is the product of a collaborative effort of the Parties and their respective counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement to be fair and equitable. The Court's review of the Settlement Agreement is limited to the material terms of the proposed settlement as they relate to the Plaintiff's FLSA claims. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest, and the parties negotiated the payment amounts to the Plaintiff and his attorneys in the Settlement Agreement, which is fair and equitable, Judge Pitlyk holds. The Settlement Agreement clearly defines the amount the Plaintiff will receive and the amount his attorneys will receive for his attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court grants the Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement, and the Joint Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Settlement Agreement Under Seal Indefinitely. Judge Pitlyk finally orders that the parties will file appropriate dismissal papers in this action no later than Dec. 27, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mryyw2arfrom PacerMonitor.com. AUTUMN LAKE: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Hall Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JACQUELINE HALL, Plaintiff v. AUTUMN LAKE HEALTHCARE, LLC, and CAMEO ASSISTED LIVING, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01108-PP (E.D. Wis.), Chief District Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin approves the parties' stipulation for conditional certification and authorization of notice to similarly situated persons pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties have filed a stipulation to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by putative collective members against Defendants Autumn Lake Health Care LLC and Cameo Assisted Living LLC. They ask the court to approve a notice to the collective. The parties define the proposed class as: All hourly paid, non-exempt employees of Cameo Assisted Living, LLC; Cameo Nursing Home, LLC; AJ ALF Operations LLC; and AJ Operations LLC, employed in the state of Wisconsin within two years prior to Court authorization of Exhibit 1. Judge Pepper notes that the parties have made the required modest factual showing by conditionally agreeing that certification is proper because the putative collective members are allegedly victims of the same unlawful policies. They assert that the proposed notice will serve the goal of avoiding a multiplicity of suits. The Court approves the parties' stipulation for conditional certification. The Court orders that the following class is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b): All hourly paid, non-exempt employees of Cameo Assisted Living, LLC; Cameo Nursing Home, LLC; AJ ALF Operations LLC; and AJ Operations LLC, employed in the state of Wisconsin within two years prior to Court authorization of Exhibit 1. The Court approves the proposed notice. The Court orders that within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the Defendants must provide Rust Consulting with the names and last known addresses of all putative collective members. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Rust Consulting must cause the notice to be mailed to the putative collective members. The Defendants are responsible for and must bear all costs associated with mailing this notice. Distribution of the notice must be limited to a single mailing. Rust Consulting must provide written notice to the parties of the date on which the forms are mailed. Within thirty (30) days after mailing, putative collective members must return their "Consent to Join Form" to Rust Consulting, who must promptly convey the forms to the parties so that the Plaintiff's counsel can file them with the Court. To be considered timely, a putative collective member's Consent to Join Form must be postmarked thirty (30) days after mailing (during the "Opt-In Period"), unless good cause is shown for their delay. Aside from the single mailing, there will be no additional publication or distribution of the notice---whether online, in print, in person or through any other medium—during the Opt-In Period. The Plaintiff's counsel, however, may respond to inquiries from putative collective members and/or Rust Consulting may re-issue the notice to any putative collective member whose original notice was not successfully delivered for any reason. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/v78vh4hc from PacerMonitor.com. BHB INVESTMENT: Myers Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Myers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BHB Investment Holdings Astoria, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08849 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from October 2018 to October 31, 2023 as a manual worker performing a variety of manual and physical duties such as swimming and providing physiotherapy assistance to swimmers/clients. She asserts that the Defendant failed to pay her overtime wages, failed to timely pay wages, and failed to provide wage notice. BHB Investment Holdings Astoria, LLC is in the business of providing swimming equipment and services to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Cintra & Other Suits Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiffs' Motions to Reconsider in the lawsuits titled ELVIS CINTRA v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; MARLON STALLWORTH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; and RONALD MCDANIEL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H," Case Nos. 2:17-cv-03889-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), 17-4183 (E.D. La.) and 17-4069 (E.D. La.). Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in three different cases. The Plaintiffs have filed Motions to Reconsider the Court's Orders Granting Defendants' Motions in Limine and Motions for Summary Judgment in each of their cases. The cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. The instant cases were reassigned to Section H. The Plaintiffs each filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on their alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends that his or her resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. The Plaintiffs bring claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants. Now before the Court in each of the cases are the Plaintiffs' Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's order granting the Defendants' Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment should be reconsidered because of BP's decision not to collect dermal and biometric data from cleanup workers. Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, the "BP parties") oppose. The Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of its order excluding Dr. Jerald Cook's testimony and granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs state that the affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") creates an issue of fact "as to whether biomonitoring would have been required to adequately protect the workers from the known hazards of exposure to crude oil." The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs are rehashing arguments irrelevant to this suit and that they present no arguments unique to their cases. The Plaintiffs do not identify which of the four Rule 59(e) criteria they believe are satisfied here, Judge Milazzo notes. The Plaintiffs' argument regarding Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit is irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful and unreliable, Judge Milazzo points out. In its previous Orders, the Court, as well as others in this district, determined that Dr. Cook's expert report was inadmissible and these decisions did not depend on the dermal and biometric data that BP allegedly failed to collect. Specifically, another section of this Court has held that "Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit neither cures nor explains the deficiencies of [Dr.] Cook's report." Judge Milazzo finds that Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit appears to conflate general causation with specific causation, as general causation requires evidence demonstrating that the types of chemicals encountered by the Plaintiff are actually capable of causing the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit requires admissible general causation expert testimony in toxic tort cases, and Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not remedy this deficiency within Dr. Cook's expert report. Considering this, Judge Milazzo holds that the Plaintiffs have not presented any justification for alteration or amendment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Moreover, the Court is not alone in this decision, as other courts in this district have also denied reconsideration on the same grounds. For these reasons, Judge Milazzo denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for Reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/268hwjkk from PacerMonitor.com. BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Dykes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit styled WENDELL DYKES v. BP EXPLORATION & SECTION: "H" PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:17-cv-04323-JTM-MBN (E.D. La.). Before the Court are Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("collectively BP")'s Motion in Limine to Exclude the General Causation Opinion of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical Causation, and Plaintiff's Motion for Admission of Plaintiff's Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure. The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)." The B3 cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. This case was reassigned to Section H. Plaintiff Wendell Dykes filed this action based on his alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He worked as a driver of a truck used to remove oil covered soil. He alleges that exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants caused him to develop skin changes and irritation, back pain, burning eyes and headaches. He brings claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants. Now before the Court are the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the General Causation Opinions Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert and their Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical Causation. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's expert on medical causation, Dr. Jerald Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should, therefore, be excluded as unreliable. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argue that assuming their Motion in Limine is granted, the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation and, therefore, fails to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. Also before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion entitled Motion for Admission of Plaintiff's Expert Opinions because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure. In this motion, the Plaintiff asks the Court to allow Dr. Cook's expert testimony in light of the Defendants' failure to preserve evidence of exposure to toxic chemicals by clean-up workers or perform biomonitoring and dermal monitoring of those workers. On the topic of general causation, the Plaintiff has put forth a report from Dr. Cook entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis." This report is not unique to this case; another judge of this Court has described it as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs." Judge Milazzo note that at least nine sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this one, have excluded every version of Dr. Cook's report, holding generally that Dr. Cook's opinions are unreliable and unhelpful where he fails to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the plaintiffs' complaints. Indeed, in his opposition, the Plaintiff acknowledges that "about two hundred of BP's motions to exclude Dr. Cook's general causation opinions have been granted." In light of this, he takes a different tack and focuses his opposition on the scientific robustness of Dr. Cook's reliance literature and the fact that there are no alternative studies on which he could properly rely to support his opinions. He argues that it is not possible to establish a quantitative exposure to a given chemical at a given level based on the data that was collected after the oil spill and that Dr. Cook's opinion relies on the best literature available. These new arguments, however, neither cure nor explain the deficiencies of Cook's report, Judge Milazzo opines. Accordingly, the Court agrees that these new arguments do not alter the outcome of the Defendants' Motion in Limine. For the same reasons already articulated by Judges Africk, Ashe, Barbier, Guidry, Morgan, Vance, Vitter, and Zainey, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine. In response to the Defendants' Motions, the Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking admission of Dr. Cook's report through a different mechanism--as a sanction for spoliation. He argues that the Defendants acted in bad faith when they chose not to record quantitative data on the exposure of clean-up workers to specific chemicals and that the Court should allow him to rely on Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for that spoliation. As previously explained, however, the lack of quantitative data regarding the clean-up workers' exposure to a given chemical at a given level does not affect Dr. Cook's ability to opine on whether a specific chemical is "capable generally of causing certain health issues for the general population," Judge Milazzo opines. Thus, the report "still fails to provide evidence of general causation as is required by the Fifth Circuit for toxic tort cases." Accordingly, even assuming that the Plaintiff could prove that the Defendants spoliated evidence, Judge Milazzo says Dr. Cook's opinion remains unhelpful, unreliable, and inadmissible. The Plaintiff's Motion is, therefore, denied. Because the Plaintiff cannot prove general causation, the Court also grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's Motion is denied. Judge Milazzo also holds that all of the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/frdbcjen from PacerMonitor.com. BPS DIRECT: Cornell's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELL v. BPS DIRECT, L.L.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-02294 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. BPS offers fishing reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41l4jdI at no extra charge.[CC] BPS DIRECT: Hernandez's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez v. BPS Direct, L.L.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-02338 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. BPS offers fishing reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41j5om5 at no extra charge.[CC] BPS DIRECT: Moore's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moore, Jr. v. BPS Direct, LLC. Case No. 2:23-cv-02287 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. BPS offers fishing reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GDeGzO at no extra charge.[CC] BPS DIRECT: Vonbergen's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VONBERGEN v. BPS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04709 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. BPS offers fishing reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46RLPCK at no extra charge.[CC] BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Leave to File Instanter Second Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the University requests the Court grant them leave to file instanter its Second Notice of Supplemental Authority and for any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiff Eddlemon filed his first Motion for Class Certification on February 4, 2022. After briefing was completed, the Court granted the First Class Certification Motion in part. The University timely appealed to the Seventh Circuit. On April 12, 2023, the Seventh Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the issue back to this Court to be decided on the existing record. Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXuWcA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq. Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq. Kara E. Angeletti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com fordycet@gtlaw.com angelettik@gtlaw.com CABELA'S LLC: Calvert's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALVERT v. CABELA'S L.L.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-02293 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. Cabela's is a direct marketer and specialty retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, and related outdoor recreation merchandise. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tb58sQ at no extra charge.[CC] CABELA'S LLC: Durham's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Durham v. Cabelas LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02306 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. Cabela's is a direct marketer and specialty retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, and related outdoor recreation merchandise. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R9AasQ at no extra charge.[CC] CABELA'S LLC: Irvin's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Irvin v. Cabela's L.L.C. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04008 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. Cabela's is a direct marketer and specialty retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, and related outdoor recreation merchandise. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GBrDKr at no extra charge.[CC] CABELA'S LLC: Montecalvo's Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montecalvo v. Cabela's Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02282 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. Cabela's is a direct marketer and specialty retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, and related outdoor recreation merchandise. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4asHHw3 at no extra charge.[CC] CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cherveny Suit Transferred to Judge Traum --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada transfers to Judge Anne Traum the lawsuit captioned EDWARD CHERVENY, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01818-APG-EJY (D. Nev.). The case arises from an alleged data leak by, or hack against, Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc. Currently pending in this district are at least five other class action lawsuits arising from that same incident. Because those cases are related, they are assigned to District Judge Anne Traum and Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler under Local Rule 42-1(a). Given that this case appears related to those, the Court says it would be efficient and conserve judicial resources if this case is assigned to Judges Traum and Weksler, as well. The Court ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not be transferred to Judges Traum and Weksler. No party responded. The Court, therefore, orders that this case is transferred to Judges Traum and Weksler. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/aydpf8jf from PacerMonitor.com. CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Martin Suit Over Advance Notice Bylaw ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders of CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Plaintiff v. JULIE BRADLEY, LAWRENCE KUTSCHER, TANZEEN SYED, STEPHANIE TILIENIUS, HANS TUNG, JUN (JOE) YAN and CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023-1201 (Del. Ch., Nov. 30, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of ContextLogic, Inc., against Director Defendants seeking declaratory relief invalidating the Company's Advance Notice Bylaw and asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants. Like many corporations, ContextLogic has an advance notice bylaw that requires a stockholder who wishes to nominate candidates for election to director to provide the Company with advance notice. The Advance Notice Bylaw dictates the time period during which a notice of nomination must be received by the Company -- the Nomination Window -- and sets forth the requirements of what information must be included in a notice of nomination. ContextLogic's Advance Notice Bylaw, however, contains a chilling provision that requires any stockholder submitting a notice of nomination to include extensive detailed information regarding anyone "Acting in Concert" with the nominating stockholder, even if those other stockholders are wholly unknown to the nominating stockholder, the suit says. The Acting in Concert provision makes the prospect of strict compliance with the Advance Notice Bylaw illusory and unobtainable and unlawfully serves as an effective deterrent to stockholders' exercising their right to nominate candidates for election to director. Each of the Director Defendants owe fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class, including the duty of loyalty. The continued maintenance of the Advance Notice Bylaw is causing all ContextLogic stockholders imminent and irreparable harm, as it inequitably chills and potentially even precludes the fair exercise of the stockholder franchise, alleges the suit. ContextLogic, Inc. is a mobile e-commerce company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Joel Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Abbott Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 CORTEVA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in ERISA Suit to 3rd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CORTEVA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Robert Cockerill, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Corteva Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-21-cv-03966, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative class action arises from the alleged denial of retirement benefits to certain employees following the employer's spin-off of these employees to a different entity. Plaintiffs Robert F. Cockerill and Christopher W. Newton, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, bring various claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Michael M. Baylson. The Court certifies the Early Retirement Class for Counts I, IV, and V under Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) and the Optional Retirement Class for Counts II, IV, V, and VI under rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). The appellate case is captioned Robert Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva Inc, et al., Case No. 23-8051, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ROBERT COCKERILL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 - and - Edward S. Stone, Esq. 300 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (203) 504-8425 - and - Nina Wasow, Esq. Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Defendants-Petitioners CORTEVA INC., et al. are represented by: Amit Agarwal, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 425-5611 - and - Nipun J. Patel, Esq. Cory A. Thomas, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 252-9527 - and - Kayla L. Pragid, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 777 S. Flagler Street, Suite 1900W West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 560-8303 - and - Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 1180 W. Peachtree Street NW, Suite 1800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 817-8431 COSTCO WHOLESALE: $3.7M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Corker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards in the lawsuit entitled BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiffs have presented a class action settlement with Defendant Mulvadi Corporation for the Court's approval. The settlement includes monetary relief totaling $7,775,000, and injunctive provisions that institute labeling changes for the products labeled as Kona coffee and places obligations on Mulvadi and its owner in connection with any future sales of such coffee. The settlement with Mulvadi brings the total amount of the settlements reached in this case to $41.175 million. The Plaintiffs have also provided a declaration from an expert economist, who estimates that the value of the injunctive provisions of the settlements with Mulvadi and other Defendants to Kona farmers is more than $81.2 million over the next five years. The Court has reviewed the declaration and finds that the value of the injunctive relief provided for in the settlements is quantifiable, and that the expert has presented a reliable methodology for calculating that value. Class Counsel have requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.7 million. Together with previously awarded fees, this will amount to approximately 14.46% of the total economic value of the settlements reached to date. Judge Lasnik finds that the requested fees, which fall below the Ninth Circuit benchmark for successful cases, are fair and reasonable under the circumstances and for purposes of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court reaches this conclusion upon consideration of the results achieved, the complexity of the case and risks involved in prosecuting it, especially on a contingent basis, the benefits to the class beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund, fees awarded in similar cases, and a lodestar cross-check. First, Judge Lasnik opines, the results obtained by Class Counsel are excellent. In addition to the substantial monetary component, the settlement provides for meaningful injunctive relief in the form of practice changes on the part of Mulvadi. Second, the Court finds that the complexity of this case presented unusual risks, particularly in a contingent fee case. Third, the Court has considered the benefits to the Settlement Class beyond the cash component of the settlement. The injunctive relief will benefit each individual class member going forward, preventing the exact same type of harm that gave rise to the monetary award for past conduct. Fourth, the Court has considered other cases involving the creation of both a cash fund and valuable injunctive relief, and finds that the requested fee is consistent with awards in analogous cases. The Court grants Class Counsel's request of a fee of $3,700,000 to be paid from the Settlement Funds generated by the settlement. Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation expenses, including certain anticipated expenses associated with the implementation of this and prior settlements, in the amount of $170,000. The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's costs and finds that they were reasonably incurred and reasonably anticipated, and, accordingly, grants reimbursement of $170,000 from the Settlement Funds. Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm whose owners have served as class representatives in this litigation: Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms. Judge Lasnik finds the requested awards are fair and reasonable. The Court, accordingly, awards each farm the requested service awards of $2,500. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hr3v4v4 from PacerMonitor.com. Jason L. Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Daniel E. Seltz -- dseltz@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, in New York City, Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Nathan T. Paine -- npaine@karrtuttle.com -- Daniel T. Hagen -- dhagen@karrtuttle.com -- Joshua M. Howard -- jhoward@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL, in Seattle, Washington 98104, Counsel for the Plaintiffs. DGS CONSTRUCTION: Amaya Awarded $624K in Fees, Costs & Incentives ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland awards the Plaintiffs a total of $624,060 for attorney's fees and costs, and incentives in the lawsuit styled MARIO ERNESTO AMAYA and JOSE NORLAND GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs v. DGS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, D/B/A SCHUSTER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03350-TDC (D. Md.). Plaintiffs Mario Ernesto Amaya and Jose Norland Gonzalez ﬁled a civil action against Defendant DGS Construction, LLC, d/b/a Schuster Concrete Construction ("Schuster"), in which they alleged violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), as well as state law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The Court granted class certiﬁcation as to two proposed classes. On June 17, 2021, after a four-day jury trial, the Plaintiffs prevailed on the unjust enrichment claim as to one of the two classes. On July 26, 2021, pursuant to the parties' pretrial stipulations, the Court entered judgment against Schuster in the amount of $1,196,601.96 as of July 14, 2021, plus interest at the legal rate thereafter until payment of the judgment. By agreement of the parties, the total judgment with post-judgment interest to Oct. 16, 2023, is $1,198,760.84. Where the parties agree that post-judgment interest accrues at $2.62 per day, the total judgment with post-judgment interest to Nov. 27, 2023, is $1,198,870.88, or $110.04 greater than the parties' agreed-upon amount as of Oct. 16, 2023. The Plaintiffs have now ﬁled an Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, which will be construed together with the Plaintiffs' earlier-filed Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (collectively, "the Motion"). In the Motion, the Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), which allows the Court in a certified class action to award reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement. The Court certiﬁed both an "Overtime Fringe Beneﬁt Class" consisting of "all current and former employees who were employed in any craft worker classiﬁcation by Defendant Schuster at the MGM Resort Casino at National Harbor and worked overtime hours," as well as a "Carpenter Class" of "all current and former employees who were employed by Defendant Schuster at the MGM Resort Casino at National Harbor and performed carpentry work." After pretrial motions, the jury trial proceeded on only the unjust enrichment claims. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs on the unjust enrichment claim as to the Overtime Fringe Beneﬁt Class but returned a verdict in favor of Schuster on the claim as to the Carpenter Class. By stipulation of the parties, the Court found that damages for the Overtime Fringe Beneﬁt Class totaled $1,196,601.96 and entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in that amount plus interest. The Plaintiffs ﬁled a timely Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. No objections have been ﬁled. In the Motion, the Plaintiffs have requested $399,586.95 in attorney's fees, representing one-third of the judgment in this case, $234,491.55 in nontaxable costs, and $20,000 in incentive awards for each of the two named Plaintiffs, for a total of $674,078.50. The Court concludes that the requested attorney's fees of one-third of the common fund, the requested costs and the requested incentive awards are reasonable. For these reasons, Judge Chuang grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $624,060.50 from the common fund, divided as follows: a. $399,586.95 in attorney's fees; b. $234,491.55 in costs; c. $20,000 as an incentive fee to Plaintiff Mario Ernesto Amaya; and d. $20,000 as an incentive fee to Plaintiff Jose Norland Gonzalez. Schuster's Consent Motion to Extend Time to Respond is dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5atjm6cwfrom PacerMonitor.com. EAH HOUSING: Suarez Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Villa Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY SUAREZ is taking an appeal from a court order denying her motion to intervene in the lawsuit entitled Mauricio Arroyo Villa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EAH Housing Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-07358-NC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, California Labor Code, and the Unfair Competition Law to secure declaratory relief and damages to remedy the Defendants' violations of federal, state, and local employment laws by failing to adequately compensate the Plaintiff for the hours he worked. On Oct. 11, 2023, Wendy Suarez filed a motion to intervene, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on Nov. 3, 2023. The Court is not persuaded that intervention is appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 24(a) [intervention of right]. Moreover, the motion is not timely, Suarez has not shown she is inadequately represented, and Suarez has not shown she has an interest that will be impaired or impeded. The Court also is not persuaded that permissive intervention is appropriate under FRCP 24(b). The Court finds that intervention would likely interfere with and delay the efficient and just disposition of the case. The appellate case is captioned Villa v. EAH Housing Inc., et al., Case No. 23-3761, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 27, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4, 2023; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 8, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MAURICIO ARROYO VILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 North Pulaski Rd., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 Defendants-Appellees EAH HOUSING INC., et al. are represented by: Hieu Tran Williams, Esq. HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER, LLP 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 835-9020 Email: hwilliams@hkemploymentlaw.com ELERAS GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in McGuire Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, and Renewed Joint Motion for Leave to File Un-Redacted Settlement Agreement Under Seal in the lawsuit styled PAUL MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELERAS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00658-SEP (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff Paul McGuire brought this putative collective and class action against his former employer, Eleras Group, LLC, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. He worked for the Defendant as a sales representative selling extended car warranties by phone. He claims that the Defendant permitted him and other sales representatives to work more than 40 hours a week without paying them at the required overtime rate. The Plaintiff sued in his individual capacity and on behalf of "all current or former Sales Representatives who were employed by Defendant in the State of Missouri who were not paid overtime at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek." The parties reached a settlement. Judge Pitlyk finds that the parties provide compelling reasons that warrant sealing. Based on the parties' representations, the Settlement Agreement would not have been achieved if the parties had believed that the terms would become public. In this case, that interest outweighs the public's interest in the redacted information. Most of the Settlement Agreement will be available to the public. Only the settlement amount and distribution are redacted. Judge Pitlyk explains that the settlement amount is an important term of the agreement, but the Court's reasons for approving the settlement are found chiefly in the Complaint, Joint Motion for Settlement Approval, and the unredacted terms of the Settlement Agreement. The publicly filed version of the Settlement Agreement discloses important terms, for example, "The Parties agree that [Plaintiff's] portion of the Settlement Payment reflects an amount greater than that to which he would otherwise be entitled if he were to prevail on his claims in the Lawsuit." The Complaint includes important information about the length of time the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant and his wage rate, Judge Pitlyk notes. Those documents give the public enough information to monitor the Court's work and understand why it approved the Settlement Agreement. The parties also request that the seal designation remain indefinitely because the reasons for sealing the document will exist after the case is dismissed. The Court agrees that public disclosure of the settlement terms at any time in the future would undermine the parties' bargained-for confidentiality. Therefore, the Settlement Agreement will remain sealed indefinitely. Although the settlement was achieved early in litigation, Judge Pitlyk says there is sufficient evidence that it resolves a bona fide dispute. The parties did not engage in formal discovery, but the Settlement Agreement represents that the parties have engaged in the voluntary exchange of a significant amount of information regarding the number of hours the Plaintiff alleges he worked. The Court granted the Defendant three extensions so it could investigate the allegations in the Complaint and discuss settlement options. The Defendant denies the material allegation of the Complaint, and the parties reached a settlement because of the parties' wish to avoid expense, distribution, and uncertainty of continued litigation. Judge Pitlyk says that is enough to establish that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute. Judge Pitlyk also finds that the proposed settlement is also reasonable and fair to the parties. The Settlement Agreement states that the Plaintiff's portion of the settlement payment is greater than that to which he would otherwise be entitled if he were to prevail on his claims. Taking the Plaintiff's claims about the length of time he worked for the Defendant and his hourly rate as true, Judge Pitlyk finds that that claim is reasonable. There is no evidence of overreaching on the part of the Defendant, and both parties have been represented by experienced counsel throughout the litigation. The Court's review of the Settlement Agreement is limited to the material terms of the proposed settlement as they relate to the Plaintiff's FLSA claims. The Court's role is limited to ensuring that the attorney fees were in fact negotiated separately and without regard to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim, and there was no conflict of interest between the attorney and his or her client. That is true here, Judge Pitlyk says. The settlement provides for payment to the Plaintiff in excess of all amounts he potentially could be entitled to recover in this action, and separately provides for the payment of his attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, Judge Pitlyk grants the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, and the Joint Motion for Leave to File Un-redacted Settlement Agreement Under Seal. The un-redacted Settlement Agreement will remain sealed indefinitely. Judge Pitlyk also finally orders that the parties will file appropriate dismissal papers in this action no later than Dec. 27, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/26bskbnufrom PacerMonitor.com. GEICO: Class Cert Bid Deadlines in Reloj Continued -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order granting joint motion to continue deadlines for motion for class certification and pretrial motions. Government Employees is a private American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tm1igm at no extra charge.[CC] GREATER ROCHESTER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Konish Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY KONISH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREATER ROCHESTER INDEPENDENT PRACTICE ASSOCIATION, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12922-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 30, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Greater Rochester patients' sensitive information, including their full names, dates of birth, and medical and treatment information, which is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On May 31, 2023, Greater Rochester learned that Pension Benefit Information, LLC's network, to whom PSC provided software services, and for which Greater Rochester relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. As a result of the investigation, Greater Rochester concluded -- on June 5, 2023 -- that "files were taken from the MOVEit server during the cyberattack." The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants' inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected private information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendants' conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, the suit says. Greater Rochester is a physician led partnership between the eight affiliate hospitals of Rochester Regional Health that provides healthcare services to patients in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Keown Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID KEOWN, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL AIR RAIL TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03570-CRC (D.D.C., Nov. 30, 2023) is a class action arising from the recent cyberattack and data breach that was perpetuated against Defendant. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifying information(PII) -- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its union members' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail Transportation Workers is a labor union with its principal office located in Washington D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Doe Suit Parties to File Edited MPO by Dec. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC (PHK) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, directs the parties to coordinate and jointly file with the Court on or before Dec. 22, 2023, an edited version of the Tier 2 Model Protective Order. The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs John Doe, John Doe II, Jane Doe, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV, and Jane Doe V against Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, "Kaiser"). The Plaintiffs allege that Kaiser has unlawfully embedded code in its website, including its patient portal and mobile applications, that allows third-party social media and ad tech companies to intrude upon, read, intercept, and use the Plaintiffs' sensitive personal and medical information without their knowledge or consent. The action has been referred to Judge Kang for discovery purposes. Now pending before the Court is a joint letter brief regarding the Parties' dispute as to the contents of a proposed stipulated protective order. The Court finds the dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. In the instant joint letter brief, the Parties ask the Court to resolve their disputes concerning entry of a proposed protective order. The Parties agree that a protective order based on one of the Northern District of California's model protective orders should govern discovery but they first disagree as to which model protective order best fits the needs of the case. Next, the Parties present a set of disputes on whether any modifications are warranted to the selected model protective order, and if so, what those modifications should be. At a high level, the initial dispute centers on whether the Protective Order in this case should be based on a model order, which has more or fewer levels and provisions for confidentiality designations. The Court's website makes available to the public two different model orders for consideration: (1) the Model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation ("Tier 1 MPO"); and (2) the Model Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets ("Tier 2 MPO"). Kaiser argues that the Tier 2 MPO should serve as the base model protective order in this case. Kaiser argues the Tier 2 MPO is appropriate because the Plaintiffs seek discovery of highly confidential Kaiser materials, including detailed information about the function of Kaiser's website that could lead to security risks, source code, and trade secrets and financial and other information that would be harmful to Kaiser if disclosed to competitors or former employees. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, propose using the Tier 1 MPO because this is neither a patent case, nor one between competitors exchanging sensitive competitive data. The Court's Tier 1 MPO is offered for consideration to use in "standard cases" or "standard litigation." By contrast, the Court's Tier 2 MPO contains "presumptively reasonable conditions" for a Protective Order to be used in a case involving discovery of highly sensitive materials. While the Court expresses no opinions on the merits of this dispute, the Parties' pleadings and filings discuss the issues to be litigated and indicate that several technological issues are likely to be the subject of discovery. According to the Plaintiffs, this lawsuit implicates (i) technical issues surrounding the Kaiser website and mobile apps, as well as healthcare-related information, (ii) code of a third party, Quantum Metric, and technology used by third parties Adobe, Bing, Twitter, Google, and Dynatrace, and (iii) code "connected with" the Adobe Experience Cloud and activity on Adobe's servers. The Parties report that the Plaintiffs have already served subpoenas on Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, X Holdings, and Quantum Metric. The Parties state that they expect that discovery will focus in large part on the types of information provided to third parties about Users of the Kaiser Website and Mobile Applications, as well as Kaiser and the third parties' use of that information. Kaiser argues that the Plaintiffs have already sought discovery of highly confidential Kaiser materials, including detailed information about the function of Kaiser's website that could lead to security risks, source code, and trade secrets and financial and other information that would be harmful to Kaiser if disclosed to competitors or former employees. In light of the pleadings, the issues which are reasonably anticipated to be litigated, and the likely scope and types of discovery in this case, the Court finds the Tier 2 MPO to be the most appropriate model protective order, especially given that the Plaintiffs seeks to obtain source code information from Kaiser. The Court notes that discovery and the issues raised in this case appear to potentially implicate source code or other trade secrets of third parties, other highly confidential business information or alleged trade secrets of Kaiser, and personal information of Kaiser patients (including healthcare-related information). The Plaintiffs' argument that the Tier 2 MPO cannot be used except in certain types of cases is mistaken, Judge Kang holds. To the contrary, the Northern District of California's website makes clear that, with the exception of cases governed by Patent Local Rule 2-2 (i.e., patent cases), the Local Rules do not require the parties to use any of the model protective orders and counsel may stipulate to or move for another form or protective order. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Tier 2 MPO will be used as the base model protective order in this action. With respect to the disputes regarding modifications to the Tier 2 MPO, as an initial matter, the Parties indicate that they both agree that Sections 13.5-13.7 and Section 15 (shown in the redline to the Tier 2 MPO submitted by Kaiser) should be included in the Protective Order in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Protective Order in this case will include these Sections 13.5-13.7 and 15. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to justify their proposed modification to the Tier 2 MPO relating to Section 2.7 - Experts. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Protective Order in this case will use Section 2.7's default language. The Court adopts Section 2.8's definition of "AEO" (Attorneys' Eyes Only) materials without the additional language proposed by either Party. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Protective Order in this case will use the default language of Section 2.8 of the Tier 2 MPO. In any event, it is apparent that the Plaintiffs did not intend an edit on Section 7.3(b) - Limits of Disclosure to "Receiving Party," which would provide broad access to Highly Confidential Information to an entire Receiving Party and, thus, the Plaintiffs have not argued (and, thus, not shown) any harm or prejudice if the modification is denied. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Protective Order in this case will use Section 7.3(b)'s default language without the Plaintiffs' proposed modification. Section 7.4 - Disclosure of Experts of the Tier 2 MPO delineates the procedures for a Party, who has produced and designated Highly Confidential AEO materials and/or Source Code to an expert. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Protective Order in this case will use Section 7.4's default language from the Tier 2 MPO. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek to modify the Tier 2 MPO to allow for the production of Source Code at a location that is reasonably convenient for the Receiving Party and any experts to whom the source code may be disclosed. Accordingly, the Court orders the Parties to reasonably cooperate in setting a mutually agreeable location for source code review and inspection. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement, then the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' expert witness(es) (who are not objected to or otherwise disqualified from such review under the Protective Order) will review and inspect Highly Confidential-designated source code produced by Kaiser in discovery at any domestic U.S. office of Kaiser's outside counsel of record in this matter. In light of the analysis and directions to the Parties, the Court orders the Parties to coordinate and jointly file with the Court an edited version of the Tier 2 MPO, which incorporates and complies with the rulings herein, and includes all other edits to that base model order to which the Parties have already agreed (as well as any other edits for which the Parties reach further agreement). The Parties will file both a clean and redline version of the edited Tier 2 MPO, and the Parties will send a Word file of the redline (showing tracked changes "on") of the edited Tier 2 MPO to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The Parties will file and email their proposed edited Tier 2 MPO with the Court on or before Dec. 22, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwzvy73r from PacerMonitor.com. M&N SERVICES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in AW Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AW Dynamometer, Inc. v. MICHAEL FOLKERS and M&N SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01352-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uM2iuE at no extra charge.[CC] MARS INC: Faces Jimenez Suit for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------- LIZETH JIMENEZ, AYREANNE BORDEAUX, KRYSTINE AQUINO RORALDO, and REGINA BERRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01786-YY (D. Ore., Nov. 30, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of all Facebook users who have an account with Banfield Pet Hospital or VCA Animal Hospitals, for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Defendant Mars, Inc. owns and operates Banfield and VCA, two of the largest veterinary practices in the world. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs, agrees with, and conspires with a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiffs and Class members, including communications that contain sensitive and confidential information. By failing to get consent before helping Facebook intercept these communications, Defendant violated the CIPA, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, who are California residents, believe that Defendant assisted Facebook with intercepting their communications, including communications that contained confidential information about their pets' veterinarian records. Mars, Inc. is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Mars, Inc. does business throughout Oregon and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq. MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-3085 E-mail: stantongallegos@markowitzherbold.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH: Land Files Suit in D. Alaska ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, et al. The case is styled as L. Shane Land, Christi Angelo, individually and as the parents of T.L., a minor child, on behalf of themselves all those similarly situated v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Case No. 3:23-cv-00272-HRH (D. Alaska., Dec. 4, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Education Civil Rights. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District -- https://www.matsuk12.us/ -- is a school district based in the city of Palmer, Alaska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. Nicholas Clark Feronti, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Ste 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 308-3395 Fax: (866) 813-8645 Email: gdudukgian@njp-law.com nferonti@njp-law.com MDL 3074: Claims for Damages Tossed With Prejudice in Wiretap Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: BPS DIRECT, LLC, AND CABELAS, LLC, WIRETAPPING LITIGATION MDL: 23-md-3074 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order as follows: -- Dismissing Brittany Vonbergen Gregory Moore, Jr., Brian Calvert, Arlie Tucker, Timothy Durham, and Marilyn Hernandez's claims for damages with prejudice; -- Dismissing all plead claims for injunctive relief with prejudice; -- Dismissing Heather Cornell, Peter Montecalvo, and David Irvin's claims for damages without prejudice to their filing amended Complaints on or before Jan. 5, 2024, if they can specify plead standing based on the sharing of highly sensitive personal information such as a medical diagnosis or financial data from banks or credit cards; and -- Staying until further order the parties' prospective obligations regarding discovery including in the Oct. 23, 2023 Order, November 17, 2023 Order and November 27, 2023 Order. BPS offers fishing reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41hd48m at no extra charge.[CC] MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Pauli Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Griselda E. Pauli, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, Case No. 23-026670-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Miami Dade County Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-24550-RKA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau -- https://mercantilesolutions.com/ -- is a full service collection agency, capable of handling any and all needs of our clients and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar Mauricio Salazar, II, Esq. MILITZOK, LEVY, P.A. 3230 Stirling Road Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (954) 727-8570 Fax: (954) 241-6857 Email: omar@lawlp.com - and - Tevon Michael Etienne, Esq. WEBER LAW, P.A. 777 Brickell Ave Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 377-8788 The Defendants are represented by: Brittany Joyce Mills, Esq. LIPPES MATHIAS LLP 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd Bldg. 300, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 660-0020 Email: bmills@lippes.com META PLATFORMS: Bloom Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Everett Bloom, Jack Graham, and Dave Lindholm, on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00412 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-mc-80319-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Meeks Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Meeks, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Case No. 23-026670-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Miami Dade County Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16425 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. The Norfolk Southern Railway -- http://www.norfolksouthern.com/-- is a Class I freight railroad operating in the Eastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark Richard Miller, Esq. Molly Condon Wells, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N Wacker, Ste. 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 261-6193 Fax: (312) 275-8174 Email: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mcw@wallacemiller.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig R. Thorstenson, Esq. Becky Lynn Kalas, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 180 N Stetson Ave., Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 960-6116 Email: CThorstenson@fordharrison.com BKalas@fordharrison.com OAKLEY TRANSPORT: Hardin's Bid for Production of Docs Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents in the lawsuit entitled EUGENE HARDIN, Plaintiff v. OAKLEY TRANSPORT INC., and OAKLEY TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-02980-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.) The cause comes before the Court following a second hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. On July 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to which the Defendants timely filed a response. The matter was then set for hearing by this Court at which time the Plaintiff's Motion was granted in part and denied in part. These rulings were subsequently memorized in a written Order. On Aug. 24, 2023, the Plaintiff timely filed an objection to this Court's ruling on his Motion to which the Defendants filed a response in opposition. The Plaintiff specifically objected as to the Court's rulings on numbers 4-9, 16, and 171 of his Request for Production of Documents. The Plaintiff has since withdrawn his objection to the Court's ruling on Request for Production No. 17. The District Judge took the matter up for review at which point it was discovered that there was a technological issue with audio recording of the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, which prevented the Court from being able to adequately review the reasoning for the rulings given in the subsequent written Order. Accordingly, the District Judge directed the matter be set for another hearing. On Nov. 11, 2023, a second hearing was held on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. At the hearing, the Plaintiff incorporated all arguments previously set forth in his initial Motion and subsequent Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation ("Objection"). The Defendants incorporated all arguments previously made in their responses to the Plaintiff's Motion and Objection. Having reviewed these filings and the arguments made by the parties at hearing, and for the reasons stated here, the Court finds at follows: 1. Document requests 4-9 are denied as they request documentation, which is irrelevant, overbroad, and not proportional to the discovery needs of the Plaintiff's claims; 2. Document request 16 is denied as it requests documentation, which is irrelevant, overbroad, and not proportional to the discovery needs of the Plaintiff's claims; and 3. Document request 17 is granted to the extent that the Plaintiff's personnel file must be disclosed. In his 112-page Fourth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff lists seven causes of action against the Defendants, his former employer. These include: Fraud, Fraud in the Inducement, Unjust Enrichment, and violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act, American Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Florida Worker's Compensation Statute Section 440.205. At their core, each of these claims stems from a common set of alleged facts. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants are engaged in the hauling and delivery of freight across the U.S. and sought the recruitment of truck drivers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants and subsequently attended a pre-employment orientation where he was presented with a Driver Pay and Credentials Agreement, which stated he was to be paid a guaranteed flat rate of $250 per day and given a $54 per diem allowance per day, which he executed. The Plaintiff alleges that these representations were fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, false, and untrue, and known to be fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, false, and untrue by the Defendants, and maintains that from February 2018 through July 2019, his payroll statements were falsified resulting in taxable income being recharacterized as non-taxable travel allowances, which reduced his gross pay causing damage to him. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has brought the instant action alleging that the Defendants have committed Fraud, Fraud in the Inducement, and Unjust Enrichment in Counts I-VI of his Complaint. He further alleges that he suffered an on-the-job injury while working for the Defendants for which he faced discrimination. Accordingly, in Counts VII-XV of his Complaint, the Plaintiff has brought additional claims against the Defendants for violating the Florida Civil Rights Act, American Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Florida Worker's Compensation Statute Section 440.205. Judge Porcelli notes that Requests 4-9 of the Plaintiff's Request for Production to the Defendants concern the disclosure of voluminous amounts of financial documentation from the Defendants. Specifically, Request for Production No. 4 asks the Defendants to disclose financial accounting statements, tax returns cash journals, payroll records, and appraisals. Requests 5-9 are fashioned in a similar manner and demand that the Defendants produce documentation concerning its bank accounts, assets, real estate tax notices, investment and brokerage accounts, and insurance policies. Judge Porcelli opines that said requests are overbroad and seek information, which is irrelevant and not proportional to the claims alleged by the Plaintiff in his Complaint. Acting in a pro se capacity, the Plaintiff has brought claims of Fraud, Fraud in the Inducement, and Unjust Enrichment against the Defendants as a result of an alleged discrepancy in his personal pay statements. While such allegations make relevant payroll information or other financial documents concerning him maintained by the Defendants, Judge Porcelli explains that they do not require that the Defendants disclose the vast array of financial information requested by the Plaintiff, to include financial forecasts, ledgers, tax notices, banking details, investment information, and insurances policies. Said information is irrelevant and far exceeds the necessary scope of financial information, which would prove the Plaintiff's claims as they concern only the payroll benefits paid by the Defendants to him not the Defendants' financial status in its entirety. Moreover, Judge Porcelli finds Counts VII-XV of the Plaintiff's Complaint do not implicate the Defendants' financial status in any capacity. Therefore, Judge Porcelli holds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that requests 4-9 of his Request for Production are proportional to the needs of his case. Accordingly, requests 4-9 are denied without prejudice, notwithstanding this Court's previous direction to the Defendants to confirm that they have produced all payroll and other financial documents relating to the Plaintiff during the relevant time period. As it relates to the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, Judge Porcelli holds that the requested financial discovery is denied without prejudice to be revisited if and when the matter becomes ripe for purposes of punitive damages. Request 16 of the Plaintiff's Request for Production asks that the Defendants disclose the financial and tax information of all current and former truck drivers employed from 2017 through the present. Again, Judge Porcelli holds, this request seeks information, which is irrelevant, overbroad, and not proportional to the discovery needs of the Plaintiff's claims. He seeks relief for alleged misrepresentations and misappropriation of funds made to him personally. The financial relationship between the Defendants and its other employees is not relevant in establishing these claims. Moreover, proportionality falls against such discovery where the Plaintiff's claims can be fully resolved without said documentation, and the request itself is overly broad and unduly burdensome, Judge Porcelli opines. Notably, the Plaintiff's request seeks records from dates beyond his own employment with the Defendants and does not limit the group to be searched in any manner. Finally, to the extent the Plaintiff may claim these practices were systematic, Judge Porcelli holds that the Plaintiff does not have standing in his pro se capacity to bring suit on behalf of a class. The Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 17 seeks what appears to be the production of any all documents, communications, or correspondence concerning him in any manner. As presented, Judge Porcelli finds said request is plainly overbroad and beyond the scope of the instant matter. However, portions of the request do seek information, which is relevant to both his financial claims and discrimination claims. Accordingly, Judge Porcelli rules that the Plaintiff's request is granted to the extent that the Defendants are required to produce all documents from his personnel file, including all records concerning his employment, hiring, termination, attendance, and payroll benefits. The Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 19 seeks the disclosure of payroll statements, salary records, expense reports, and per diem travel allowance for the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff has not specifically objected to this Court's prior ruling on Request for Production No. 19, at the second hearing on this matter, the Plaintiff requested clarification as to his entitlement to the documents requested therein. Therefore, in abundance of caution, the Court reiterates its prior finding as to Request for Production No. 19 -- the Plaintiff is entitled to copies of any such records requested therein as they relate to the Plaintiff himself but not as to any other employee of the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hdfkzn3 from PacerMonitor.com. PEOPLECONNECT INC: Allowed to File Opposition Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting the Defendant's administrative motion to file Peopleconnect's opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification under seal. Peopleconnect provides online social network services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tiG7f9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin T. Halbig, Esq. Debbie L. Berman, Esq. Wade A. Thomson, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 267-6800 Facsimile: (628) 267-6859 E-mail: bhalbig@jenner.com dberman@jenner.com wthomson@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com PEOPLECONNECT INC: Nolen May File Portions of Reply Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Milton Chen entered an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion to file portions of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification and related documents under seal. Exhibit Document ECF#//Exhibit# in Text, or to this support of Portions to be Motion Plaintiffs' Motion Sealed for Class Certification A Plaintiff's Doc. No. 228 Page 2: lines 18, Reply in 24, 26 Support of Page 3: screenshot, Motion for lines 16, 17, 20, Class 21, 24 Certification Page 4: lines 6-9 Page 5: lines 25-26 Page 6: lines 16, 19, 20-21, 25-27 Page 10: lines 24, 25 Page 11: line 2 Page 12: line 24 B Screenshots Doc. No. 229, Entirety showing the Ex. 2 results of five example searches performed by a visitor (non-registered user) Peopleconnect provides online social network services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46R09LK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com PRO CUSTOM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 31, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIEMCZYK v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-07846 (D.N.J., Filed March 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order that the parties will jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule for the motion for class certification on or before December 31, 2023. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pro Custom provides renewable energy services.[CC] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY YAGHYAZARIAN and ELENA THORMAHLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No. 2:22-cv-01339-CDS-VCF (D. Nev.), the Parties file a joint stipulation for extension of time for class certification briefing, expert disclosures, and to amend the case management order: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Dec. 7, 2023 Jan. 31, 2024 Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec. 7, 2023 Jan. 31, 2024 Class Certification Defendants' Expert Disclosures Feb. 12, 2024 Apr. 8, 2024 Defendants' Opposition Feb. 12, 2024 Apr. 8, 2024 to Class Certification Plaintiffs' Reply in Mar. 26, 2024 May 20, 2024 Support of Class Certification The yaghyazarian case is one of 35 related class actions Progressive and its affiliates challenging the calculation of the Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) in valuing total-loss claims (the "PSA Cases"). King & Spalding LLP represents the defendants in all the PSA Cases, and Shamis & Gentile P.A., Edelsberg Law P.A., Normand PLLC, and Carney Bates & Pulliam represent nearly all plaintiffs in the PSA Cases. On June 16, 2023, this Court granted the Parties’ Motion to Amend the Case Management Order to allow sufficient time for the voluminous and timeintensive document production of a sample of 150 claim files Plaintiffs requested from Defendants and to conduct depositions. Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48b2uSJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 673-2405 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison Hill White, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 - and - James E. Whitmire, Esq. SANTORO WHITMIRE 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250 PROSPECT MEDICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Roma Due Dec. 1, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE ROMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03216-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be Nov 7, 2024 completed by: 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 1, 2024 certification and any class certification expert reports shall be filed by: 3. The Defendant's opposition to Jan. 15, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any class certification expert reports shall be filed by: 4. The Plaintiff's reply in support Feb. 17, 2025 of her motion for class certification and any rebuttal class certification expert reports shall be filed by: 5. All class certification expert discovery Feb. 21, 2025 shall be complete by: Prospect owns and operates 16 hospitals and more than 165 clinics and outpatient centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GCT3Qb at no extra charge.[CC] PURE ATLANTA: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Atlanta, Inc. The case is styled as Shawn Gettinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pure Atlanta, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02785-CEH-UAM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pure Retail Group -- https://www.pureatlanta.com/ -- is a high-end, high energy, dual-gender boutique offering a curated assortment of luxury designers from Versace to Pierre Balmain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com QUICK BOX: Tan Wins Bid for Leave to File Class Cert. Supplemental ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental motion in support of class certification. On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff Tan filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Class Certification in light of newly "discovered evidence which was not available at the time of her prior submissions and has only recently become available after the deposition of Alan Kulvete, a member of the putative Class, on October 25, 2023." According to Plaintiff, "Mr. Kulvete's identity was not discovered until recently when, on June 6, 2023, the Konnektive Defendants produced the names and contact information for the Class." No opposition was filed to the Motion. Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tiG5nx at no extra charge.[CC] RADIUS GLOBAL: French Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hillary French, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-02992 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12982-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas H. Schaefer, Esq. ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A. 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 837-3250 Fax: (952) 837-3250 Email: tschaefer@erstad.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Madden Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Madden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-02670 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12986-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas H. Schaefer, Esq. ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A. 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 837-3250 Fax: (952) 837-3250 Email: tschaefer@erstad.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frederick Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-03182 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12983-ADBto the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas H. Schaefer, Esq. ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A. 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 837-3250 Fax: (952) 837-3250 Email: tschaefer@erstad.com RIGHT NOW ROOFING: Packard Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Right Now Roofing FL Inc. The case is styled as Melanee Packard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Right Now Roofing FL Inc. doing business as: Able Sterling Roofing, Case No. 2:23-cv-01144-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2023). The nature of suit stated as Constitutional - State Statute for Injunctive & Declaratory Relief. Right Now Roofing FL Inc. doing business as Able Sterling Roofing -- https://ablesterlingroofing.com/ -- specialize in residential roofing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Pizl Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amber N. Pizl, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 23-2-11134-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Pierce, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06110. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Roadrunner related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, RCW 49.58.110, requiring certain disclosures in job postings. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged violations of RCW; injunctive relief; and (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. 66 South Hanford Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98134 Phone: (206) 448-8100 Fax: (206) 448-8514 Email: bkk@soslaw.com SBKU SERVICES: Faces Ruiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS RUIZ GONZALEZ and DANILO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SBKU SERVICES INC. d/b/a KUMO JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE, ROBERT LAM and TONY LAM individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08797 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023) is a civil class and collective action brought by Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated non-exempt workers to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay appropriate overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide spread of hours pay, failure to pay timely wages, failure to pay for earned wages, failure to provide annual wage notices, and failure to provide wage statements. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher from October 2014 until September 2022 and as a cook from September 2022 until September 2023. Plaintiff Ruiz worked for Defendants as a busboy from October 2020 until April 2023. SBKU Services Inc., d/b/a Kumo Japanese Steakhouse, is a New York entity operating in the restaurant industry, having its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 634-6340 E-mail: ypollack@ypollack.law.com - and - Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Sues Over Cement Price-fixing -------------------------------------------------------- KEYSTONE CONCRETE BLOCK & SUPPLY CO. INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04723 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 30, 2023) arises from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c) admixtures for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with any of the foregoing (collectively, CCAs), in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, beginning no later than May 11, 2018, Defendants entered into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global manufacture of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs through price increases and the imposition of surcharges. This agreement, which was effectuated through Defendants' shared membership in numerous trade associations, resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States and its territories. Through this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and members of the Class, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid to Defendants. During the Class Period, Plaintiff purchased CCAs in the United States or its territories at allegedly supra-competitive prices directly from one or more of the Defendants. Sika AG is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. Katie R. Beran, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com kberan@hausfeld.com Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW Suite 300 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: ngiddings@hausfeld.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq. CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C. 730 Main Street Moosic, PA 18507 Telephone: (570) 342-9999 Facsimile: (570) 457-1533 E-mail: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com SIX FLAGS: Consolidated Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice --------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2023, that on June 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing a consolidated case with prejudice. In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its former executive officers in the Northern District of Texas. On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action captioned "Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al.," Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.) and an amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was appointed as liaison counsel. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the company's business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its former partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020. On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 3, 2021, the district court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. On August 25, 2021, Co-Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the district court's decisions granting defendants' motion to dismiss, denying plaintiffs' motion to amend or set aside judgment, and denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. The appeal was fully briefed as of December 15, 2021, and oral argument was held on March 7, 2022. On January 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On February 9, 2023, the Fifth Circuit mandate issued to the district court. On March 7, 2023, the district court entered a scheduling order governing pre-trial proceedings. On April 18, 2023, Oklahoma Firefighters filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that would add a new named plaintiff, remove former Co-Lead Plaintiff Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and modify the case caption. On May 2, 2023, defendants filed an opposition to that motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 2, 2023, the district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the case with prejudice, and denied Oklahoma Firefighters' motions. On June 30, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit from the district court's decisions. On July 25, 2023, the Fifth Circuit informed the parties that, among other things, the appeal has been docketed, the appellate record is complete, and the Appellant’s brief is due within 40 days. On September 29, 2023, plaintiffs filed the Appellant's brief. On October 4, 2023, the Fifth Circuit informed the parties that defendants' brief is due on November 13, 2023. Six Flags own and operate regional theme parks and water parks, with 24 parks are located in the United States, two are located in Mexico and one in Montreal, Canada. SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Urinary Tract Meds ------------------------------------------------------------------- Spero Therapeutics, 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 13, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its officers in said court captioned "Richard S. Germond v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla," Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022. The parties moved to consolidate the complaint into another complaint on July 22, 2022, and was ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022. The parties filed an Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022, purported to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock from September 8, 2020 through May 2, 2022. The amended complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for tebipenem HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The company filed a fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2023. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries is a multi-asset, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on identifying, developing, and commercializing novel treatments for bacterial infections, including multi-drug resistant bacterial infections, and rare diseases. SPRUCE POWER: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------- Spruce Power Holding 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 13, 2023, that following negotiations with a mediator, in September 2023, the company and the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement in principle in the amount of $19.5 million, which is subject to an agreement on documentation and approval by the federal district court for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 8, 2021, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the company, and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. Those cases were ultimately consolidated under C.A. No. 1:21-cv-2002, and a lead plaintiff was appointed in June 2021. On July 20, 2021, an amended complaint was filed alleging that certain public statements made by the defendants between October 2, 2020, and March 2, 2021, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United States, offering subscription-based services to approximately 75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy more accessible to everyone. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matt Seibert, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., Kyle Perry, Eric Baca, Intralinks, Inc., Does 1 To 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610841 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Wrongful Discharge." SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.ssctech.com/ -- is an American multinational holding company headquartered in Windsor, Connecticut, that sells software and software as a service to the financial services industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany V. Berzin, Esq. VALLES LAW 4104 Highland Ave. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-3030 Phone: 415-234-0065 Email: dan@valles.law STATE FARM: Court Amends Preliminary Pretrial Order in Nichols -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date Revised Date Defendant's opposition to Dec. 11, 2023 Dec. 29, 2023 class certification and Defendant's expert report(s) in opposition to class certification due Deadline for Defendant to Jan. 11, 2024 Jan. 29, 2024 produce class certification expert(s) for deposition. Plaintiff's reply in support Jan. 26, 2024 Feb. 13, 2024 of class certification due 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 Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46TbdYs at no extra charge.[CC] STERIGENICS US: Class Action & PAGA Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order: (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action and PAGA Settlement; and (2) granting the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees. The Court further entered orders: 1. The Defendant Sterigenics U.S., LLC, to pay the Settlement Amount of $1,020,430.15 and all applicable employer-side payroll taxes as a no reversionary settlement payment to settle and resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf of the 348 Class Members against Defendant. 2. As soon as practicable after receipt of the $1,020,430.15, and within 14 calendar days, ILYM Group must distribute all of the $1,020,430.15, by paying Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs as stated above. 3. The Court dismisses with prejudice the Action and all Released Claims. These dismissals are without costs to any party, except as specifically provided in the Agreement. The primary terms of Settlement are provided below: The Class is defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant who were employed by Defendant in the state of California at any time between August 5, 2016 and ending on either the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement by the Court or 65 days from the date of remediation, i.e. January 1, 2023, whichever date occurs earlier. There are 349 class members and 286 Aggrieved Employees. In addition to the Individual Settlement Payments to Participating Class Members, the Gross Settlement Amount will be used to pay: 1. The Class Representative Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff ($7,500.00); 2. Class Counsel’s Fees ($306,129.04): 3. Class Counsel Costs for reimbursement of Class Counsel's reasonable costs and expenses associated with the litigation and settlement of the Action ($4,994.00); 4. The PAGA award of $25,000.00, $18,750.00 of which will be paid to the LWDA with the remaining $6,250.00 distributed among PAGA Members; and 5. Settlement Administration Costs ($10,599.00). Sterigenics offers medical and pharmaceutical sterilization, laboratory testing, food safety, gamma irradiation, and contract sterilization. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41exoY5 at no extra charge.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: Court Consolidates Cases in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order consolidating cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and setting case schedule in the securities putative class action entitled In re SVB Financial Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-JD (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Mahendra Sreerama, Tamir Einy, KBC Asset Management NV, Norges Bank, and Sjunde AP-Fonden (AP7) ask to consolidate this case with six later-filed cases in this District: Snook v. SVB Financial Group (3:23-cv-01173), Siddiqui v. Becker (3:23-cv 01228), Hialeh Employees v. Becker (3:23-cv-01697), International Union of Operating Engineers v. SVB (3:23-cv-01962), Stevenson v. Becker (4:23-cv-02277), and Rossi v. Becker (3:23-cv-02335). The motions are unopposed. For Stevenson (4:23-cv-02277) and Rossi (3:23-cv-02335), the Court will determine whether consolidation is appropriate only after resolution of the remand issue, which remains pending before another court in this District. Consolidation of these cases is ordered: Vanipenta (3:23-cv-01097), Snook (3:23-cv-01173), Siddiqui (3:23-cv-01228), Hialeh Employees (3:23-cv-01697), International Union of Operating Engineers (3:23-cv-01962). Judge Donato opines that consolidation is warranted because these cases feature largely overlapping and common questions of law and fact. They allege substantially similar claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act against common defendants, across overlapping class periods, and concerning the same conduct. The cases are consolidated into the lowest-numbered case, 3:23-cv-01097, which will be re-captioned In re SVB Financial Group Securities Litigation. The other four cases will be closed. Putative class members filed four competing motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Two parties -- Sreerama and Einy -- no longer seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Two proposed lead plaintiffs remain: KBC, and a group comprising Norges and AP7. KBC has suffered losses of approximately $8.9 million on a LIFO basis. Norges and AP7 have suffered losses of approximately $138.4 and $23.5 million on a LIFO basis, respectively, for a combined loss of approximately $161.8 million. Because Norges and AP7 have the largest financial interest in the litigation, the Court focuses its attention on those Plaintiffs and determine whether they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular those of "typicality" and "adequacy." As established by Norges and AP7's pleadings, they have made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. Consequently, the group comprising Norges and AP7 is the presumptive "most adequate plaintiff" under the PSLRA. In the third and final step, other plaintiffs may rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that it satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements. KBC, also seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, says that Norges and AP7 are improper lead plaintiffs because they are a group lacking a genuine, pre-existing relationship. KBC did not proffer any independent evidence on this score, and relies solely on critiquing the joint Norges/AP7 declaration. KBC's objection is not well taken, Judge Donato holds. Neither the PSLRA, nor this Court's prior rulings in In re Stitch Fix Securities Litigation and In re Zoom Securities Litigation, categorically bars groups from appointment as lead plaintiff. The consideration of "pre-litigation relationships or cohesion" must be tethered, in some way, to the burden-shifting process established in the PSLRA. The Court evaluates group cohesion as part of the adequacy analysis. If evidence indicates group members might not "work together well" or "be able to control counsel," Judge Donato opines that they may not adequately represent class member interests. Judge Donato finds that KBC has not demonstrated that any such concerns may be present here. It has not shown that the group of Norges and AP7 is the product of lawyer-driven efforts. It bears mention that Norges does not need its losses aggregated to secure lead plaintiff status: standing alone, its losses eclipse those of other movants. KBC also did not demonstrate Norges and AP7 aggregated their claims at the behest of counsel, Judge Donato notes. Their joint declaration states they sought litigation partners of their own volition. Judge Donato explains that this effectively forecloses KBC's complaint that the declaration never addresses how the group actually came together (i.e., was it through their lawyers' discussions?). KBC says that the joint declaration is silent on why Norges and AP7 retained two law firms but that circumstance is of little moment. There is no rule against multiple lead counsel, especially since Norges and AP7 have already negotiated retainer agreements with counsel containing favorable fee arrangements. Finally, KBC questions why the joint declaration does not describe how Norges and AP7 will resolve their disputes, but that too does not raise an adequacy concern, particularly in light of Norges and AP7's unrebutted evidence of a multi-year prelitigation relationship, Judge Donato opines. Overall, Judge Donato holds that the record establishes that Norges and AP7 are sophisticated investors and experienced litigants in securities class actions, who will run this litigation responsibly. Norges and AP7 are appointed as lead plaintiff in this consolidated action. Norges and AP7 propose to use the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz. It is not the Court's practice to appoint multiple lead counsel. That typically does little more than eat up the class's recovery. In this case, Judge Donato notes, Norges and AP7 have obtained fee agreements that cap fee percentages, and so the Court will accept the appointment of two firms subject to caps. In addition, the Court appoints individual attorneys, not law firms generally. That better ensures accountability and the delivery of a high level of legal services. Neither firm identified a lead attorney. Consequently, appointment of lead counsel will be deferred pending a statement by the law firms of individuals for the Court to consider for appointment. The law firms were directed to file the statements on Dec. 18, 2023. The lead plaintiff is directed to file a consolidated amended complaint 45 days from the date of this order. The Defendants will have 30 days to respond to the complaint. If the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff's response is due in 30 days, and any reply is due in 21 days. These dates are firm and will not be continued. A hearing is to be noticed no earlier than 21 days after the close of briefing. The consolidated complaint will be the operative complaint and supersede all other complaints filed in the underlying actions that were consolidated into this case. The Defendants need not respond to those prior complaints. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the sake of clarity and efficient case management, the Court directs the lead plaintiff to set out in chart form its securities fraud allegations under the following headings on a numbered, statement-by-statement basis: (1) the speaker(s), date(s), and medium; (2) the false and misleading statements; (3) the reasons why the statements were false and misleading when made; and (4) the facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. An exemplar can be found at In re Zoom Securities Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-02353-JD, Dkt. No. 63-1. The chart may be attached to or contained in the consolidated complaint, but in any event will be deemed to be a part of the complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/dd3pty4r from PacerMonitor.com. TAIJI ORIENTAL: Court OK's Yang Bid for Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUCHEN YANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TAIJI ORIENTAL SPA NJ CORP., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01617-EP-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin entered an order granting Yang's motion for conditional certification. The Court further entered an order: -- authorizing notice as outlined in the Opinion and the Order; and -- defining the collective action as: "all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed by Taiji Oriental Spa, Taiji Oriental Bodywork, and Zhang Taiji Spa at any time from March 22, 2019 to the date of entry of this order; Taiji offers massage therapy. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41dA2NT at no extra charge.[CC] TD AMERITRADE INC: Jeanfort Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fortuno Jeanfort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00381 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12986-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a stockbroker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, mutual funds, fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (847) 208-4585 Email: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Victoria H. Buter, Esq. KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM - OMAHA 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Phone: (402) 346-6000 Fax: (402) 346-1148 Email: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com - and - Alexander Southwell, Esq. Salah M. Hawkins, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 351-4000 Fax: (212) 351-4035 Email: asouthwell@gibsondunn.com shawkins@gibsondunn.com TELEPERFORMANCE SE: WGERS Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. TELEPERFORMANCE SE, DANIEL JULIEN, OLIVIER RIGAUDY, and AKASH PUGALTA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00181 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 5, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-24580-CMA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation. Teleperformance SE -- https://www.teleperformance.com/ -- is a multinational company founded in 1978 with headquarters in France.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke Goveas, Esq. Sabrina Elsa Tirabassi, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Email: lgoveas@rgrdlaw.com stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stephen Richard Astley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: 750-3364 Email: sastley@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Donald Lee Thompson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 314 E Del Ray Ave Alexandria, VA 22301 Phone: (813) 484-2396 Email: donald.thompson@lw.com TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bids Due March 13, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE RYAN, et al., v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-02164-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall meet and confer no later than January 16, 2024, to discuss setting aside dates for depositions. 2. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before March 13, 2024. 3. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than February 12, 2024. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, settlement discussions, if any, and the dates the parties have jointly set aside for depositions. 4. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than May 20, 2024. 5. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, August 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than August 19, 2024. 6. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 13, 2025. 7. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by October 15, 2024. 8. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by January13, 2025. 9. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than January 13, 2025. 10. Summary Judgment Motions, Class Certification Motions, and Daubert Motions, if any, shall be filed by March 13, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later than April 14, 2025. Temple is a public state-related research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47LNACy at no extra charge.[CC] TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bids in Fusca Due March 13, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA FUSCA, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03434-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall meet and confer no later than January 16, 2024, to discuss setting aside dates for depositions. 2. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before March 13, 2024. 3. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than February 12, 2024. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, settlement discussions, if any, and the dates the parties have jointly set aside for depositions. 4. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than May 20, 2024. 5. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Thursday, August 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than August 19, 2024. 6. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed no later than January 13, 2025. 7. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by October 15, 2024. 8. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by January13, 2025. 9. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than January 13, 2025. 10. Summary Judgment Motions, Class Certification Motions, and Daubert Motions, if any, shall be filed by March 13, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later than April 14, 2025. Temple is a public state-related research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Temple is a public state-related research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/486vaMy at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOES 1–8, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WILLIAM LEE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee; And, DAVID RAUSCH, in his capacity as Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; Case No. 3:23-cv-01240 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), consisting of: "all persons against whom the State of Tennessee has retroactively enforced the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act of 2004, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-39-201 et seq. (SORVTA) since its enactment in 2004;" -- appointing Representative Plaintiffs as class representatives thereof, and -- certifying the undersigned counsel as class counsel for the certified class. The Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the prospective class, seek permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants from retroactively enforcing the SORVTA against the Representative Plaintiffs and the Class they represent. Tennessee is a landlocked state in the U.S. South. Its capital, centrally located Nashville, is the heart of the country-music scene. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RyYnu6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan C. Davis, Esq. Jorie Zajicek, Esq. RYAN C. DAVIS LAW, PLLC 1224 2nd Ave South, Suite 102 Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone (615) 649-0110 Facsimile (615) 290-5013 E-mail: ryan@ryancdavislaw.com jorie@ryancdavislaw.com - and - Jeff H. Gibson, Esq. David R. Esquivel, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone (615) 742-7749 Facsimile (615) 742-6293 E-mail: jgibson@bassberry.com desquivel@bassberry.com TK SUPPLEMENTS: Faces Aviles False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Psychemedics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that its wholly-owned subsidiary, TK Supplements, Inc., is the defendant in "Aviles v. TK Supplements, Inc.," a purported class action pending in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. In the complaint that was filed on April 27, 2023, the plaintiff alleges that TK Supplements falsely advertised its "Legendz XL" male enhancement supplement in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class of California purchasers; actual, statutory and punitive damages; an award of attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief at law or in equity as may be proper. TK Supplements, Inc., filed a demurrer and motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint, which resulted in the plaintiff filing an amended complaint making similar allegations. Psychemedics Corporation provides patented, FDA-cleared, CAP certified clinical laboratory services for the detection of drugs of abuse. TORY BURCH: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages -------------------------------------------------------- LAMAR WALKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORY BURCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 619465/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Nov. 30, 2023) is a class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to New York Labor Law to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to Plaintiff and similarly situated workers who qualify as manual workers who were employed by Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in an hourly, non-exempt position, where he would typically perform physical tasks for more than of 25% of his workday. The Plaintiff was compensated every other week by Defendant throughout the entirety of his employment, and in so doing was time and again injured by Defendant's failure to pay him timely wages, inasmuch as Defendant's conduct routinely deprived him on a temporary basis of monies he had earned, says the suit. Tory Burch, LLC is an American mid-luxury women's fashion label based in Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts' Bid to Certify Sup. Ct. Questions Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify questions to the Kansas Supreme Court in the lawsuit titled KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID COLEMAN and CARL MCROBERTS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., OLATHE NOBLE EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC., and JACOBSON HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.). The Plaintiffs are former truck drivers, who were employed as company drivers or contracted lease drivers for Defendant TransAm, a motor carrier. Defendant Olathe Noble Equipment Leasing, Inc., ("ONE") leased trucks to the lease drivers. Defendant Jacobson Holdings, Inc., ("JHI") is a holding company and TransAm and ONE are wholly owned subsidiaries of JHI. The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the Defendants alleging various claims under both federal and state laws. At issue here is the Plaintiffs' claim asserted under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"), K.S.A. Section 50-626 and Section 50-627. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants TransAm and JHI violated the KCPA by engaging in unconscionable and deceptive practices in connection with their recruitment of drivers. Both parties moved for summary judgment on several claims. On Sept. 29, 2023, the Court entered an order on the motions. In that ruling, the Court granted the Defendants' summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim under the KCPA after determining that that Plaintiffs were not consumers under the KCPA and that the transactions at issue were not consumer transactions. The Plaintiffs now move for the Court to certify questions of state law to the Kansas Supreme Court on the basis that they are important issues of state law, undecided, and implicate state policy. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court relating to whether the contractual relationship between the lease drivers and the Defendants can be properly characterized as a consumer transaction and the Plaintiffs can be characterized as consumers under the KCPA. According to the Plaintiffs, these issues are undecided by Kansas courts and they are important. The Plaintiffs, however, did not move for certification during summary judgment briefing, Judge Broomes says. The Court declines to certify these questions to the Kansas Supreme Court. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the Court applied the terms of the KCPA to the uncontroverted facts on summary judgment in determining whether the parties engaged in a consumer transaction. Although there was not controlling authority involving similar transactions, the Court was not "uncomfortable" in its ruling; rather, the Court is firmly convinced that its decision is sound based on the KCPA and the uncontroverted facts in this case. Hence, Judge Broomes denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify questions to the Kansas Supreme Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xd3xb72 from PacerMonitor.com. TREX COMPANY: Court Grants Bid to Enforce Judgment in Roth Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to enforce judgment in the lawsuit titled GARY B. ROTH, Plaintiff v. TREX COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04895-AMO (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant Trex Company, Inc.'s motion to enforce judgment. Judge Martinez-Olguin says the matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for Feb. 29, 2024, is vacated. On April 7, 2010, in Ross v. Trex Company, Inc., Case No. 5:09-CV00670-JF ("Class Action Settlement"), the Court approved a nationwide class action settlement involving allegations of a surface flaking defect in Trex's manufactured decking products. The approval of the Class Action Settlement and judgment included a permanent injunction barring any class member from filing suit based on any released claims. The settlement class consists of: [A]ll Persons in the United States or its Territories who own or owned decks or other structures composed of Trex Product manufactured at Trex's Fernley, Nevada plant between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2007. Included within the Settlement Class are the legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees, and assignees of all such foregoing holders and/or owners, immediate and remote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following Persons shall be excluded from the Class: Trex and its subsidiaries and affiliates; [and] all persons who, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, properly execute and timely file during the Opt-Out Period a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class . . . The Court found that notice to the settlement class was adequate and satisfied due process. In the settlement order, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and injunction. In 2006, Plaintiff Gary Roth's predecessor in interest purchased decking material manufactured and distributed by Trex. Roth purchased the property with Trex decking in July of 2020. On Oct. 27, 2022, Plaintiff Gary Roth submitted a claim to Trex under the Class Action Settlement for defective decking material purchased by Roth's predecessor in interest. On Feb. 22, 2023, Trex offered to pay Roth $6,739 for the affected decking material and an additional $687.60 pursuant to the Class Action Settlement order. A claims resolution specialist at Trex followed up with Roth in May of 2023 to see if he had reviewed the offer letter. Roth refused the settlement payment. On Aug. 15, 2023, Roth filed an action in Contra Costa County Superior Court for product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty against Trex for defective decking materials resulting in property damage. Trex removed the case to federal court on Sept. 25, 2023, under supplemental jurisdiction as the Complaint arises from the same subject matter as the Class Settlement Agreement and underlying class action. The instant motion followed, seeking to dismiss the action and permanently enjoin Roth from prosecuting the action in any forum pursuant to the Class Action Settlement. Trex moves to dismiss the current action as one that asserts a released claim, to enforce the existing injunction against Roth, and to find Roth in contempt of the settlement order. Roth contends that he is not barred from pursuing this action because he did not receive notice of the class settlement and that the settlement is void because Trex failed to abide by the settlement's terms. The lawsuit at bar expressly alleges flaking of deck components, the same product subject to the settlement order. Roth concedes that the Class Action Settlement would ordinarily preclude his claim but argues that res judicata does not bind him because he was not given notice of the class action or an opportunity to opt-out. This argument obfuscates that the proper queries relate to his predecessor in interest, as Roth did not purchase the home with Trex decking until July of 2020, more than ten years after the litigation in the underlying Class Action Settlement, Judge Martinez-Olguin says. Roth's predecessor in interest purchased the decking material in 2006. Roth has not alleged that his predecessor failed to receive notice or opted out. Moreover, the Ross Court determined that notice was sufficient when it approved the class settlement. Accordingly, Judge Martinez-Olguin says, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that Roth, himself, was owed notice, and that the class action settlement should not have a res judicata effect on Roth's claim. Mr. Roth additionally argues that he should not be bound by the Settlement Agreement because Trex has failed to honor the agreement's terms. He asserts that he filed a claim with Trex to recover the entire replacement cost of his boards and Trex only offered to pay 20% of the cost, in violation of the agreement. However, Judge Martinez-Olguin notes, the Class Action Settlement provides that in the event that any Class Member disagrees with the claim determination by Trex, that Class Member may appeal the Trex determination to a Claims Administrator within thirty-five (35) days of their receipt of the initial determination. If no appeal is timely made, then the initial determination of the Claim will be final. Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that Roth failed to follow this procedure and did not appeal the initial claim determination. Thus, he may not bring suit on the grounds that Trex failed to comply with the settlement agreement. Mr. Roth also requests an opportunity to conduct discovery in his action in state court to determine privity and adequacy of notice to the Plaintiff. However, Judge Martinez-Olguin points out, when it approved the class action settlement, the Court concluded that the notice provided to class members was sufficient to comply with due process. Accordingly, Roth may not relitigate an issue that has already been adjudicated in the binding class settlement. Trex requests that the Court find Roth in contempt of the settlement order, sanction him, and require him to pay Trex's costs and fees. However, Trex provides little caselaw and no analysis to support these requests, Judge Martinez-Olguin says. If Trex wishes to advance any of these requests, it can do so through additional filings. For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant Trex's motion to enforce judgment and enjoins the state-court action filed by Roth. The Court denies as moot the motion for relief from case management schedule, and vacates the Nov. 30, 2023 hearing. If the Defendant wishes to move for sanctions or fees or to find the Plaintiff in contempt, it will do so within 14 days of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yzmj7takfrom PacerMonitor.com. TWITTER INC: Morgan Appeals Court Orders to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------- GLEN MORGAN is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Glen Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Twitter, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00122-MKD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful procurement of the Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone records. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane, which the Defendant moved to oppose on June 16, 2022. On Feb. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the Defendant. On May 5, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand through an Order entered by Judge Mary K. Dimke. On June 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court denied on Aug. 31, 2023. On Sept. 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court. On Nov. 22, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion to certify questions and it granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Dimke. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has abandoned his claim under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.26A.140(1)(a) by failing to defend it in response to the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Further, the Plaintiff's factual allegations, taken as true, do not fall within the scope of RCW 9.26A.140(1)(b), and further, he has failed to meet the pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and Rule 8(a)(2). For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses this case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Morgan v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 23-3764, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 27, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4, 2023; -- Appellant Transcript Order was due on December 11, 2023; -- Appellant Transcript Due is due on January 10, 2024; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on February 19, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on March 20, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GLEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joel Ard, Esq. ARD LAW GROUP PLLC P.O. Box 11633 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 U-HAUL INT'L: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Felicia Durgan, et al., v. U-Haul International Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01565-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael T. Liburdi entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline for joining parties, Dec. 8, 2023 Filing a motion to amend the pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is: 2. If desired, a proposed Joint Stipulated Dec. 13, 2024 Protective Order must be lodged with the Court no later than: 3. The deadline for the completion of April 26, 2024 class certification fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be: 4. The Plaintiffs shall provide full and May 31, 2024. complete disclosure of all experts they intend to rely on for class certification, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than: 5. The Defendant shall provide full and July 12, 2024 complete disclosure of all experts it intends to rely on for class certification, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than: 6. The parties shall make their rebuttal Aug. 23, 2024 disclosures of all experts they intend to rely on for class certification, if any, no later than: 7. Depositions of experts for class Sept. 20, 2024 certification shall be completed no later than: 8. The Plaintiffs shall file a class Oct. 11, 2024 certification motion no later than: 9. The Defendant may file a response to Nov. 8, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification motion no later than: 10. The Plaintiff may file a reply no Nov. 27, 2024 later than: U-Haul provides auto rental services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48e84DF at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Court Junks Leavitt Bid for Recusal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLAN M. LEAVITT, Individually and as Class Representative, and J. Doe, 1-100, Individually and as Class Representatives, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-11341-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order denying: -- Leavitt's Motion for Judge Talwan to Address the Conflict of Interest Between Indira Talwani and the Plaintiffs, the Class Members and the Counts that Have Been Plead in the Class Action Complaint; -- Motion that Judge Talwani Reveal any Ex Parte Communications; -- Motion for Recusal, and -- Motion for Judge Guzman to Reveal any Ex Parte Communications. United Services is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the military, veterans, and their families. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NobrQG at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rueda v. Treasury -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JUANA RUEDA, Plaintiff - Appellant v. JANET L. YELLEN, sued in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; DANIEL I. WERFEL, sued in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 22-1584 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms dismissal of the underlying class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge; Case No. 1:20-cv-01102-ELH. Circuit Judges Robert B. King, Stephanie D. Thacker and Julius N. Richardson issued an unpublished per curiam opinion. Plaintiff Juana Rueda initiated this putative class action in April 2020 in the District of Maryland, alleging that certain provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act") are unconstitutional because they preclude her from receiving a stimulus payment due to her marital status and the fact that her husband does not have a social security number. The named Defendants are Janet L. Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury; Daniel I. Werfel, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; plus the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. To alleviate the severe economic crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act was enacted into law on March 27, 2020. A primary form of relief created therein was economic stimulus payments to eligible individuals, to be distributed through the federal tax system. Codified at 26 U.S.C. Section 6428, the relevant portion of the CARES Act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to disburse the authorized stimulus payments to eligible individuals. In the form of a refundable tax credit, an eligible individual would receive $1,200, and eligible jointly filing married couples would receive $2,400, plus an additional $500 per qualifying child. As enacted, certain provisions precluded an otherwise eligible individual from receiving any economic stimulus payment if a tax return was jointly filed with a spouse, who lacked a social security number. Ms. Rueda is a United States citizen and mother of three children, who are also citizens. She lives in Ohio with her husband who, because of his immigration status, does not possess a social security number. Rueda and her husband had filed a joint tax return in 2019, and she was, thus, precluded from receiving any economic stimulus payment under the original CARES Act, as it was enacted in March 2020. In December 2020, Congress amended the CARES Act and changed a provision that barred otherwise eligible individuals from receiving any stimulus payment due to that individual's marital status. By her operative Second Amended Complaint of April 2021 (the "Complaint"), Rueda alleges that the CARES Act continues to preclude her from qualifying for a full economic stimulus payment. That is, she alleges that, due to her marital status, she is effectively barred from receiving the $500 credit attributable to her eldest child. She maintains that such a deprivation contravenes her fundamental right of marriage protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, her rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Ms. Rueda, thus, seeks a declaration that the contested CARES Act provisions are unconstitutional, plus an injunction against those provisions being used by the Defendants to deprive her, and all others similarly situated, of the $500 refundable tax credit associated with a dependent child of an eligible individual. In May 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss Rueda's Complaint as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Put succinctly, the Anti-Injunction Act serves as a bar to a lawsuit that is for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax or other activities that may culminate in the assessment or collection of taxes. In addition, the Declaratory Judgment Act contains a tax-exclusion provision that was enacted to reaffirm the tax assessment and collection restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act. As carefully explained by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion of March 2022, the court dismissed Rueda's Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Rueda v. Yellen, No. 1:20-cv-01102 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 83 (the "Opinion")). By its Opinion, the court ruled that Rueda's lawsuit was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because it aimed to restrain the "assessment or collection of a tax." That is, Rueda's lawsuit sought to enjoin the Defendants from depriving a tax credit to certain eligible individuals, and such an injunction would reduce the ultimate tax liability of those eligible individuals. As the Opinion recognized, it was of no consequence that a tax credit decreases one's tax obligation, for taxes and tax credits are two sides of the same coin. The court then pointed out that because the Anti-Injunction Act barred Rueda's lawsuit, so did the Declaratory Judgment Act. By way of this appeal, Rueda contests the district court's dismissal of her Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having thoroughly examined the record of these proceedings and carefully considered the competing contentions of the parties, the Court of Appeals is satisfied to adopt the well-crafted Opinion of the district court. In so ruling, the Panel emphasizes that a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the deprivation of a refundable tax credit constitutes a lawsuit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax, and is, therefore, barred by both the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/dtp265p9 from PacerMonitor.com. Andrea E. Senteno -- asenteno@maldef.org -- MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellant. Ellen Page DelSole -- Appellate.Taxcivil@usdoj.gov -- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellees. Thomas A. Saenz -- tsaenz@maldef.org -- in Los Angeles, California, Rosa G. Saavedra Vanacore -- rsaavedra@maldef.org -- MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellant. David A. Hubbert -- David.A.Hubbert@usdoj.gov -- Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bethany B. Hauser -- bethany.b.hauser@usdoj.gov -- Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C.; Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, in Baltimore, Maryland, for the Appellees. UNITED STATES: Bid for Voluntary Remand in Springs v. Navy Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled KENNETH SPRINGS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03244-RDM (D.D.C.), Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the Defendants' Motion for Voluntary Remand. The lawsuit is a class action brought against the Secretary of the Navy challenging the Department of the Navy's policies and practices in calculating disability ratings for veterans of the United States Navy and Marines separated from service between Nov. 10, 2014, and June 27, 2019, after being found unfit for continued military service by the Navy's Physician Evaluation Board ("PEB"), who were found by the PEB to have at least one Category II condition. The Court automatically substitutes the current Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro, in the case caption. Category I conditions are those that render a servicemember "unfit" for service, and a Category II condition is one that contributes to the unfitting condition. Category III conditions, in contrast, do not qualify as unfitting or contributing conditions, and Category IV conditions are those that cause no physical disability. The Plaintiffs allege that the Department of the Navy (hereinafter the "Navy") violated a statute, 10 U.S.C. Section 1216a(b), and Navy regulations, SECNAVINST 1850.4E & DoDI 1332.18(3)(e), when it assigned disability ratings to their Category I conditions but failed to assign ratings for their Category II conditions, which may have resulted in their receiving a lower combined disability rating and fewer benefits than they were entitled to under the applicable statute and regulations. Before the parties completed briefing on their cross-motions for summary judgment, they jointly moved to stay the case pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to strike a declaration by the President of PEB, John Reeser, and two documents pertaining to the Named Plaintiffs' records from the administrative record. After hearing from the parties, the Court ordered that the declaration and two documents were not properly included in the administrative record but that they were properly offered as extra-record evidence regarding the relevant factual (but not legal) background. Shortly thereafter, the Navy moved for voluntary remand. Judge Moss holds that the Navy has failed to offer a reasoned explanation justifying a voluntary remand. The Navy asserts that a voluntary remand will clarify the record in two respects: it will provide the Department with the opportunity to provide its interpretation of the regulation at issue, and it will provide clarity on the Navy's position from the Department's decision maker. The Court is unpersuaded for several reasons. Among other reasons, Judge Moss opines that the Navy overreads the Court's comment during oral argument that a remand would offer one alternative means of clarifying the Navy's policy. Judge Moss adds that the Court is unpersuaded that the Navy has offered any legitimate reason for remanding the case to supplement the administrative record at this point. For these reasons, Judge Moss holds that the Defendants' Motion for Voluntary Remand is denied. The parties were to submit a joint status report by Dec. 11, 2023, and the parties were to appear for a status conference on Dec. 13, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3ph2zp49from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Strege v. FBI Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit captioned ADAM STREGE, Plaintiff v. FBI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03437-UNA (D.D.C.). The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case for the reasons discussed in this Memorandum Opinion. The Plaintiff, a resident of Las Cruces, New Mexico, sues the Federal Bureau of Investigation and three of its officials, as well as "Uranium One," for $40 million in damages. In addition to failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a)-(b), and D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), (d), and (g), Judge Reyes says the complaint is difficult to track. It appears to begin as a challenge to an arrest and charges filed against the Plaintiff, ultimately dismissed, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Judge Reyes adds that the supporting facts, to the extent that they can be described as such, are bizarre and digressive. The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants have, inter alia, engaged in a widespread conspiracy to commit genocide and war crimes, under Canadian law, and that, in doing so, the Defendants have executed various fantastic acts of wrongdoing, including concealing putting human body parts in hamburger, and human hearts in nuclear missiles. The Court holds that it cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint. Judge Reyes notes that a court is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), or where the plaintiff postulates events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind. The instant complaint falls squarely into this category and, thus, must be dismissed, Judge Reyes holds. The Court also notes that the Plaintiff has attempted to file this matter as a class action, which he cannot do. A pro se litigant can represent only himself in federal court. Consequently, Judge Reyes rules that this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff's motion for CM/ECF access is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynwzvts9 from PacerMonitor.com. USAA GENERAL: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Tarkett Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH TARKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01724-H-BLM (S.D. Cal.). On Sept. 18, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Tarkett filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant USAA General Indemnity Company, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) conversion; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) unjust enrichment. On Nov. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On Nov. 27, 2023, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. In light of the Plaintiff's amended pleading, the Court denies as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to the Defendant moving to dismiss the first amended complaint. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint superseded the First Amended Complaint, and the First Amended Complaint ceased to exist. Because the Defendants' motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which was no longer in effect, the Court concludes that the motion to dismiss should be deemed moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6xe756 from PacerMonitor.com. VA CLAIMS INSIDER: Warriors Sues Over Unfair and Illegal Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Warriors and Family Assistance Center LLC, Tonya Price, Manring & Farrell Attorneys at Law, and Clifford Farrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VA CLAIMS INSIDER, LLC, BRIAN T. REESE, and LAUREL REESE f/k/a LAUREL DANIELSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-01473 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2023), is brought unfair-competition case under the Lanham Act, and seeking to put a stop to this unfair and illegal scheme, which not only harms the business interests of properly accredited attorneys and agents but also hurts our veterans. The Plaintiffs and Defendants alike are in the business of assisting veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") disability--compensation claims. The Plaintiffs are attorneys and agents who are screened, qualified, accredited, and approved by the VA to assist with those claims. Defendants are not. But, as Chapter 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, "no individual may assist claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an agent or attorney unless he or she has first been accredited by the VA for such purpose." Neither VACI's employees nor the individual Defendants are accredited. Therefore, Defendants are not lawfully permitted to assist veterans in preparing disability claims. Despite this fundamental fact, VACI has assisted in preparing tens of thousands of disability claims to the VA and has charged veterans fees far exceeding those that even fully accredited attorneys and agents can legally charge for doing so. And despite its disregard of the law, VACI trumpets that it "currently serves more than 500,000 unique veterans per month across its websites and membership programs." In addition, Defendants have repeatedly made false statements that imply the VA approves of their services and falsely advertised the nature of their services. Defendants unfairly compete with Plaintiffs and other accredited attorneys and agents (and the entities through which they practice) who are following the rules and legally helping our disabled veterans. Indeed, Defendants have improperly collected hundreds of millions in fees that should rightfully have been collected by accredited attorneys and agents. The Defendants routinely violate a plethora of statutes and regulations meant to promote quality representation, foster fair competition among accredited attorneys and agents, and protect veterans' interests. VA Claims Insider prepares, presents, and/or prosecutes claims (often under the guise of a pro se veteran); assesses illegal fees for assisting with initial claims; charges interest and late penalties on illegally prepared claims; fails to submit fee agreements to the VA and/or the VA's Accreditation, Discipline, & Fees Program's Office of General Counsel ("OGC"); bills veterans for claims assistance even when VACI never assisted with the claim; charges veterans for assistance with filing initial claims; charges fees that exceed the cap under federal law; fails to sign or submit a power of attorney that complies with federal law; and employs numerous other illegal tactics, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Warriors and Family Assistance Center LLC is incorporated in Georgia. VA Claims Insider, LLC is incorporated in Texas.[BN] Simon Wiener, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 68 Harrison Avenue, Suite 604 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (202) 921-4567 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 Email: swiener@hfajustice.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. Colorado Bar No. 45960 HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80303 Phone: (303) 800-9109 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Avenue, Suite 201H-105 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 Email: bwardwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com VALDEZ PAINTING: Coberley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valdez Painting, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicholas M. Coberley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Valdez Painting, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV012600 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 1, 2023). Valdez Painting, Inc. (VPI) -- https://vpi.net/home -- is a union contractor headquartered in Northern California, specializing in commercial & industrial painting, plastering & specialty finishes.[BN] VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ouster, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that a consolidated shareholder suit against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. is proceeding with discovery with trial set for August 4, 2025. The parties have agreed to mediation on November 29, 2023. The company completed the merger with Velodyne Lidar, Inc. on February 10, 2023. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled "Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al.," No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed against Velodyne, and its executives Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the role of Velodyne's former CEO David Hall, and removal as Chairman of Velodyne's Board of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. This and other class actions have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne, but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims. Ouster, Inc. is a provider of high-resolution digital lidar sensors that offer advanced 3D vision to machinery, vehicles, robots, and fixed infrastructure assets, allowing each to understand and visualize the surrounding world and ultimately enabling safe operation and ubiquitous autonomy. WAKE COUNTY, NC: McDougal Hits Gender-Based Promotions ------------------------------------------------------ LISA ALISON MCDOUGAL and PATRICIA GEARY OVERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-689 (E.D.N.C., Nov. 30, 2023) seeks to redress the culture of gender discrimination that has permeated the Wake County Department of Emergency Medical Services for over 20 years. The Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of themselves and the failure to promote class of which they are a part for Wake County's continued denial of promotions to female Wake County employees working at Wake EMS as medics in favor of males in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They are also seeking compensatory damages on behalf of themselves and the Unequal Pay Class for Wake County's failure to pay female Wake County employees working at Wake EMS as medics the same as males with similar qualifications in similar roles in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Because of the centralized practice of discrimination against female Defendant Wake County employees working at Wake EMS as medics, Plaintiffs are bringing this action individually, but also as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of other similarly situated female Defendant Wake County employees. Wake County Department of Emergency Medical Services is responsible for providing paramedic level EMS throughout Wake County, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catharine E. Edwards, Esq. Kristen L. Beightol, Esq. EDWARDS BEIGHTOL, LLC Raleigh, NC 27628 Telephone: (919) 636-5100 E-mail: cee@eblaw.com klb@eblaw.com WEBCOLLEX LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 17, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order pretrial scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline to add parties or amend the complaint is December 18, 2023. 2. The deadline to move for Class Certification is July 17, 2024. 3. All discovery shall be completed by October 16, 2024. Motions to compel must be heard not later than October 23, 2024. 4. Initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before August 14, 2024; rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on or before September 13, 2024. 5. All law and motion, except as to discovery, shall be completed as described on or before November 13, 2024. 6. The final pretrial conference is set before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on December 11, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. This case, a putative class action predicated on alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), is before the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to the consent of the parties. Webcollex is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GEyh2w at no extra charge.[CC WELLS FARGO: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Senior Premier Bankers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06193-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2023) alleges that Wells Fargo failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and New Mexico Class members overtime compensation for all of their overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, while employed by Wells Fargo as a Senior Premier Banker, Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime pay for all the hours she worked. This lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals who have worked as exempt-classified Senior Premier Bankers (and other variants of that title) at Wells Fargo's branches nationwide. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a leading financial services company with approximately $1.9 trillion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Kaelyn Mahar, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com kmahar@outtengolden.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com WINGATE UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wingate University. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wingate University, Case No. 1:23-cv-10655-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wingate University -- https://www.wingate.edu/ -- is a private liberal arts university with campuses in Wingate, Charlotte, and Hendersonville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com YOUNG LIVING: Wins Bid to Seal Documents ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (Utah Dist.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Romero entered an order granting Defendant's motion to seal re: opposition to class certification, certain exhibits, and motion to exclude expert testimony of Laurel Van Allen. Young Living is the leader in cultivation, distillation, and production of premium essential oils. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46SegjF at no extra charge.[CC] ZUFFA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, JACK GRAHAM, AND DAVE LINDHOLM on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC; ENDEAVOR STREAMING, LLC and ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order briefly extending the deadline for them to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification so that they may take the deposition of Meta Platforms, Inc. -- The current deadline for the reply is January 11, 2024. The Plaintiffs request that this deadline be reset to April 4, 2024, to allow Plaintiffs time to obtain deposition testimony explaining the source and meaning of pixel data produced by Meta. The Plaintiffs have been diligently seeking the proposed deposition for a year. The Plaintiffs served a subpoena for testimony and documents in December 2022 and moved to compel Meta’s production in April, 2023, prior to the deadline for their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs pursued the matter through August 2023 when Meta finally produced the requested data -- roughly three months after Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was due. Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nltyqs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Patek, Esq. Seth Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. Kali Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 - and - David Markman, Esq. MARKMAN LAW 4484 S. Pecos Rd. Suite 130 Las Vegas NV 89121 Telephone: (702) 843-5899 Facsimile: (702) 843-6010 E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com ********* 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 ***