/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 1 Headlines ABCM CORPORATION: Greenfield Wins Conditional Certification ADTRAN INC: Cato Suit Removed to E.D. California AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Filing Due May 30 AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Has Until Jan. 16 to File 2nd Amended Suit AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Chark Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ARKANSAS: Court Allows Johnson to Amend Complaint for Review ASA COLLEGE: Andrade-Barteldes' Bid for Class Certification OK'd ATLANTA, GA: 700 Memorial Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response BOYNE USA: Must Produce Audited Financial Statements BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Hamman's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Burwick Files Suit in S.D. Ohio CINTAS CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 27, 2025 DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for April 5 FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Bid to Remand Tossed FINANCIAL ASSET: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pena Claims FLORIDA ASSOCIATION: Parker Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy GEICO GENERAL: Porcu Files Suit in S.D. California GLEN MILLS: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert Bid HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Factual Discovery in Metcalfe Due Dec. 13 ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Bid to Approve Proposed Class Notice Vacated JACK IN THE BOX: Settles California Labor Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Junks Gennock Class Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Stays Miles Class Action KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing LESLIE'S INC: Faces WPBPPF Suit Over SEC Disclosures LOGAN'S SANCTUARY: Munteanu Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Oliver-Banks Suit Over Unpaid Wages MAPFRE USA: Sinha Alleges Compromised Personal Info in Data Breach MDL 2445: Court Awards $14-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Suboxone Suit MDL 2445: Court Finally Approves $30-Mil. End Payor Settlement MDL 2741: Conditional Transfer Orders for 3 Hawaii Actions Vacated MDL 2873: Kentucky v. EI. Dupont Transferred to D.S.C. MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Rougeau v. Ahlstrom to D.S.C. MDL 3014: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Lis Case MDL 3047: Livingston Parish v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal. MDL 3072: Aprillia v. Boeing Consolidated in Java Sea Air Crash Row MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Overruled MONSANTO CO: N.D. California Grants Bids to Dismiss Koller Suit NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: LW's Bid to Intervene in Woodard Suit Denied NCINO INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit NEW YORK: Court Approves Class Notice in Milburn/Beriquette Suit NICK'S LIVE LOBSTERS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carino Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII NSC HOLDINGS: Cartwright Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ON POINT GLOBAL: Must Respond to Walker-Schaut Complaint by Jan. 10 PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Habeas Petition in Minaya-Rodriguez Suit PHH MORTGAGE: Dantzler Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection PHIL MURPHY: Jackson Files Suit in D. New Jersey PROGRESSIVE GULF: Files Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits PROGRESSIVE GULF: MII, JD Power Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits PROPARK AMERICA: Benavides Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. Q3 CONTRACTING: Faces Rael Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Class Action QUINOA CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 8 RAB INC: Seley Sues Over Collection Agents' Unpaid Overtime REDBUBBLE INC: Seeks Denial of Walllster Class Status Bid REGIONAL FAMILY: Hicks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas REGIONAL FAMILY: Luebke Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas REMEDIES HERB SHOP: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RETAIL SERVICES: Cravens Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ROCKET MORTGAGE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed in Gilburd SAINT AUGUSTINES UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. SAM'S WEST: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Opposition Deadline SCRIPPS HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Google, Suit Says SEASONAL YARD WORK: Scutellaro Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS: Brown Suit Removed to E.D. California STATE FARM MUTUAL: King Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Connector Defect TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren City Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida THERMO TECH: Scheduling Order Entered in Lopez Class Action THOMAS J. MCADAM: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Mitchell TWITTER INC: Yeh Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Suit Moved From Illinois to New Jersey UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Padilla v. ICE UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in C Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Chaney Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DG Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DS Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Gonzalez Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MS Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in P Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in R Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in RR Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in S Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in V Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Z Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Rubinstein Seeks to Certify Class Action VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts VEOLIA WATER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid VETERANS ALLIANCE: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime VITAL FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Responses VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Unseal Unredacted Bid in Usler VOLVO CAR: Dionysius Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WALGREEN CO: Faces Simpson Suit Over Mislabeled Cutlery Products WALMART INC: Canseco Suit Removed to E.D. California WALMART INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court WATA INC: Knight Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification WAYFAIR LLC: Counts Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 in Droesch WESTERN UNION: Must File Dispositive Bid by Jan. 8 WIRECARD AG: EY Germany's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted XYBION CORPORATION: Brumbaugh Sues Over Failure to Protect PII YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Plaintiffs & Merrill Agree to Adopt Schedule ZURU LLC: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Bui Lawsuit ********* ABCM CORPORATION: Greenfield Wins Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY GREENFIELD AND KATHLEEN BRUNS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABCM CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-03006-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send notice in the manner described above. ABCM is directed to provide the plaintiffs' counsel with the names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of all putative class members within 21 days of this order. The Plaintiffs request that ABCM be required to produce names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of the putative class members "so notice may be issued adequately and efficiently." The Plaintiff Tammy Greenfield commenced this action on February 14, 2023. On April 21, 2023, ABCM filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on grounds that Greenfield failed to properly identify the "employer" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL). Greenfield then filed an amended complaint. On June 15, 2023, ABCM filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 22, 2023, Greenfield filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in order to add Kathleen Bruns as an additional plaintiff. ABCM has a company-wide policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes from employees' recorded hours for meal breaks. Id. at 1. ABCM requires plaintiffs and putative class members to work through their meal breaks, despite losing 30 minutes of pay. Thus, the plaintiffs seek to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated "hourly, non-exempt workers who worked for, or on behalf of ABCM, at any ABCM facility, and who received an automatic meal period deduction at any time during the past 3 years." ABCM operates several assisted living and long-term care facilities providing healthcare services to patients throughout the state of Iowa. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48b5TRo at no extra charge.[CC] ADTRAN INC: Cato Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Johnathon Cato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADTRAN, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ADTRAN; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-03238-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06163. The Complaint asserts claims for statutory damages, actual damages, costs and expenses, and attorney's fees. Among other damages, Plaintiff is seeking actual damages (such as lost earnings) and/or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred—whichever is greater--pursuant to RCW. The Complaint claims that Plaintiff Johnathon Cato lost economic opportunities as a result of allegedly unlawful restrictive covenants and restraint of trade.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Shore, Esq. Christoper T. Wall, Esq. Jacqueline Middleton, Esq. Aaron R. Doyer, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.624.0900 Facsimile: 206.386.7500 Email: jim.shore@stoel.com christopher.wall@stoel.com jacqueline.middleton@stoel.com aaron.doyer@stoel.com AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the following Class: "All persons covered under Aetna Plans, governed by ERISA, self- funded or fully insured, whose requests for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery were denied at any time from March 4, 2019 to February 8, 2023, on the ground that lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery is experimental or investigational, and whose denials will be subject to de novo review by the district court." Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsARga at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 Facsimile: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his application to seal plaintiff's exhibits 2-10, 29, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, and 44-46 filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action. Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3to6Bfi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 Facsimile: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Filing Due May 30 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDDIE BREWER, et al., v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00041-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Edward B. Atkins entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend and set deadlines as follows: 1. The parties shall complete fact discovery April 30, 2024 on the issue of final collective certification no later than: 2. The Plaintiffs shall disclose the May 30, 2024 Identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial, no later than: 3. The Defendants shall disclose the identity July 31, 2024 of expert witnesses who may be used at trial, accompanied by written reports signed by the FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B) expert witness and/or written summaries consistent with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C), as applicable all-in compliance with the rule, no later than: 4. The Plaintiffs shall file any rebuttal Aug. 30, 2024 expert reports no later than: 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion May 30, 2024 for Rule 23 Class Certification and Defendants shall file their Motion for Decertification no later than: 6. The parties shall file their Responses July 31, 2024 to the Motions for Class Certification and Decertification no later than: 7. The parties shall file their Replies in Sept. 27, 2024 support of the Motions for Class Certification and Decertification no later than: Alliance is a diversified coal producer and marketer. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t9CvfL at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Has Until Jan. 16 to File 2nd Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, dismisses the Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and grants them leave until Jan. 16, 2024, to file a second consolidated amended complaint in the lawsuit titled SONNY JOYCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, JEFFREY P. BEZOS, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID A. ZAPOLSKY, and NATE SUTTON, Defendants; ASBESTOS WORKERS PHILADELPHIA WELFARE AND PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similar situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants; DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION ANNUITY FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00617-JHC (W.D. Wash.). The matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The motion requests dismissal with prejudice. The Court grants the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal. But it dismisses the complaint without prejudice and grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend. Lead Plaintiffs Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, Universal-Investment-Luxembourg S.A., Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd., and The Phoenix Provident Pension Fund Ltd., along with Named Plaintiffs Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund and Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this consolidated class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of persons and entities, who acquired publicly traded common stock of Amazon.com, Inc., between Feb. 1, 2019, and April 28, 2022 ("Class Period"). According to the Plaintiffs, Amazon is a multinational technology company with multiple business lines, including e-commerce services and distribution, website development and hosting, inventory and supply chain management, and fulfillment and logistics. In addition, third-party sellers may sell their goods through Amazon's fulfillment service, called "Fulfilled by Amazon" ("FBA"). The Plaintiffs bring suit against Amazon and six of its corporate executives, including: (1) Jeffrey Bezos, founder and Executive Chair; (2) Andrew Jassy, Amazon President, CEO, and Director; (3) Brian Olsavsky, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; (4) David Zapolsky, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary; (5) Nate Sutton, Associate General Counsel; and (6) David Fildes, Head of Investor Relations ("Individual Defendants"). The Plaintiffs filed this action on May 6, 2022. On Aug. 17, 2022, the Court consolidated the case with a parallel putative class action. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"), filed on Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants committed two categories of securities violations: (1) that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the fact that they exploited third-party sellers in an anticompetitive manner ("third-party allegations"); and (2) that the Defendants similarly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose Amazon's infrastructure and fulfillment capacity ("capacity allegations"). The Plaintiffs bring two causes of action: (1) a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j (Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); and (2) a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a) (Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act). The Defendants move to dismiss the CAC, contending: (1) the Defendants' statements related to the third-party allegations and capacity claims were neither false nor misleading; (2) the Plaintiffs fail to plead a strong inference of scienter; (3) the Plaintiffs do not allege loss causation as it relates to the third-party allegations; (4) the Plaintiffs' third-party allegations are time-barred; and (5) the Plaintiffs fail to allege control person liability. The Defendants also seek judicial notice or, in the alternative, incorporation by reference, of Exhibits 2–50. The exhibits include (Exh. 1) Chart of the Plaintiffs' statements, (Exh. 2) Excerpts from report of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations, (Exh. 3) Letter to investors from Jeffrey Bezos (April 11, 2019)), and (Exh. 50) Document posted to House Judiciary Committee's website with Bates number AMAZON-HJC-00129156. After consideration of the parties' briefing and the applicable law, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of Exhibits 2–50 for the limited purpose of recognizing that these documents were within the public realm at the times alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Court recognizes that (1) SEC filings, Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1064 n.7 (9th Cir. 2008), (2) publicly available news articles, Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999), and (3) documents posted on government websites, City & County of San Francisco v. Garland, 42 F.4th 1078, 1083 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022), are generally matters of public record. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that none of the exhibits in question are referenced "extensively" in the CAC. In this case, the CAC is particularly long, consisting of 173 pages and 532 paragraphs. Although the remaining exhibits are referenced more than once, Judge Chun observes that the most referenced exhibit is mentioned in only thirteen out of the CAC's total 532 paragraphs (2.4%). Further, the Plaintiffs make many of these references in their factual background section. The Court concludes that these references fall short of the "extensive" requirement articulated in Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). Next, the Defendants contend that Exhibits 2–50 should be incorporated by reference because they form the basis of the Plaintiffs' CAC. In response, the Plaintiffs contend that there is no single document on which the CAC necessarily relies to form a basis for the complaint. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. Judge Chun opines that there is no indication that any of the exhibits, on their own, form the basis of the Plaintiffs' CAC so as to imply that a "claim necessarily depended" on that document. Because the truth of the statements in the SEC Filings and earnings calls--despite plausibly serving as the basis for the claims alleged in the CAC--are disputed by the parties, the Court declines to incorporate these documents at this pleading stage. The CAC's first cause of action alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Defendants seek dismissal of this cause of action, contending that: (1) their statements regarding the third-party allegations and capacity claims were neither false nor misleading; (2) the CAC does not allege a strong inference of scienter; (3) the CAC does not allege loss causation as it relates to the third-party allegations; and (4) the third-party allegations are time-barred. Judge Chun holds, among other things, that whether Amazon was charged with anticompetitive conduct or disclosed the possibility of governmental inquiry is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court, thus, declines to entertain arguments that the lack of governmental adjudication of a claim of anticompetitive conduct and the company's broad cautionary language in its shareholder disclosures should warrant dismissal. The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege false or misleading statements regarding Amazon's treatment of its own products, as well as products sold by third-party sellers, who used FBA, compared to third-party sellers, who did not use FBA. Lastly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs describe their confidential witnesses with sufficient particularity to support the probability that they knew about the Defendants' alleged fraud. In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead the first element, material misrepresentations or omissions, of their Section 10(b) claim. Judge Chun finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish a plausible motive for why the Individual Defendants would lie to their investors. They also fail to show that the Individual Defendants had first-hand knowledge of the falsity of their statements when they were made. Lastly, the Plaintiffs' allegations of circumstantial evidence regarding the Individual Defendants' state of mind do not support a strong inference of scienter. They, therefore, fail to adequately plead the second element of their Section 10(b) claim, Judge Chun holds. The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations suffice to establish loss causation. In sum, Judge Chun finds the Plaintiffs adequately plead loss causation, the third element of their Section 10(b) claim, as to their third-party allegations. Ultimately, the Court notes that the inquiry of what a reasonable investor should have known or discovered is a fact-intensive inquiry. For these reasons, at this juncture, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims as untimely. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the CAC does not adequately plead a primary violation because it fails to allege scienter. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that, assuming a primary violation is established, the Plaintiffs adequately plead control person liability as to Sutton and Fields. For these reasons, the Court concludes: (1) the Plaintiffs adequately plead material misrepresentation or omission; (2) the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead scienter; (3) the Plaintiffs adequately plead loss causation as to their third-party claims; (4) the Plaintiffs' third-party claims are timely; and (5) the Plaintiffs adequately plead control person liability. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court grants the Plaintiffs leave until Jan. 16, 2024, to file a second Consolidated Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5567ubd5from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Chark Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americold Logistics, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Chark, Michelle Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americold Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05808-MLB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Americold Realty Trust, Inc. -- https://www.americold.com/ -- is an American temperature controlled warehousing and transportation company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. Building 14, Suite 230 3535 Piedmont Road Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202 Fax: (404) 320-9978 Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP-NY 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ARKANSAS: Court Allows Johnson to Amend Complaint for Review ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled JUSTIN A. W. JOHNSON #44511, PLAINTIFF v. BJ CARTER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00225-DPM-JTK (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division, allows the Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint for the Court's review. Plaintiff Justin A. W. Johnson is in custody at the Poinsett County, Arkansas, Detention Center (the "Detention Center"). He filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and paid the $402 filing and administrative fee to commence this action. Another inmate is listed as a plaintiff on the Complaint. The Clerk of the Court opened a separate action for the additional plaintiff. The related case is Williams v. Carter, et al., 3:23-cv-00226-DPM-JTK (E.D. Ark.). The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, regardless of fee status. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint, Notice, and Amended Complaint. In his original Complaint, the Plaintiff sued Captain B.J. Carter, Lieutenant Regina Hindman, Smart Communications, Inc. CEO James Brown, and the unidentified CEO of Tiger Commissary.com (collectively, "Defendants"). The Plaintiff sued the Defendants in their official capacities only. The Plaintiff "is a 100% service connected combat veteran awaiting trial." He has a "ruptured L4 in his back." He also fractured both knee caps in the army, his ankles are still "messed up" from a collision, and he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), arthritis, and "loss of feeling bilaterally from Poinsett County Sheriff Department locking hand cuffs as tight as possible," along with "nerve damage in the first three digits thumb, index, & middle finger," also from the cuffs. According to the Plaintiff, Detox 1 and Detox 2 were being used for medical holds. The original floor drains in Detox 1 and Detox 2 rusted out and were replaced with iron grates. In Detox 2, the replacement grate was secured only by a zip tie in one corner. In Detox 1, the replacement grate was fully unsecured. He says he stepped through the grate, jarring his hip. He tripped several times in Detox 1 and Detox 2. Defendant Hindman had been previously informed about the damage, and was told of the collapse. The Plaintiff also complains that he is being denied access to the law library and kiosk. The kiosk in his cell block had tipped over and, thus, was not usable. He asked for paper grievances, but was told there were no more official grievance forms. Defendants Duffel and Hindman did not allow the Plaintiff to go to other cell blocks to use the kiosk there. The Plaintiff was "forced to suck it up to go to C-Block." C-Block has a special cell for disabled persons but no kiosk for disabled or reasonable access to the law library. C-Block inmates were allowed access to the kiosk for only one hour per day and "allowed out 8-12 for commissary." If he sat to wait for the kiosk, he would lose his place in line. He asked for accommodation to sit or stand as needed to work/write at own pace, but his requests have been denied. The Plaintiff complains of numerous other conditions in the Detention Center, such as black mold, no sunlight or recreation yard time, and being in his cell for 23 hours per day. He also complains of receiving off brand products from the commissary when photographs for the goods for sale show the goods to be name brand. He does not make allegations against any Defendant in connection with these claims. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. In the Plaintiff's Notice, he complains that Defendant Hindman is not answering his grievances on the kiosk in retaliation for the Plaintiff filing a Section 1983 form. Further, the law library is not available on the new kiosk, and "the new one has no place to write and is even higher with no sitting option." In the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, he sued Administrative Assistant Gunner Wilson and L.P.N. Susan Duffel in addition to Defendants Hindman and Carter. He sued these Defendants in their personal and official capacities. He says Defendant Wilson feigned ignorance about the Detention Center lacking the ability to transfer the money for the filing and administrative fees for this lawsuit. He also says that his medical requests in connection with his left ear and dental meloxicam refill have been ignored. Judge Kearney notes that the Plaintiff may not represent the claims of others. Further, pro se litigants are not authorized to represent the rights, claims and interests of other parties in any cause of action, including a class action lawsuit. The Complaint in this case identifies another individual, Bryan Williams, as a plaintiff. And the Complaint contains allegations regarding Mr. Williams. But the Plaintiff may pursue only his own claims in this case, Judge Kearney says. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of other inmates, those claims fail. According to the Plaintiff, he received off brand products at the commissary despite photographs of the products offered featuring brand name products. The Court notes that there is no constitutional right to purchase goods from a commissary. To the extent the Plaintiff complains that he did not receive the same name brand items that appeared in the pictures, those allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Judge Kearney points out. The Plaintiff sued Smart Communications CEO James Brown and the unidentified CEO of TigerCommissary.com. The Plaintiff made no allegations against either Defendant. Judge Kearney notes that both CEOs are private actors. To be subject to a claim under Section 1983, a private actor must be a willful participant in joint activity with the State in denying plaintiff's constitutional rights. Judge Kearney opines that the Plaintiff did not make such allegations, so there is no basis for his Section 1983 claims against the CEO Defendants. Because liability under Section 1983 is based on an individual's own acts or omissions, Judge Kearney holds that the Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims as currently pled fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff also complains, among other things, that he was denied grievance forms and that his grievances went unanswered. Judge Kearney holds that these claims do not rise to the level of a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Plaintiff also sought injunctive relief. The Court needs further information to properly screen these claims. The Plaintiff identifies his ailments, but he does not describe how the ailments affect him, Judge Kearney points out, among other things. If the Plaintiff wishes to submit an Amended Complaint for the Court's review, Judge Kearney says he must file the Amended Complaint consistent with the instructions in this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. If he does not submit an Amended Complaint, Judge Kearney may recommend that his Original Complaint be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail the Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Complaint form. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y49usvw2from PacerMonitor.com. ASA COLLEGE: Andrade-Barteldes' Bid for Class Certification OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled ERNEST ANDRADE-BARTELDES, Plaintiff v. JOSE VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-LJL (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Ernest Andrade-Barteldes moves, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for: (1) an order granting conditional certification of this case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and certification of this case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (2) an order approving the Plaintiff's proposed class notice, (3) an order approving the Plaintiff as the class representative, (4) an order approving Levine & Blit, PLLC, as class counsel, (5) an order compelling the production of a class list that includes the names and last known addresses of putative class members, and (6) an order tolling the running of the statute of limitations for absent class members. For the reasons discussed, Judge Liman grants the Plaintiff's motion as modified by this Memorandum and Order. Defendant ASA College ("ASA") is a higher education institution for thousands of students with locations in New York and Kings counties in New York City. Defendant Alexander Shchegol is the founder and sole owner of ASA, and served for many years as President of ASA until he was removed in 2019. In October 2021, after the Board of Directors of ASA refused to reinstate him to the position of President, Shchegol obtained the position anyway by using his ownership stake to remove members of the Board of Directors, who did not support his reinstatement. He, then, resigned as President on Dec. 31, 2021, but continued to maintain significant operational and financial control over the institution. After Shchegol's resignation, Defendant Jose Valencia ("Valencia" and together with ASA and Shchegol, "Defendants") became President of ASA. Shchegol and Valencia each had the power to hire or fire, controlled the conditions of employment of employees of ASA, determined the rate and method of payment of ASA employees, and maintained employment records for ASA. Beginning in approximately 2010, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an English as a Second Language ("ESL") professor at its college in New York. He was paid on an hourly and not a salary basis. In 2022, he worked approximately twenty-eight to thirty hours per week, including three hours of administrative and clerical work per week for which he was not paid. In November 2022, ASA lost its accreditation effective March 1, 2023, in part due to its failure to timely pay its employees. During a Nov. 14, 2022 Zoom meeting for ASA faculty regarding the loss of accreditation and appeal options, Shchegol promised the faculty they would be paid their wages owed plus a five percent bonus. On Jan. 3, 2023, Valencia wrote members of the faculty that Shchegol had not been able to secure the funding needed for ASA to pay its future payrolls, and that ASA would not be able secure such funding in the near future, but that employees would not be working for free because their wages would continue to accrue. On Jan. 16, 2023, Valencia wrote employees that he and Shchegol had been trying hard to get funding to pay the Dec. 23, 2022 unpaid payroll and had secured the funding to do so. Valencia also wrote that he and Shchegol had been trying hard to secure funding for the coming Jan. 20, 2023 payroll. The Plaintiff alleges that he and members of the class he purports to represent were not paid any wages for work they performed for the pay period ending Dec. 23, 2022, and the pay period ending Jan. 6, 2023. He further alleges that it was the Defendants' policy and practice not to compensate its professors or instructors for administrative or clerical work. He also alleges that although he and members of the putative class were to be paid bi-weekly pursuant to ASA's pay policies and practices, they were not paid in a timely manner on numerous occasions in 2022. The case was initiated by complaint filed on Jan. 20, 2023. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, on behalf of a FLSA collective comprised of all similarly situated members of the ASA faculty, and on behalf of a Rule 23 class comprised of all ASA faculty members since Jan. 19, 2017. On behalf of himself and all members of the FLSA collective, the Plaintiff asserts a claim for unpaid minimum wages under FLSA. On behalf of himself and the putative Rule 23 class, the Plaintiff asserts the following additional claims: unpaid minimum wages in violation of the New York Labor Law, unpaid earned wages in violation of the New York Labor Law, untimely wages in violation of the New York Labor Law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Between Jan. 24, 2023, and April 10, 2023, notices of consent to join the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) were filed for twenty-eight different individuals, including the Plaintiff himself. On Feb. 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Service reflecting that service had been effected on Shchegol. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed proofs of service with respect to ASA College and Valencia. On March 6, 2023, he filed a letter with the Court, which he served on the Defendants, indicating that all Defendants had been served with process, that their time to respond to the complaint had expired, and that they were, therefore, in default. The Plaintiff stated his intention to file a motion for class and collective certification and then, after the motion had been decided upon, to seek entry of default and a default judgment. On March 27, 2023, Valencia, appearing pro se, answered the complaint. The Court held an initial pretrial conference on March 28, 2023, at which the Plaintiff appeared and Valencia appeared pro se; no other Defendants appeared. On March 30, 2023, the Count entered a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, as well as an Order directing the Plaintiff to make his motion for class certification no later than April 4, 2023, the Defendants to respond to the motion by April 21, 2023, and the Plaintiff to reply by April 28, 2023. On April 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this motion for certification of the class and conditional certification of the collective along with two supporting declarations and a memorandum of law. He served the motion on the Defendants. No Defendant has opposed the motion. On Nov. 22, 2023, the Court directed the parties to inform the Court of the status of the case, and on Nov. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff wrote the Court asking it to rule upon the pending motion for certification of the class and conditional certification of the collective and that, after such ruling, the Plaintiff would file a motion for default judgment against all Defendants on behalf of the class and collective simultaneously. The Plaintiff argues that the Court should conditionally certify a class of all faculty members employed by ASA since Jan. 19, 2017, to pursue the NYLL claims alleged in the complaint, and should conditionally certify a FLSA collective of all similarly situated members of the ASA faculty to pursue the FLSA claim. Judge Liman finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirements. There also are common issues applicable to all class members. The Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of the members of the class he proposes to represent. The Plaintiff has also demonstrated that he is an adequate class representative, Judge Liman holds. The Plaintiff has selected qualified class counsel, Levine & Blit, PLLC, which the Court also approves as class counsel. Having considered the factors identified in Rule 23, the Court approves Levine & Blit, PLLC as class counsel. The "predominance" and "superiority" requirements have been satisfied, Judge Liman also finds. There is no other mechanism for collectively resolving the NYLL claims of the class members that is superior to the class action vehicle. For all of the same reasons, the FLSA collective is conditionally certified, Judge Liman holds. The Plaintiff also asks that the Court approve its form of proposed class notice and issue an order directing the Defendants to provide a class list containing the names and last known addresses of all putative class members within twenty-one days. The Court approves the proposed form of notice, subject to certain alterations. The Court will permit the submission of the consent forms directly to the Plaintiff's counsel, and also directs the Plaintiff's counsel to file the consent forms on the ECF docket on the day that they are received. The Defendants are directed to provide a class list containing the names and last known addresses of all putative class members within twenty-one days. Accordingly, Judge Liman grants the motion for certification of the Rule 23 class and conditional certification of the FLSA collective. The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative and Levine & Blit, PLLC, is appointed as class counsel. The notice is approved as modified by this Memorandum and Order and the request for discovery is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 49, and to send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Defendant Valencia. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya84cdxufrom PacerMonitor.com. ATLANTA, GA: 700 Memorial Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Atlanta, Georgia, et al. The case is styled as 700 Memorial Drive, LLC, Anne McKillips, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Case No. 2023CV390328 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., Dec. 18, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Atlanta -- https://www.atlantaga.gov/ -- is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William G. Leonard, Esq. CONTINUUM LEGAL GROUP LLP 5605 Glenridge Dr., Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30342 BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loretta Fosdick, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Berkeley County, Case No. 2:23-cv-03375-RMG (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Defendant to respond to the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. The case is a wage and hour case, including a claim for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. On Friday, November 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Conditional Class Certification. On November 29, 2023, the Defendant filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion of Conditional Class Certification. A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rp84Kw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Bob J. Conley, Esq. CLEVELAND & CONLEY, L.L.C. One Seventy-One Church Street, Suite 310 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 577-9626 E-mail: bconley@clevelandlaborlaw.com BOYNE USA: Must Produce Audited Financial Statements ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT, v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting in part and denying in part motions to compel as follows: a. Boyne must respond to Interrogatory No. 14 and disclose the name of the institution that maintains its corporate account and the account number. b. Boyne must disclose the accounting records for Plaintiffs and every class member to the extent that such records exist. To the extent that such records do not exist, the Court directs Boyne to answer affirmatively and unequivocally that the excel spreadsheet and monthly statements represent the only accounting and transaction records that Boyne possesses for the named plaintiffs or the class members. c. Boyne must produce any "audited" financial statements that it has in its possession that show the amount of revenue earned by Boyne through the rental management program, or alternatively verify that the statements already produced are audited statements. d. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of financial documents beyond those that show the amount of revenue earned by Boyne through the rental management program is denied. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the production of certain documents. The Defendants Boyne USA, Inc., Boyne Properties, Inc., and Summit Hotel, LLC move for an order from the Court to compel the production of other certain documents. The Court certified the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities, other than Boyne, that: (i) own or have owned a unit in the Summit, the Shoshone, or the Village Center; and (ii) [have] participated in the Boyne rental management program." Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort (“Big Sky”), as well as three condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the Summit, Shoshone, and Village Center. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJaAq6 at no extra charge.[CC] BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03360 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order that Plaintiff may move for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), if necessary, following the Court's resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, by a date to be set by the Court at any Initial Scheduling Conference. The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Constitutionality of State Statutes. Bozzuto is a third-party manager of multifamily communities.[CC] CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Hamman's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss second amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned NEIL HAMMAN and MICHAEL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAVA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00593-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to disclose the presence of "heightened levels of organic fluorine and unsafe per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances" contained in the packaging of its grain and salad bowls. The Court further detailed the Plaintiffs' factual allegations in its Feb. 8, 2023 Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). In its previous Order, the Court dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiffs' claims regarding biocides and their common law causes of action for failure to identify the applicable state laws, which included a claim for fraudulent omission. The Court further found that as to their claim for fraudulent omission, the Plaintiffs failed to assert a duty to disclose. In response to this Order, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), asserting their common law claims under California law and dropping their biocide and fraudulent omission claims. In the instant motion, the Defendant again moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but only as to their claims for punitive damages, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege grounds for their punitive damages and implied warranty claims and that their claim for unjust enrichment fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court need not reach the merits of the Defendant's arguments pursuant to Rule 12(g)(2). The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant could have made its arguments in its previous motion to dismiss and, therefore, Rule 12(g) precludes it from now asserting them. One of the cases they cite is In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (S.D. Cal. 2017), in which U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino barred the defendants from bringing a successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here, Judge Anello notes, the factual footing has not substantively changed between the FAC and SAC, both of which largely share the same factual material. Indeed, the redline comparison submitted by the Plaintiffs with their SAC demonstrates very minimal alterations between the FAC and SAC, aside from the deletion of the Plaintiffs' biocide and fraudulent omission claims that were dismissed in the Court's previous Order. Therefore, because the allegations are not substantively different in the SAC, Judge Anello finds that the Defendant's arguments could have been raised in its previous motion to dismiss and the instant motion violates Rule 12(g)(2)'s ban on successive Rule 12(b) motions. Further, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument in its reply that Rule 12(g)(2) has no application here because this is the first motion directed to the operative complaint, given that the Defendant relies on older cases from this District that pre-date the Ninth Circuit's In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. case, which affirmed "that Rule 12(g)(2) facially bars successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions," 846 F.3d at 318. In sum, the court in In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig. declined to allow a successive 12(b)(6) motion even though the factual footing changed. Here, the factual footing has not even changed in a way that would give the Court some pause before using its discretion to ban this successive 12(b)(6) motion. Judge Anello holds that the Defendant could have raised its arguments in its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC is denied. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC. The Defendant will file an answer to the Plaintiffs' SAC no later than Jan. 8, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/t8v9nbktfrom PacerMonitor.com. CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL, as Executrix of the Estate of LOUISE MCGRAW, deceased; LORETTA HOLCOMB, as Executrix of the Estate of CHARLOTTE RODGERS, deceased; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have a heavy evidentiary burden they must satisfy because "Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard -- a party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc." The Parties disagree as to what the salient facts are for this Court to make the determinations it must as to each of the seven elements Plaintiffs must establish, with competent, admissible evidence, to satisfy their burden of proof under Rule 23. Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates properties that provide seniors with housing and health care options. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47N7s8m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: W. Michael Frazier, Esq. FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C. Huntington, WV 25727 Telephone: (304) 697-4370 - and - Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Claire E. F. Eichmann, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT, LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 - and - Avrum Levicoff, Esq. Robert L. Hogan, Esq. THE LEVICOFF LAW FIRM, P.C. 4 PPG Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-5200 CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Burwick Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinfed Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Kendall Burwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cinfed Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00824-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cinfed Federal Credit Union -- https://www.cinfed.com/ -- provides banking and financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Charles Kuhlman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON C. KUHLMAN, PLLC P.O.Box 17216 Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017-0216 Phone: (859) 801-2990 Email: jason@jckuhlmanlaw.com CINTAS CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 27, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP JR., et al., V. CINTAS CORP NO. 2, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension of calendar order deadlines. a. Fact Discovery Deadline: Aug. 27, 2024 b. Deadlines for Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Submission of Reports: i. Plaintiffs' Expert Report(s): Sept. 30, 2024 ii. Defendant's Expert Report(s): Dec. 2, 2024 iii. Disclosure and Report of Jan. 13, 2025 Rebuttal Experts: c. Expert Discovery Deadline: March 25, 2025 d. Deadline for Motion for Class May 27, 2025 Certification: e. Deadline for Opposition to Motion July 28, 2025 for Class Certification: f. Deadline for Reply in Support of Aug. 27, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Cintas provides a range of products and services to businesses including uniforms, mats, mops, cleaning and restroom supplies, first aid and safety products, fire extinguishers and testing, and safety courses. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rze2cV at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for April 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 31, 2023, that on October 27, 2023, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement of 14 putative class action complaints primarily related to issues associated with Family Dollar's West Memphis, Arkansas distribution center and the related sale and distribution of adulterated products since February 22, 2022. Notice of the settlement and how to submit a claim was given beginning November 10, 2023. A hearing on final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for April 5, 2024. The lawsuits were proceeding in federal court in Tennessee using the federal court's multi-district litigation process, seek class action status, and allege violations of the Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, negligence, misrepresentation, deception and unjust enrichment related to the sale of products that may be contaminated by virtue of rodent infestation and other unsanitary conditions. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorney fees and costs, punitive damages and replacement or refund of money paid to purchase the relevant products, and any other legal relief available for their claims, including equitable and injunctive relief. As a result of a mediation held in April 2023, the parties reached a claims made settlement whereby one class member per household will receive a $25 Family Dollar gift certificate. Dollar Tree, Inc. is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores. Headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia, it is a Fortune 500 company and operates 15,115 stores throughout the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Canada. Its stores are supported by a nationwide logistics network of 24 distribution centers. FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Bid to Remand Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLER ORTIZ-DIXON et al., v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01140-ODW-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. As the Court finds that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction, it grants the Parties' Joint Stipulation, and stays this action pending class certification in the prior-filed matter, Depina v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-TLT (N.D. Cal.). The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Status of Depina on August 19, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Seven days before the Status Conference, the parties must submit a Joint Report updating the Court as to the status of Depina and whether the stay in this action should remain in place. Based on its employment records, FedEx determined that during FedEx's Calculation Period it employed at least 30,585 putative class members, and these employees worked 1,920,668 shifts over three and a half hours. Although the average hourly wage of the employees during the FedEx's Calculation Period was $19.25, FedEx rests its amount in controversy calculations on the more conservative minimum hourly wage of $15.00. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff Tayler Ortiz-Dixon filed this putative Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, against her employer, Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. On June 14, 2023, FedEx removed the instant action on the basis that this Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Fedex provides package delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RkCNYV at no extra charge.[CC] FINANCIAL ASSET: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pena Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH PENA, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05549-SEG (N.D. Ga., Dec. 4, 2023) is a class action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach that was allegedly perpetrated against Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and approximately 164,000 putative Class Members who make (or made) loan payments to FAMS. The personally identifying information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers, 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. Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. is an account recovery solutions provider that provides products and services to education, financial services, government, healthcare, and telecommunications/media markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: -78-dlietz@milberg.com FLORIDA ASSOCIATION: Parker Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARKER HOLDING GROUP INC., Plaintiff v. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, THE KEYES COMPANY, LPT REALTY, LLC, CHARLES RUTENBERG REALTY, INC., CHARLES RUTENBERG REALTY - ORLANDO, LLC, UNITED REALTY GROUP,INC, THE K COMPANY REALTY, LLC, FLORIDA HOMES REALTY & MORTGAGE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DALTON WADE, INC., AVANTI WAY REALTY, LLC, MVP REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC, FLORIDA REALTY OF MIAMI CORP., LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC, WATSON REALTY CORP., PREMIERE PLUS REALTY CO., FUTURE HOME REALTY, INC., MICHAEL SAUNDERS & COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 187328252 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., Dec. 4, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Florida, against the Defendants for agreeing, combining, and conspiring to impose, implement, and enforce anticompetitive restraints that cause home sellers in Florida to pay inflated commissions in connection with the sale of their homes, in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980 and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Florida Realtors, the Broker Defendants, and their co-conspirators collectively possess market power in the market for buyer-agent and seller-broker services through their control of the Florida Realtor Multiple Listing Services (MLSs). The Florida Realtor MLSs are the tool by which Defendants exercise market power in Florida to maintain buyer-agent commissions and seller-broker commissions at artificially high levels. The MLSs are expressly designed to be the "means" for members acting as seller-brokers to "make blanket unilateral offers of compensation" to buyer-agents. The conspiracy has substantially reduced competition in the markets for buyer-agent services and seller-broker commissions to the detriment of home sellers in Florida. Specifically, the conspiracy enables brokers to raise, fix, and maintain real estate agent compensation at artificially high levels that would not exist in a competitive marketplace. The conspiracy also enables brokers to "steer" home buyers away from lower commission homes, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and other Class Members have each incurred substantial overcharges, often thousands of dollars, as a result of Defendants' alleged conspiracy. Plaintiff Parker Holding Group Inc. is incorporated in Florida with its principal place of business in Panama City, Florida. Plaintiff sold homes in Panama City, Florida on March 31, 2021, and August 25, 2021. The homes were listed on the Central Panhandle MLS. As part of the transactions, Plaintiff paid substantial buyer-agent commissions and seller-broker commissions. Florida Association of Realtors is the statewide professional trade association for real estate agents in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge L. Piedra, Esq. Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: jpiedra@kttlaw.com bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Jeffrey L. Berhold, Esq. JEFFREY L. BERHOLD, P.C. 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 872-3800 E-mail: jeff@berhold.com - and - Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Andrew Lampros, Esq. Ricardo Gilb, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com alampros@hallandlampros.com GEICO GENERAL: Porcu Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico General Insurance Company. The case is styled as Edmondo Porcu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-02302-LL-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Geico General Insurance Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge Federico Lathrop, Esq. 205 W Alvarado St Fallbrook, CA 92028 Phone: (760) 723-1295 Email: federico@lathroplawfirm.com - and - Paula R. Brown, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. Timothy G. Blood BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: pbrown@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com tblood@bholaw.com GLEN MILLS: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK, et al., v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01541-HB (E.D. Pa.), the DHSA defendants file a motion for leave to file a sur-reply in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Court's Policies and Procedures, Defendants Teresa D. Miller, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Theodore Dallas, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, and Cathy Utz, former Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services’ Office of Children, Youth, and Families (the "DHS Defendants") move for an order granting them leave to file a short sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Ltvu9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Esq. Paul Lantieri III, Esq. Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esq. Joseph J. Bailey, Esq. John W. Scott, Esq. Kathryn J. Boyle, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Factual Discovery in Metcalfe Due Dec. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elsie Metcalfe, v. Hyundai Capital America, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00378-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: 1. Pleadings shall be amended by: May 24, 2024 2. All parties shall be joined by: May 24, 2024 3. All factual discovery shall be Dec. 13, 2024 completed by: Hyundai Capital provides commercial finance services. The Company offers vehicle financing and leasing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47QkVfE at no extra charge.[CC] ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Bid to Approve Proposed Class Notice Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maslic et al v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. et al, Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order as follows: -- vacating hearing on the Plaintiff Sasa Maslic's motion for approval of proposed class notice plan; and -- approving proposed form of notice as modified by the court. This suit for wage and hour violations and human trafficking is brought by persons who claim that they were transported to the United States from their home countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to provide cheap labor for American companies. The Plaintiffs assert several individual claims and one class claim. The Court has certified the class claim, appointed Plaintiff Sasa Maslic as the class representative, and appointed the Law Office of William C. Dresser as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Alameda County Superior Court in August 2020, and filed a first amended complaint in October 2020. The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Eisenmann and Tesla, and against ISM Vuzem d.o.o. and several related. Those claims are: (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA; (3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California law; (4) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California law; (5) failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods in violation of California law; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of California law; (7) failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of California law; (8) a class claim for violation of California wage and hour laws; (9) trafficking and coerced labor under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and (10) a claim under California Labor Code section 3706. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RlyzjM at no extra charge.[CC] JACK IN THE BOX: Settles California Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------- Jack in the Box 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 21, 2023, that on August 8, 2023, the court issued its final approval of settlement of a purported Private Attorneys General Act claim and class action alleging various causes of action under California's labor, wage, and hour laws. On August 9, 2023 final judgement was entered. The company made its first payment of half of the settlement amount on August 28, 2023. Payment of the second half was made on November 27, 2023. On March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported Private Attorneys General Act claim and class action alleging various causes of action under California's labor, wage, and hour laws. The plaintiff generally alleges Del Taco did not appropriately provide meal and rest breaks and failed to pay wages and reimburse business expenses to its California non-exempt employees. On November 12, 2021, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on May 24, 2022 and June 3, 2022. On June 4, 2022, the company entered into a Settlement Memorandum of Understanding which obligates the company to pay a gross settlement amount of $50.0 million, for which in exchange the company will be released from all claims by the parties. Jack in the Box Inc. is a restaurant company that operates and franchises "Jack in the Box(R)," one of the nation's largest hamburger chains with approximately 2,200 restaurants across 22 states, and "Del Taco(R)," the second largest Mexican-American quick service restaurants chain by units in the U.S. with approximately 600 restaurants across 16 states. KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Junks Gennock Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, 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 29, 2023, that on May 16, 2023, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing under Pennsylvania law and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with regards to a putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned "Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc." On November 14, 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided not to take the case on appeal. The complaint alleged that the company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts and sought statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter. Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing. The company appealed that ruling, and on April 27, 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted the company's petition for permission to appeal. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 339 stores in 35 states as of October 28, 2023, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the "Kirkland's Home" brand. KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Stays Miles Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, 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 29, 2023, that a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California captioned "Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc." has been stayed in said court. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The court has stayed the entire case pending the appeal. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 339 stores in 35 states as of October 28, 2023, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the "Kirkland's Home" brand. KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Kohl's Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that it is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed on September 2, 2022 by Sean Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the company, its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Case is captioned "Shanaphy v. Kohl's Corporation," No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA. The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, interest, fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that members of the putative class suffered losses as a result of false or misleading statements and withholding of information regarding the conception, execution, and outcomes of the company's strategic plan announced on October 20, 2020 and the company's financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2022 and its internal controls over financial reporting, disclosure controls, and corporate governance mechanisms. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted on November 1, 2022, and on May 23, 2023, the court appointed Thomas Frame as lead plaintiff. Subsequently, on June 9, 2023, lead plaintiff candidate The Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan (NSHEPP) filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's May 23, 2023 order. On May 23, 2023, the court appointed Thomas Frame as lead plaintiff. On October 19, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint with substantially similar claims and allegations which named the company, certain of its current and former directors and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and revised the Class Period to be August 19, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Kohl's is a department store chain based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. LESLIE'S INC: Faces WPBPPF Suit Over SEC Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------- Leslie's, 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 29, 2023, that on September 8, 2023, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed by West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the company violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts about its financial guidance, business operations and prospects, and seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. Leslie's is a direct-to-consumer brand in the pool and spa care industry, serving residential and professional consumers, operating primarily in the pool and spa aftermarket industry. LOGAN'S SANCTUARY: Munteanu Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MARIA C. MUNTEANU and TATSIANA MALOILA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOGAN'S SANTUARY LLC dba HAVEN ROOFTOP, and BRANDON FREID, and ELDA DeVILLA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10565 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay non-exempt employees proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and spread-of-hours premiums; misappropriating and unlawfully retaining tips from tipped employees; illegally retaining service charges purported to be gratuities from tipped employees; and illegally withholding and/or failing to pay wages and tips to employees. Plaintiff Munteanu was employed by the Defendants as a server at Haven Rooftop continuously during the period between August 14, 2021 and September 14, 2023. Plaintiff Maloila was employed as a non-exempt server and bartender and worked continuously during the period May 2018 through December 29, 2022, and again July 20, 2023 through October 18, 2023. Logan's Santuary LLC, dba Haven Rooftop, is a restaurant, bar and event space based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Oliver-Banks Suit Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOY OLIVER-BANKS, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV29589 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 4, 2023) is a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code representative action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of the State of California, herself and other current and former aggrieved employees of Defendants who worked as hourly non-exempt employees in California during the relevant time period seeking civil penalties associated with Defendants' violation of the state law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime rate, failure to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment. The named Plaintiff and the persons on whose behalf this action is filed include current, former and/or future employees of Defendants who work, worked, or will work for Defendants as direct employees as well as temporary employees employed through temp agencies as hourly non-exempt employees in California. Management & Training Corporation is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Aaron D. Boal, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aboal@lelawfirm.com MAPFRE USA: Sinha Alleges Compromised Personal Info in Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case VIJAY SINHA and PHYLLIS DUBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12966 (D. Mass., Dec. 4, 2023) involves the data breach that Defendant announced on August 22, 2023, wherein -- from July 1, 2023 to July 2, 2023 -- the personal identifying information of hundreds of thousands of individuals including Plaintiffs was exposed due to a flaw in Defendant's online quoting system, which allowed hackers and other bad actors to obtain individuals' PII for unsavory and illegal purposes. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information from unauthorized access, use, and disclosure, as required by various state and federal regulations, industry practices, and the common law, including Defendant's failure to establish and implement appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information to protect against reasonably foreseeable threats to the security or integrity of such information. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful actions and inaction and the resulting data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud, says the suit. APFRE U.S.A. Corporation is a provider of insurance products to Americans, including car insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke Mitcheson, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN PA 101 Station Landing, Suite 230 Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (857) 383-4905 E-mail: lmitcheson@forthepeople.com MDL 2445: Court Awards $14-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Suboxone Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: End Payor Actions, Case No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.). On Oct. 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of End Payor Settlement and for Related Relief (the "Final Approval Motion") brought by A.F. of L. - A.C.G. Building Trades Welfare Plan, Construction & General Laborers' Local 190 Welfare Fund, I.B.E.W. 292 Health Care Plan, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, Teamsters Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, and United Food & Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania (collectively, "End Payor Plaintiffs"). The Court, having reviewed the Final Approval Motion and supporting materials, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Payment of Service Awards to the Class Representations, and the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Payment of Service Awards, and having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties, finds that the Final Approval Motion, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees should be granted and the Settlement Agreement between End Payor Plaintiffs and Indivior, Inc., f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Indivior") should be finally approved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise stated, the Court adopts and incorporates the definitions contained in the Settlement Agreement. Nothing in this Order is intended to modify the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3), and (e)(ii), the Court certifies the following End Payor Class for settlement purposes: All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone and/or its AB-rated generic equivalent) in any form, for consumption by themselves, their families or their members, employees, plan participants, beneficiaries or insureds in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and District of Columbia between December 22, 2011 and the date on which the Court enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval Order (the "Class Period"). The following persons or entities are excluded from the End Payor Class: (i) Pharmacy benefit managers; (ii) Defendant and its officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates; (iii) all governmental entities, except for government funded employee benefit plans; (iv) all persons or entities who purchased Suboxone or its AB-rated generic equivalents in any form for purposes of resale or directly from Defendant or its affiliates; and (v) the judges in this case and any members of their immediate families. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g), the Court gives final approval to the appointment of Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP, Miller Law, LLC, Motley Rice LLC, and Hilliard Shadowen LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the End Payor Class, and Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC as Liaison Counsel for the End Payor Class. The Court grants final approval to the Settlement Agreement and the terms contained therein, and finds that the Settlement Agreement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and directs consummation of the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and conditions. The Court finds that notice was provided to the members of the End Payor Class as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and due process and was provided as directed by this Court in the Amended Preliminary Approval Order. Such notice constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c)(2)(B) and Rule 23 (e)(1). The Court finds that the Allocation Plan, described in the class notice and posted on the Settlement website, treats the members of the End Payor Class in a manner that is equitable and distributes the Net Settlement Fund to End Payor Class members based on a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of certain claims, as well as an expert analysis of the damages distribution as between consumers and Third Party Payors. Distribution on a pro rata basis has been approved in similar cases to this. As such, the Allocation Plan is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Goldberg notes that no objections to the Settlement were filed. Any member of the End Payor Class, who failed to timely and validly request to be excluded from the End Payor Class, will be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Third Party Payors, who validly requested to be excluded from the End Payor Class, are listed in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kenneth A. Wexler. A list of consumers, who validly opted out, has been filed and will remain under seal pursuant to paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc August 21, 2023 Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of End Payor Settlement and for Other Relief. All members of the End Payor Class not specifically set forth in these lists of exclusions will be subject to, and bound by, the terms of this Order and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including the Release and Covenant Not to Sue set forth in paragraph 12. The Court finds that the notice requirements set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, have been satisfied. The Court dismisses the End Payor Class Action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees, including attorneys' fees, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over the Settlement and this Settlement Agreement, including the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement regarding the administration and consummation of the Settlement, the award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses, and the payment of service awards to each of the named End Payor Plaintiffs. The Court directs that the judgment of dismissal of all End Payor Class claims against the Defendant will be final and appealable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there being no just reason for delay. Neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement nor any other Settlement-related document will constitute any evidence or admission by the Defendant or any other Released Party. The Court, having fully reviewed the factors set forth in Gunter v. Ridgwood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000), approves the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Fund or $10,000,000, plus one-third of the interest earned on the Settlement Fund as of the date of this Order. The Court finds that the $1,588,715.24 in expenses reflected in the submissions of Class Counsel were reasonably incurred and of the type routinely billed by attorneys to their clients in similar cases, such as for expert, depositions, and document hosting. In addition, Class Counsel incurred expenses of $931,255.51 providing notice to the eleven-State Class, $1,404,056.05 for nationwide notice and settlement administration, and $18,745.07 for the End Payor Plaintiffs' economist. In total, Judge Goldberg finds that $3,942,771.87 in fees and costs paid and/or accrued over a ten-year period warrants reimbursement. The Court finds that the class representatives for the EPPs were active participants in the matter and, therefore, the requested award of $15,000 to each named End Payor Plaintiff is reasonable and warranted for their efforts on behalf of the End Payor Class, for a total amount of $105,000. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/eckxv4ssfrom PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2445: Court Finally Approves $30-Mil. End Payor Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania gives final approval to the $30 million settlement with the End-Payor Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: End Payor Actions, Case No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.). Currently before the Court in this multi-district antitrust case is the End-Payor Plaintiffs' ("EPPs") Motion for Final Approval of the End Payor Settlement. Upon review of the parties' briefing and considering the arguments at the final fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2023, Judge Goldberg will certify a settlement class, grant final approval of the class action settlement, and award attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments as requested. Defendant Indivior, Inc., manufactures Suboxone, a drug commonly used to combat opioid addiction. Suboxone previously came in tablet form, but in 2010, citing safety concerns, the Defendant effectuated a change in the administration of this drug, switching from tablet to sublingual film. Various purchasers/consumers of Suboxone claimed that this switch was anticompetitive and solely designed to maintain the Defendant's market exclusivity--a scheme known as a "product hop." These claims resulted in multi-district, antitrust litigation before the Court. The alleged antitrust scheme at issue is multi-faceted and explained at length in Judge Goldberg's Opinion regarding the denial of the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on liability in In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, 622 F. Supp. 3d 22, 35–45 (E.D. Pa. 2022). On Aug. 15, 2013, the EPPs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint setting forth antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of forty-eight states, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Following motions to dismiss, Judge Goldberg dismissed claims arising under the laws of thirty-seven States and territories and granted the motions as to all Defendant entities other than Defendant Indivior, Inc., formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. Discovery proceeded, and the EPPs filed a motion for class certification of an issues-only class. On Sept. 27, 2019, Judge Goldberg certified a class of EPPs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) on six distinct issues, including whether the Defendant engaged in anticompetitive and deceptive conduct, and whether the Defendant willfully maintained monopoly power through such conduct. The Defendant subsequently filed summary judgment motions as to all claims against it. Judge Goldberg denied those motions in August 2022, and scheduled trial to commence in September 2023. In January 2023, upon all counsel's request, Judge Goldberg engaged in mediation with the EPPs and the Defendant. Following several months of mediation, the EPPs and the Defendant reached a settlement in the amount of $30 million, in exchange for a release of all antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims asserted on behalf of the class of consumers and third-party payors, who purchased and/or paid for Suboxone and/or its generic equivalents in forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (the "Settlement"). On Aug. 21, 2023, Judge Goldberg entered an order for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, for preliminary certification of the settlement classes, and for permission to disseminate notice of the proposed settlement to members of the settlement classes ("Preliminary Approval Order"). Upon review of the relevant factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Goldberg certified the following class: All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone and/or its AB-rated generic equivalent) in any form, for consumption by themselves, their families or their members, employees, plan participants, beneficiaries or insureds in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and District of Columbia between Dec. 22, 2011, and the date on which the Court enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval Order (the "Class Period"). The following persons or entities were excluded from the proposed Classes: (i) pharmacy benefit managers; (ii) the Defendant and its officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates; (iii) all governmental entities (except for government funded employee benefit plans); (iv) all persons or entities who purchased Suboxone or its AB-rate generic equivalents in any form for purposes of resale or directly from Defendant or its affiliates; and (v) the judges in this case and any members of their immediate families. Following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Lead Counsel for the EPPs ("Class Counsel") worked with Settlement Administrator A.B. Data, Ltd., to implement the approved notice program ("Notice Program"). The Notice Plan included direct mail notice to members of the End Payor Class, who could be identified with reasonable effort, augmented by publication in print media and digital media placement. Thereafter, beginning Aug. 28, 2023, notice was sent by mail to approximately 900,000 addresses and published in targeted digital email. More than 1,250 emails were sent to third-party payors ("TPPs") and their representatives, and over 291 million digital media impressions were delivered to end-payor class members. A news release was also disseminated via PR Newswire, reaching the desks of over 10,000 newsrooms across the United States. Following this notice, thirty-seven class members opted out of the class, and no objections to the settlement were filed. As of the date of the EPPs request for final approval, class members had submitted more than 110,000 claims. Claim forms are not due until Feb. 17, 2024. The proposed Plan of Allocation calls for payment of any approved attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs, escrow administration costs, and incentive payments from the settlement funds received. Following those disbursements, the net settlement funds ("Net Class Settlement Fund") will be used to pay class claims that have been approved and authorized. The Net Class Settlement Fund will be divided into two State Allocation Pools: (a) 90% will go to States with Illinois Brick repealer statutes, and (b) 10% will go to States without Illinois Brick repealer statutes. Within each of these State Allocation pools, the funds will be allocated with 45% going to consumers and 55% going to third party payors. All funds in each pool will be exhausted, and, to the extent any funds remain after payment of all claims, End Payor Class members may receive more than 100% of their damages. On Oct. 16, 2023, Class Counsel filed the present Motion for Approval of Proposed Settlement and for Related Relief. The Court held a final fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2023. Judge Goldberg finds that the settlement is reasonable in light of the best possible recovery. The EPPs had only calculated their recovery in terms of overcharges, not actual damages, and their overcharge amount did not take into account the impact that rebates would have. Their overcharge figures for an eleven-state class ranged from approximately $230 million to almost $300 million. The total EPP settlement of $30 million is approximately ten percent of the best possible recovery situation. The settlement becomes even more reasonable when considered against the attendant risks of litigation, Judge Goldberg opines. The settlement was achieved after 10 years of litigation. Class certification was granted to an eleven-state class on liability issues only. As such, the best-case recovery scenario could not have been obtained through a singular trial. In light of the foregoing, Judge Goldberg finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Lending the Settlement the requisite presumption of fairness, Judge Goldberg notes that all of the Girsh factors, all of the Prudential factors, and the Baby Products direct benefit consideration weigh in favor of approval. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg grants final approval to Settlement. Judge Goldberg also finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate as it provides a straightforward method for determining each Class Member's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund and then reimburses Class Members based on the type and extent of their injuries. The settlement funds from tje Defendant will be subject to deductions for approved attorneys' fees, administrative costs, litigation costs, and incentive payments. Ninety percent of the net amount will be given to the "Repealer State Allocation Pool" and ten percent will go into the "Non-Repealer State Allocation Pool." From each of those pools, 45% will be paid out to consumers, while 55% will be paid out to third party payors. The amounts will be allocated on a pro rata basis and all Class Members will receive a proportionate award based on the amounts they paid for brand and generic Suboxone during the class period. All of the net settlement amounts will be reimbursed to Class Members. The EPPs seek an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $10 million plus accrued interest--approximately one-third of the Class Settlement Fund--on behalf of Class Counsel. Judge Goldberg finds that by all measures, the requested fee is fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the skill of the attorneys, the amount of work they expended on this complicated litigation, and the results they achieved. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg will grant attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,000,000 plus accrued interest. Having fully reviewed the documentation submitted by Class Counsel in support of both their original Motion and their Amended Motion, Judge Goldberg finds that the requested expenses were adequately substantiated and reasonably and appropriately incurred in the prosecution of the case. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg will award reasonable and necessary expenses in the total amount of $3,942,771.87. Judge Goldberg will also grant the requested incentive awards of $15,000 to each of the End Payor Plaintiffs, including: A.F. of L. - A.C.G. Building Trades Welfare Plan, Construction & General Laborers' Local 190 Welfare Fund, I.B.E.W. 292 Health Care Plan, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, Teamsters Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, and United Food & Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania -- for a total of $105,000 in incentive payments. In light of the foregoing, Judge Goldberg approves the End Payor Class Settlement and Plan of Allocation. In addition, Judge Goldberg (a) awards End-Payor Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,000,000, plus accumulated interest on the Class Settlement Fund; (b) reimburses Class Counsel $3,942.771.87 in litigation costs and expenses; and (c) awards each of the End Payor Plaintiffs $15,000 (for a total of $105,000) to be paid from the Class Settlement Fund. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bp577sjpfrom PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2741: Conditional Transfer Orders for 3 Hawaii Actions Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2741, Acting Chairperson Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacates the panel's conditional transfer orders designated as "CTO-413" and "CTO-417" as to three actions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Monsanto Company moved to vacate the panel's orders that conditionally transferred the three actions from the District of Hawaii to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2471. Plaintiffs opposed the motions to vacate. In support of its motions to vacate, Monsanto primarily argues that inclusion of these three cases, in which plaintiffs allege that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by exposure to both Roundup and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), would disrupt proceedings in this relatively advanced MDL. Monsanto further argues that counsel for these plaintiffs have filed more than one hundred actions (naming nearly 2,000 plaintiffs) in multiple different state courts that involve similar "Roundup" and "PCB" claims, and that these actions already are being coordinated informally by the parties and the involved courts. In opposition, plaintiffs argue that the presence of issues relating to another Monsanto product does not preclude transfer of actions that share common factual questions relating to Roundup. The general causation and bellwether phases of the litigation are complete, and the transferee court has implemented a wave-based remand and mediation program, through which case-specific discovery is completed and case-specific summary judgment relating to causation are adjudicated prior to remand of the actions to their transferor courts for trial. The transfer of Roundup actions to the MDL remains warranted as these actions are being efficiently resolved through the wave-based remand and mediation process. Transfer of these three actions, however, would inject unique factual and legal issues into the MDL at a late hour, and likely would require significant judicial and party effort to allow for litigation of plaintiffs' PCB-related claims. Given the large number of similar actions in various state courts that are, according to both parties, being litigated in a coordinated fashion, the inefficiencies that would result from transfer of these actions to the MDL outweigh any efficiencies to be gained with respect to plaintiffs' Roundup-related claims. Accordingly, the panel granted Monsanto's motions to vacate the conditional transfer orders. A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2741-Order_Vacating_CTO-11-23.pdf MDL 2873: Kentucky v. EI. Dupont Transferred to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------ In "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring "Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment Cabinet v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−00047, E.D. Ky.) from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the District of South Carolina and assigned it to Judge Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company, FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc. and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. moved to transfer this action to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. No party responded to this motion, and DuPont stated that plaintiff agrees to transfer of this action. In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and/or perfluorooctanoic acid into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water. The panel finds that the said actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs, the toxicity of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and the effects of these substances on human health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdf MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Rougeau v. Ahlstrom to D.S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by defendant 3M Company to transfer the case captioned "Rougeau, et al. v. Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:23−00546, W.D. Wisc.) to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. These defendants allegedly discharged their industrial wastewater to conventional wastewater treatment plants and dispose of other waste products in area landfills. PFAS from these waste products allegedly flows into the downstream waters. The panel said that 3M has not met its "significant burden" of showing that transfer of the Rougeau action is appropriate. The plaintiffs' complaint is wholly focused on the alleged contamination of private water wells in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, are contaminated from PFAS stemming from the Rhinelander Paper Mill. Plaintiffs claim that the mill dumped PFAS-contaminated waste on farmland in Oneida County and seek to represent a putative class of Oneida County property owners. The panel has excluded actions involving non-AFFF discharges of PFAS from specific industrial locations. 3M argues that the Rougeau plaintiffs and class members' allegations of non-AFFF contamination of their wells will overlap with the other claims pertaining to AFFF contamination, but these arguments are too speculative. In support of its motion to transfer, 3M argues that Rougeau involves contamination sites already at issue in the MDL. After considering the parties' arguments, and consideration of the pleadings and the record, the panel determined that 3M has not established a sufficiently substantial and concrete overlap between Rougeau and the AFFF claims pending in the MDL to justify transfer to the MDL; whether and how AFFF plays a role in plaintiffs' injuries in Rougeau remains too uncertain to warrant transfer, it held. A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Denying_Transfer-11-23.pdf MDL 3014: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Lis Case --------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014, the conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-81" was vacated as to case captioned "Lis, et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al.," (C.A. No. 1:23−00907, W.D.N.Y.) by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred the Lis case to the Western District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3014. Defendants Philips RS North America LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA, Inc. and Philips Healthcare opposed the motion. Plaintiffs argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking and that transfer is therefore inappropriate. Ordinarily, this would be insufficient to justify vacating CTO-81. The procedural posture of the plaintiff, however, warranted a different resolution. The assigned magistrate judge in the Western District of New York has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the transferor court remand Lis to state court. Objections to the Report were filed on November 27, 2023. Accordingly, the panel granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the conditional transfer order. A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3014-Order_Vacating_CTO-11-23.pdf MDL 3047: Livingston Parish v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Livingston Parish School Board v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−00807 from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3047. This litigation involves Meta platforms' (Facebook and Instagram) alleged encouragement of addictive behavior, failure to verify users' ages, encouragement of adolescents to bypass parental controls and inadequately safeguarding against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content. The panel held that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to motions to dismiss and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. A full-text copy of the court's December 6, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdf MDL 3072: Aprillia v. Boeing Consolidated in Java Sea Air Crash Row ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "IN RE: Air Crash into the Java Sea on January 9, 2021," MDL No. 3072, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Aprillia, et al. v. The Boeing Company," C.A. No. 1:23−04649 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the Eastern District of Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Claude M. Hilton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The action arises from the January 9, 2021 crash of a Boeing 737-500 aircraft operated by Indonesian airline Sriwijaya Air into the Java Sea off the coast of Indonesia, shortly after it departed from Jakarta. The crash resulted in the deaths of all 62 passengers and crew members, who were citizens of Indonesia. All actions share factual questions regarding the cause or causes of the crash of the Boeing 737-500 aircraft operated as Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 into the Java Sea on January 9, 2021. The actions also share significant threshold questions concerning (1) whether admiralty or diversity jurisdiction lies over the actions (2) whether the alleged location of significant evidence and witnesses in Indonesia warrants dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as asserted by defendant Boeing and (3) whether plaintiffs’ claims require the joinder of allegedly necessary parties such as Sriwijaya Air. The panel determined that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, particularly with respect to potential international discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Competing plaintiffs' counsels are seeking damages on behalf of some of the same decedents in both districts mentioned and Boeing identifies five other actions involving overlapping decedents. Centralizing all actions before a single court will ensure consistent proceedings with respect to the claims pertaining to decedents involved in multiple actions, rules the panel. A full-text copy of the court's December 6, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3072-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdfx MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Overruled -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN CONFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order overruling the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement filed October 31, 2023. The Plaintiff has not shown that his claims are typical of the putative class or that common issues will predominate. Therefore, he has not shown that a nationwide class action is superior to other methods for adjudicating (or settling) this case. The plaintiff has not met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) or (b)(3). In light of this ruling, the Court does not address other aspects of the proposed settlement. The plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following settlement class: "All Persons who purchased one or more Covered Products at retail in the United States and its territories during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendant and its employees; (ii) any Person who properly and timely opts out pursuant to this Agreement; (iii) federal, state, and local governments, including all agencies and subdivisions thereof (but employees thereof are not excluded); and (iv) any judge who presides over the consideration of whether to approve the settlement of this class action and any member of their immediate family." Dustin Confer brings this putative class action on behalf of himself and all persons who purchased 45 different types of organic bonded abrasive discs designed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation that did not include a clear expiration warning or label. The Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (Count I), and unjust enrichment (Count II) and breach of implied warranty (Count III) under Kansas law. Milwaukee Electric is a multi-national company that develops, manufactures, and markets power tools, hand tools, tool accessories, tool storage, and personal protective equipment. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4h67W at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO CO: N.D. California Grants Bids to Dismiss Koller Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SCOTT KOLLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04260-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Before the Court are these motions, each filed April 21, 2023: (1) Defendants Bayer CropScience LP ("Bayer") and Monsanto Company's ("Monsanto") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; (2) Bayer and Monsanto's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Charles Jameson; and (3) Defendant The Scotts Company LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. In the operative complaint, the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiffs Scott Koller, Tim Ferguson, Ruby Cornejo, and John Lysek allege they each purchased a concentrated form of Roundup, i.e., a Roundup product that consists of more than 40% glyphosate in sizes at or below 6.8 lbs (the "Products"), which Products are designed to kill weeds. The Plaintiffs allege that Bayer and Monsanto, as well as Defendant Seamless Control LLC, manufacture, sell, market, and, through third-parties, distribute the Products, and that Scotts sells, distributes, and markets some of the Products. The Plaintiffs allege that "N-Nitrosoglyphosate ('NNG') is an impurity inherent to glyphosate," the active ingredient of the Products, and that glyphosate degrades into NNG when glyphosate reacts with nitrites, which are prevalent in everyday environments, such as city air, exhaust from cars, and water. They also allege that NNG belongs to a class of chemicals called nitrosamines, that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") "presumes" nitrosamines to be carcinogenic when they occur at certain levels, and that the EPA sets a hard limit of 1 part per million ('ppm') of NNG in pesticides, including glyphosate products. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants sold the Products or caused the Products to be sold to consumers, even though they knew or should have known at the time of those sales that the Products were defective because the Products could never guarantee they would stay below the 1 ppm safety limit for NNG through the time a consumer uses the entirety of the Product. According to the Plaintiffs, ordinary use consistent with the label makes it substantially certain that NNG will form above 1 ppm before the Product is fully used. The Plaintiffs allege that each Plaintiff read the label on the Product he or she purchased and believed the Product was "chemically identical" to a registered, EPA-approved herbicide, but, unbeknownst to each Plaintiff, the Product had a different chemical composition that enabled it to develop NNG far in excess of the 1 ppm legal limit, which different composition was never approved or registered with the EPA. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that given the lack of an expiration date on the Product, it could be used for an indefinite duration when used and stored in accordance with the label, but, unbeknownst to each Plaintiff, the Product did not last for an indefinite period and could be used only for a limited period of time, if at all. Lastly, the Plaintiffs allege that each Plaintiff was unaware that the Product was substantially certain to develop uncontrollable and unlawful levels of a probable carcinogen, even with use and storage consistent with the label, there being no point-of-sale warnings or advertisements disclosing any of the above. Based on said allegations, the Plaintiffs assert, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, eleven Causes of Action: violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for Breach of Express Warranties, violation of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty, Fraudulent Concealment, Common Law Fraud, Deceit and/or Misrepresentation, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising, Business and Professions Code, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices in violation of Business and Professions Code and Unjust Enrichment. By order filed Feb. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the initial complaint. As set forth on the record at the hearing on those motions, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' initial pleading for failure to sufficiently allege NNG is carcinogenic at any level and for failure to sufficiently allege the Products they purchased are substantially certain to develop NNG at a level above 1 ppm, a limit the Plaintiffs alleged had been set by the EPA. By the same order, the Court afforded the Plaintiffs leave to amend, which they subsequently did. In their motion to dismiss the FAC, Bayer and Monsanto argue that the deficiencies previously identified by the Court have not been cured in the FAC; Scotts, in its separate motion, has joined in those arguments. In their initial complaint, the Plaintiffs, with regard to the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic, relied on a notice filed by the EPA in the Federal Register in June 1980, in which the EPA stated that, as of that time, eighty nitrosamines had been tested for carcinogenicity and, of those, eighty percent were found to be carcinogenic. The Plaintiffs alleged that in said notice, and "in light of" the referenced statistic, the EPA had "adopted" a "process" whereby it would presume nitrosamines are carcinogenic if the level of nitrosamines was more than 1 ppm, unless the manufacturer provided acceptable oncogenic testing proving otherwise. The Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations insufficient, the EPA notice being titled a "Proposed Policy" that had been submitted for public comment and there being no allegation the proposal had ever been adopted by the EPA. The Court also found the Plaintiffs' allegation that most of the tested nitrosamines were determined to be carcinogenic was not, in the absence of other allegations, sufficient to support a finding that NNG itself was carcinogenic. In the FAC, the Plaintiffs have added allegations regarding the EPA's proposed process, as well as other allegations pertinent to the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic. Having considered all of the allegations, the Court finds, as to the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. The next issue presented is what amount of NNG needs to be present before it can be considered carcinogenic and whether any such amount is present in the Products. The Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations in the initial complaint were insufficient to support a finding to that effect, and, as discussed, the Court finds the allegations in the FAC likewise are insufficient to support such a finding. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in this Order, Judge Chesney holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that the Products they purchased are substantially certain to form NNG in excess of 1 ppm, and, consequently, each of their claims fails. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs request further leave to amend in the event the Court finds they have again failed to a state a cognizable claim. As the Plaintiffs fail, however, to identify additional facts they could allege to state such a claim, Judge Chesney points out that further leave to amend will be denied. For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and the First Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/nh2j66ydfrom PacerMonitor.com. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: LW's Bid to Intervene in Woodard Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Memorandum and Order denying LW Holdco IV LLC's Amended Motion to Intervene and Request for Oral Argument and Motion to Request Status Conference in the lawsuit styled KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.). In 2021, Plaintiff Kenneth Joseph Woodward initiated proceedings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Defendants Navient Solutions, LLC, and Navient Credit Finance Corporation (together, "Navient"), alleging Navient had unlawfully collected discharged student-loan debt, in violation of the 11 U.S.C. Section 524 injunction. The matter was first heard by a bankruptcy judge, the Honorable Thomas L. Saladino, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska, who authorized Woodward and similarly situated litigants to move forward as a class. The parties later reached a settlement agreement through extensive negotiations, which was preliminarily approved by the bankruptcy judge on July 6, 2023. In July 2023, this Court received and adopted the Findings and Recommendations of the bankruptcy judge, recommending the Court order the withdrawal of the adversary proceedings from the bankruptcy court and set a hearing on the final approval of the class-action settlement. That hearing was scheduled for Dec. 8, 2023. Now before the Court are LW Holdco IV LLC's ("LW Holdco") Amended Motion to Intervene and Motion for Status Conference to discuss that matter. As of Nov. 22, 2023, LW Holdco seeks to intervene in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 as attorney-in-fact for Smith Law Group LLC and in its own capacity for the purpose of enforcing its interest and the interests of Smith Law in any attorneys' fees, costs, or expenses awarded in connection with the settlement of this action. LW Holdco believes Smith Law is entitled to a fee-split of the attorney fees in this case due to an arrangement that firm had with Woodward's counsel in another matter. Asserting LW Holdco is its attorney-in-fact and also has a financial interest in a portion of Smith Law's present and future claims for fees in certain cases, it seeks to intervene to protect those interests here. LW Holdco argues the Court should grant its motion to intervene as of right but also states that permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is nonetheless warranted because fairness demands that Smith Law be afforded the opportunity to assert its right to fees for the intellectual capital, perseverance, and sweat equity contributed to the cases that resulted in the current settlement. As a result, the Court scheduled a status conference to discuss the parties' positions on whether, in light of the pending Motion to Intervene and Woodward's recent Motion for Attorney Fees, the Dec. 8, 2023 hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement could move forward. Having now received a response regarding that issue from Woodward, as well as a reply from LW Holdco, the Court is satisfied it can and should move forward without a status conference and will deny LW Holdco's request to intervene as untimely. Based on all the circumstances, Judge Rossiter finds that LW Holdco's motion is untimely. First, LW Holdco is incorrect that this matter is still in its earliest stages. In actuality, LW Holdco seeks to intervene at the near "end-game" of the litigation between these parties, who have already reached a settlement agreement after extensive proceedings in bankruptcy court and laborious negotiations. Second, Judge Rossiter opines, the fact that LW Holdco has long been on notice of this litigation and its claimed interest in attorney fees in the matter also strongly cautions against intervention. According to its own filings, LW Holdco has been aware of its interest in this matter since at least July 2022, when it began communicating its position to the Plaintiff's counsel that Smith Law was entitled to a share of the fees in this proceeding. Given this lengthy history and the ongoing lack of assurance that Smith Law's alleged interests in this case would be protected by the parties, the Court disagrees with LW Holdco's assertion that intervention has only now become necessary because of Woodward's counsels' recent representation they have no intention of allocating fees to Smith Law. Thus, even absent any prejudice to the parties, the progress of the litigation, LW Holdco's knowledge of it, and its failure to adequately explain the delay support the Court's denial of its motion, Judge Rossiter points out. Finally, the possible prejudice to the current parties in this matter presented by any late-stage intervention is substantial, Judge Rossiter says. The complex issues potentially presented by LW Holdco's claimed interest would result in a lengthy delay of any final judgment, and the existing parties have already expended considerable time and resources up to this point. In denying LW Holdco's motion as untimely, the Court agrees with the similar conclusion of the district court in Youssef v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 23-MC-02113 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2023). This Court agrees with that court that, given the weighty factors against intervention in this case, LW Holdco has not identified any unusual circumstances weighing in favor of timeliness and has, therefore, failed to establish that its request to intervene should be granted. As such, Judge Rossiter denies LW Holdco IV LLC's Amended Motion to Intervene and Request for Oral Argument, and Motion to Request Status Conference. The hearing on Plaintiff Kenneth Joseph Woodward's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement was to proceed as originally planned on Dec. 8, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3fur4pu8from PacerMonitor.com. NCINO INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- nCino, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2023, that in July 2023, through mediation, the company and the plaintiffs in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 12, 2021 reached a settlement agreement in principle of approximately $2.2 million that remains subject to court approval. The sole class representative in the suit is one individual alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among the company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not to solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2. The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees, the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest. The complaint does not allege any specific damages. nCino is a financial technology company headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina using a cloud-based banking software to help financial institutions to gain efficiencies from digitizing and streamlining processes in commercial banking, small business banking and retail banking. NEW YORK: Court Approves Class Notice in Milburn/Beriquette Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the parties' proposed Notice to the Class in the lawsuit titled PABLO BERIQUETTE, et al., Plaintiffs v. DANIEL F. MARTUCELLO III, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:79-cv-05077-LAP (S.D.N.Y.). As set forth more fully in the Court's Order Preliminarily Approving the Modified Consent Order, Directing Notice to the Class and Scheduling a Fairness Hearing, the Court has approved the parties' proposed Notice to the Class. The parties may distribute to class members the signed and dated Notice that is appended hereto. The Milburn lawsuit was filed in 1979 by prisoners, who challenged how medical care was delivered at Green Haven Correctional Facility. In 1980, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified the case as a class action. In 1982, the parties entered into a Final Judgment in the form of a Consent Order, which was later modified several times. The last modification occurred in 1991, and under that Consent Order, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") and the Green Haven administration agreed to take certain steps to improve the delivery of medical care to Class members. In 2014, the Defendants moved to terminate the Consent Order. In March 2015, without any opposition from the former Class Counsel, the Court terminated the Consent Order. In 2016, certain individuals then incarcerated at Green Haven filed motions asking the Court to reconsider and when those were denied, some of those individuals filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2019, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the lawsuit on the ground that there was no adequate class representative at the time of the termination. The Second Circuit ordered the motion to terminate to be heard again with class representatives, who would have a chance to show current and ongoing violations of their federal rights. On June 30, 2021, the Court substituted Class Counsel and the Court named new representative Plaintiffs. The Class Representatives are currently: Pablo Beriquete, Diogenes Filpo, Lawrence Lewis, Milan Heggs, Alonzo Jacobs, and David Rhodes. Since that time significant litigation activity has occurred, including document and deposition discovery, reports by experts on both sides, and updated briefing on the motion to terminate. After substantial good faith discussions among the Parties and counsel, several conferences with the Court, and without any admissions of violations of the Plaintiffs' rights, the Parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit by entering into a new Modified Consent Order. The Modified Consent Order must be approved by the Court before it can go into effect. The details of the Settlement, summarized in the Notice for convenience, are contained in the Modified Consent Order. The purpose of the Notice is to inform Class members of the proposed settlement in the form of the Modified Consent Order and to give them a chance to object to the terms. The Modified Consent Order grants injunctive relief only, which means that the parties are asking the Court to approve their plan to remedy the alleged patterns of violations of federal rights at Green Haven. This lawsuit, now 44 years old, has never included a claim for damages and the Modified Consent Order does not and cannot include money damages. This means that the settlement does not entitle Class members to a cash payment. It also means that the settlement does not in any way support or extinguish any claim Class members may have for money damages in a separate lawsuit. The Modified Consent Order only addresses issues concerning medical care at Green Haven. If prisoners are transferred to another facility or are released from DOCCS' custody, they are no longer members of the Class and the terms of the Modified Consent Order no longer apply to them. Among other things, the Modified Consent Order provides that at Intake, Green Haven officials will maintain specified medical staffing levels at Green Haven, including the numbers of providers, nurses, and administrators, and maintain enough clerical staff members to ensure patients, their lawyers, and family members can get timely copies of medical records. The Modified Consent Order allows for Co-Class Counsel at the Law Office of Amy Jane Agnew, P.C., to monitor Green Haven's compliance with the terms of the Settlement. Monitoring will be accomplished in part through the production of certain documents by Green Haven, which are listed in the Modified Consent Order. The Court will hold a fairness hearing to approve the Modified Consent Order on Jan. 31, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mtxrmjaafrom PacerMonitor.com. NICK'S LIVE LOBSTERS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nick's Live Lobsters, Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nick's Live Lobsters, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09354 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nick's Live Lobsters Inc. -- http://www.nickslobster.com/index.html -- operates as a restaurant and seafood markets company. The Company provides quality fish and seafood dishes such as live lobsters, baked clams, oysters, shrimp, crab legs, and many more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carino Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Carino, individually and as parent and natural guardian of W.W., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02090 (D. Nev., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought arising out of a targeted cyberattack and data breach that occurred between around March 27, 2023 and May 2, 2023 ("Data Breach") resulting from the Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to safeguard the personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") of millions of individuals. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach, data thieves have already engaged in identity theft and can in the future commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class Members' names, using Class Members' information to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members' information, and giving false information to police during an arrest. The Plaintiffs and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs, e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party or precisely what specific information was disclosed, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Michele Carino and her son W.W., a minor, are citizens of the State of New York. W.W. was and is a patient of Northwell. Northwell describes itself as New York State's largest health system, seeing more than 2 million patients per year and having 900 hospitals and care centers and more than 85,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN and BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad St., 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-567-6565 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com NSC HOLDINGS: Cartwright Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Cartwright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NSC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a/ NSC TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 1:23-cv-05821-JPB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees' and job applicants' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers. On June 26, 2023, NSC discovered a data security incident through which an unauthorized actor gained access to NSC's network and accessed files on its computer systems between June 19, 2023, and June 20, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminals were able to access current and former employees' and job applicants' Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced and/or are at a substantial and imminent risk of experiencing identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, Social Security numbers that NSC collected from its employees and job applicants and maintained in its systems. Compounding the damage done by the Data Breach, NSC failed to notify affected Class Members until nearly five months after it discovered the Data Breach. There has been no assurance offered by NSC that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that it has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, out-of pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of NSC. NSC is a nationwide staffing company that provides workforce solutions to a variety of industrial and technical industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ON POINT GLOBAL: Must Respond to Walker-Schaut Complaint by Jan. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, extends the Defendant's time up to and including Jan. 10, 2024, to respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTY WALKER-SCHAUT, Plaintiff v. ON POINT GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05913-TMC (W.D. Wash.). Pursuant to Local Rule 7(j), Plaintiff Christy Walker-Schaut and Defendant On Point Global LLC submit a stipulated motion for an extension of time for the Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Oct. 10, 2023. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Defendant's original deadline for responding to the Plaintiff's Complaint was Nov. 6, 2023. On Nov. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a stipulated motion for an extension of time as counsel for the Defendant had been recently retained and needed additional time to review the allegations and investigate the underlying facts, before preparing the Defendant's response. The Court granted the motion and extended the time for the Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, to Dec. 6, 2023. The parties have since exchanged preliminary information regarding the Plaintiff's claims and related issues. The parties assert that good cause exists to grant the extension because they continue to investigate the underlying facts, discuss jurisdictional issues, and explore the possibility of an early resolution, which may obviate the need for a response to the Complaint. They assure the Court that the motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the granting of the motion. The parties stipulate and agree, and the Court approves, that the Defendant will have an extension of time up to and including Jan. 10, 2024, to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5n8yja69from PacerMonitor.com. LawHQ, PC -- Conner Spani -- conner.spani@lawhk.com -- in Salt Lake City, Utah 94111, Attorney for the Plaintiff. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP -- Kristin M. Asai -- Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com -- in Portland, Oregon 97204, Attorney for the Defendant. PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Habeas Petition in Minaya-Rodriguez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit styled GILBERTO MINAYA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner V. WARDEN, FCI-ALLENWOOD LOW, Respondent, Case No. 3:23-cv-01725-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.). Petitioner Gilberto Minaya-Rodriguez, an inmate currently confined at the Low Security Correctional Institution Allenwood, in White Deer, Pennsylvania ("LSCI-Allenwood"), initiated the action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. He asserts that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has been unlawfully denying and revoking inmates' time credits under the First Step Act ("FSA"). Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez is serving a 24-month term of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for racketeering and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. His projected release date is Feb. 7, 2024, via FSA earned time credit release. The Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval reveals that Minaya-Rodriguez has not filed any administrative remedies while in BOP custody. The BOP has assessed Minaya-Rodriguez as having earned eighty (80) days of FSA time credits applied towards early release. The Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of eighty-eight (88) inmates at LSCI-Allenwood and alleges that the BOP has unlawfully denied and revoked those inmates' FSA time credits. The Respondent argues that Minaya-Rodriguez's Section 2241 petition must be denied because: (1) he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) he has been accruing FSA time credits and is currently eligible to have his credits applied; and (3) he may not bring this habeas action on behalf of other inmates who are subject to final order of deportation. Judge Mariani finds that Minaya-Rodriguez's Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval report reveals that he failed to exhaust the claims in the instant habeas petition. The undisputed record reflects that he has not filed any administrative remedies during his incarceration. He has not presented any argument that he should be excused from exhausting administrative remedies with respect to his present claims. Thus, Judge Mariani holds, Minaya-Rodriguez's Section 2241 petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. To hold otherwise would frustrate the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine by allowing him to invoke the judicial process despite failing to complete administrative review. Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez contends that the BOP unlawfully revokes FSA time credits when an inmate becomes subject to a final order of deportation. However, Judge Mariani says, the Respondent submitted the Declaration of Jennifer Knepper, BOP Supervisory Attorney, wherein she notes that although a detainer has been lodged against Minaya-Rodriguez, the BOP has no documentation to show that he is subject to a final order of deportation. She further notes that he will continue to accrue credits that will be applied if he remains in earning status. Because Minaya-Rodriguez is eligible to earn FSA time credits and is currently eligible to have those credits applied, Judge Mariani holds that the habeas petition must be denied as he has failed to demonstrate that the BOP is revoking his FSA time credits. Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez purports to bring this habeas petition on behalf of eighty-eight (88) other named inmates at LSCI-Allenwood. The other inmate-petitioners did not sign the petition. However, under the provisions of Section 2242, the signing of the habeas corpus petition by Minaya-Rodriguez on the other inmates' behalf is acceptable. While Minaya-Rodriguez may arguably sign the Section 2241 petition on behalf of the other inmates, the remaining question is whether he, as a prose litigant, can adequately represent their interests. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there are four prerequisites, which must be met before Minaya-Rodriguez's proposed class action may be certified. Since Minaya-Rodriguez, a pro se inmate litigant, intends to serve as a class representative, any request for class certification does not meet the threshold consideration that the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, Judge Mariani opines. Accordingly, he cannot pursue this matter as a class action on behalf of fellow inmate-petitioners. Because he fails to satisfy at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(a), the Court need not consider whether he has shown that the proposed class satisfies one of the three requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bd2syszefrom PacerMonitor.com. PHH MORTGAGE: Dantzler Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Dantzler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, Case No. 2:23-cv-10562 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") as a consumer protection action brought by Plaintiff and others similarly situated to obtain redress from PHH's systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans. Specifically, during the relevant time period, PHH sent borrowers form letters alleging that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that the failure to immediately make a full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in acceleration of their loan (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Letter"). However, the false ultimatum contained in the Final Letter contradicts PHH's actual policies regarding acceleration and foreclosure. The Final Letter sent by PHH to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making payments to PHH that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, California. PHH is regularly engaged in the business of collecting debt in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson (SBN 317598) MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PHIL MURPHY: Jackson Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Kevin Jackson, and all similarly situated prisoners v. PHIL MURPHY, Governor, State of New Jersey; VICTORIA KUHN, Commissioner, New Jersey Dept. of Corrections; Administrator, Bayside State Prison; Former Administrator, Bayside State Prison; ASST. SUPERINTENDENT SMITH, Bayside State Prison; KELLY DANIELS, Assistant Commissioner; SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION; SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION, Principal, Bayside State Prison; SGT. D. SLIMMER, Mailroom Officer, Bayside State Prison; AMY SOUTHWICK Assistant Ombudsman, Office of Corrections, State of New Jersey; JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, to be named at a later date; Case No. 1:23-cv-23183-RMB-AMD (D.N.D., Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Philip Dunton Murphy is an American politician, diplomat, and financier from the state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff appear pro se. PROGRESSIVE GULF: Files Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Defendants Progressive Gulf Insurance Company and Mountain Laurel Assurance Company submit to the Court an unopposed motion to seal. Specifically, the Defendants request that the Court accept the proposed redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and allow the unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 4 to be filed under seal. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41lO4wQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: La'Toyia J. Slay, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 1020 Highland Colony Pkwy, Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 985-4436 Facsimile: (601) 985-4500 E-mail: La'Toyia.Slay@butlersnow.com - and - Adam Spicer, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Daniel S. Sanders, III, Esq. Erin Munger, Esq. Logan R. Hobson, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: aspicer@kslaw.com jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com dsanders@kslaw.com emunger@kslaw.com lhobson@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com PROGRESSIVE GULF: MII, JD Power Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Third-Party Respondents Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power (Third-Party Respondents), submit an unopposed motion to seal. Specifically, the Third-Party Respondents request that the Court accept the proposed redactions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and portions, or all of, Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of Plaintiffs' Motion; and Defendants' Motion for Class Certification and portions, or all of, Exhibits A, D, E, F, G, HH, II, JJ, P, and Z, and allow the unredacted versions of these materials to be permanently sealed from public access only, with CM/ECF access permitted to the litigants' counsel pursuant to Local Rule 79(e)(3)(B)(2). Progressive provides property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Third-Party Respondents' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47U1eUp at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel For Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power, are: Jennifer M. Studebaker, Esq. Courtney C. Hunt, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201-2375 E-mail: jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com Courtney.hunt@formanwatkins.com PROPARK AMERICA: Benavides Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Propark America West, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nancy Benavides, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. Propark America West, LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 23STCV30876 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2023). Propark Mobility -- https://www.propark.com/ -- is a national parking management company with over 35 years of experience offering premium service in the parking industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Fax: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com Q3 CONTRACTING: Faces Rael Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD RAEL, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Q3 CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03720 (D. Minn., Dec. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime and earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. Plaintiff Rael worked for Q3C as a utility locator in and around Denver, Colorado from approximately March 2023 until July 2023. The Plaintiff asserts that he and the other hourly utility locators regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek but Q3C does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, Q3C requires him and the other hourly utility locators to work significant time "off the clock" without pay, says the Plaintiff. In addition to depriving Plaintiff Rael and the other hourly utility locators of pay for time worked "off the clock" before their first ticket and after their last ticket, Q3C also requires these workers to clock out for 30 minutes a day for so-called "meal breaks," the suit contends. Q3 Contracting, Inc. provides underground utility locating services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.),the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing her as Class Representative, and appointing Kevin Kneupper and Cyclone Covey as Class Counsel. Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rkx6KH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com QUINOA CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HEYNING, v. QUINOA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04755-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order vacating case management order as follows: Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Mar. 7, 2024 Deadline to Move for Class Certification Aug. 8, 2024 Deadline to File Opposition to Class Oct. 3, 2024 Certification Motion Deadline to File Reply in Support of Class Nov. 29, 2024 Certification Motion Hearing on Class Certification Motion Jan. 9, 2025 Quinoa provides packaged food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4acPq0R at no extra charge.[CC] RAB INC: Seley Sues Over Collection Agents' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE SELEY and REBECCA WHITEHEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAB, INC. AND LEE WADDELL, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02675 (N.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiffs and Class members required overtime wages. Plaintiffs Seley and Whitehead were employed by the Defendants as collection agents from March 18, 2020 through termination, and from March 2, 2021 through March 3, 2023, respectively. They assert that they are affected by the Defendants pattern, practice and policy of mis-categorizing hours and failing to pay overtime wages. Rab, Inc. is a collection agency in Addison, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elisaveta Dolghih, Esq. DOLGHIH LAW GROUP PLLC 2626 Cole Ave., Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 E-mail: leiza@dlg-legal.com REDBUBBLE INC: Seeks Denial of Walllster Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLSTER, INC., dba WALLSHOPPE, a California corporation, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. REDBUBBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02958-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) to deny class certification. Despite all of these efforts to resolve the class allegations, the Parties' counsel could not reach a resolution of the issues raised by Redbubble in the Motion. Redbubble seeks an order from this Court granting Redbubble's Motion to Deny Class Certification as Plaintiff missed its June 8, 2023 deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification and fails to demonstrate the minimum necessary requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). Redbubble is a global online marketplace for print-on-demand products based on user-submitted artwork. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rp7WL2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Teresa H. Michaud, Esq. Sara Victoria M. Pitt, Esq. BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-4728 Facsimile: (310) 201-4721 E-mail: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com sara.pitt@bakermckenzie.com - and - Allyson R. Bennett, Esq. Katherine McNutt, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: ABennett@mofo.com KMcNutt@mofo.com - and - Kenneth B. Wilson, Esq. COASTSIDE LEGAL 455 1st Avenue Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Telephone: (650) 440-4211 E-mail: ken@coastsidelegal.com REGIONAL FAMILY: Hicks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Astina Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Regional Family Medicine, P.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-03054-TLB (W.D. Ark., Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Regional Family Medicine, P.A. -- https://www.rfmmh.com/ -- offers healthcare services from pediatric care to family medicine including X-ray and therapy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com REGIONAL FAMILY: Luebke Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Karen Luebke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regional Family Medicine, P.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-03055-TLB (W.D. Ark., Dec. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Regional Family Medicine, P.A. -- https://www.rfmmh.com/ -- offers healthcare services from pediatric care to family medicine including X-ray and therapy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com REMEDIES HERB SHOP: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remedies Herb Shop, LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Remedies Herb Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09008-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remedies Herb Shop -- https://remediesherbshop.com/ -- is New York's best store for organic loose herbs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com RETAIL SERVICES: Cravens Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------- Christina Cravens and Tonya Bearden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-02313-GPC-MMP (S.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and bring Unjust Enrichment claims and claims for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") due to WIS' failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt inventory auditors for work that WIS has suffered and permitted them to perform for its own benefit as their employer. WIS employs the Plaintiffs and thousands of other similarly situated employees in the United States as inventory auditors and/or in other functionally equivalent hourly positions (collectively, Plaintiffs and the other auditors will be referred to herein as the "Auditors"). These positions are not exempt from the overtime or minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. Nonetheless, as a matter of policy and practice, WIS has failed to compensate the Auditors with overtime pay because it has systematically failed to fully record and compensate them for all their hours worked. Specifically, WIS requires its Auditors--of which Plaintiffs were two--to load and unload equipment, travel between their meeting place and various audit sites, and receive daily briefings, while off the clock. On average, Plaintiffs estimate that they worked between 2.5 and 4 hours each shift that were not captured in the time that WIS recorded for the shift or the time that WIS paid them for. This uncompensated, off-the-clock work is integral and indispensable to the principal activities of the Auditors' jobs. WIS's policies and practices have deprived the Auditors of substantial amounts of wages, including overtime, which they have earned and to which they are entitled. The Plaintiffs--on behalf of themselves and all of the other Auditors--seek compensation and credit for all unrecorded and uncompensated work time, including overtime, liquidated damages, and/or all other relief permitted by law. Plaintiffs also request reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Auditors. WIS is an international corporation that provides inventory/data collection and merchandising services to large retail stores across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 875-3332 Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com - and - Cecilia N. Brennan, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 200 (#77) San Diego, California 92101 Phone/Fax: (619) 717-6410 Email: cbrennan@hkm.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed in Gilburd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rachael Gilburd, et al., v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: -- The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue is denied. -- The Court also denies Defendant's request for certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). -- The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is granted in part as follows: 1. The Court conditionally certifies Plaintiffs' collective action for a period of three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' First Amended. The case is a collective action arising out of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs Rachael Gilburd, Andrew Gebhart, Daniel Featherstone, Derek Martin, Angela McGuire, Kori Morin, Katherine Redas, Erin Salava, David Vallejo, and Nick Vincent, on behalf of themselves all other persons similarly situated, accuse Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC of failing to pay overtime wages pursuant to § 207 of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs propose a collective class for their FLSA claim as follows: "All persons who work[ed] for Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC or its predecessor entities Quicken Loans, LLC and Quicken Loans, Inc.; who work[ed] over [forty] hours in any given workweek as a past or present mortgage banker or similar title, or who performed the job duties of working with borrowers through loan processing." Rocket is an American mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41gU3mq at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT AUGUSTINES UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Augustines University. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Augustines University, Case No. 1:23-cv-10954 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saint Augustine's University -- https://www.st-aug.edu/ -- is a private historically black Christian college in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SAM'S WEST: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Opposition Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its application to continue its deadline to file an opposition to Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Sam's Club seeks ex parte relief due to: (1) the current briefing schedule providing Sam’s Club only one week to oppose Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification; and (2) the Court’s denying the Parties' stipulation to continue the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show good cause for the continuation. The case involves a putative statewide class action concerning all hourly-paid Sam's Club associates in California, alleging failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and wages at termination. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on April 11, 2022, and the Court denied Plaintiff's First Motion on May 4, 2023. The Plaintiff's First Motion was hard fought -- the parties collectively submitted nearly 100 witness declarations and conducted dozens of depositions. The briefing schedule for Plaintiff's First Motion allowed Sam's Club four weeks to prepare and file an opposition. Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only warehouse club retail stores owned and operated by Walmart Inc. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/487SjOY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Carmen M. Aguado, Esq. Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com carmen.aguado@ogletree.com mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Google, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02215-LL-DEB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2023) seeks to address Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients' confidential, personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta and Google, Inc. without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Defendant owns and controls scripps.org, which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, and more. Unbeknownst to patients, Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its Website. These Tracking Tools, such as pixels, web beacons, or cookies, track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook or Google, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) diminution of value of their private information; and (iv) the continued and ongoing risk to their private information, the suit contends. Scripps Health is a non-profit healthcare entity operating throughout the San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Alex J. Tramontano, Esq. Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com tramontano@whafh.com zekiri@whafh.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (747) 777-7748 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com SEASONAL YARD WORK: Scutellaro Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seasonal Yard Work & Landscaping, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Scutellaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seasonal Yard Work & Landscaping, Inc. doing business as: Mr. Level, Case No. 1:23-cv-24634-JAL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Seasonal Yard Work -- https://seasonalyardwork.com/ -- specializes in building and maintaining all outdoor living spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com gberg@shamisgentile.com scott@edelsberglaw.com SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shorter University, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Shorter University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10953 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shorter University -- https://www.shorter.edu/ -- is a Christ-centered, four-year liberal arts university committed to excellence in education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS: Brown Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Omar Brown, an individual v. SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS AUTHORITY, Case No. 2023-CP-10-05303 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, County of Charleston, State of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06799-BHH-PJG. The Plaintiff's claims arise solely under the laws of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action for gender, sexual, and racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Oliver Eckard, Esq. Michelle McMahon, Esq. Ryan Van Buren, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 211 King Street, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: 843.853.1300 Facsimile: 843.853.9992 Email: michael.eckard@ogletreedeakins.com michelle.mcmahon@ogletreedeakins.com ryan.vanburen@ogletreedeakins.com STATE FARM MUTUAL: King Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert King, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Judson Mitchell, Case No. G-4801-CI-0202304291-000 was removed from the Lucas County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 18, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02403-JZ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Portnoy, Esq. 810 West South Boundary Road Perrysburg, OH 43551 Phone: (419) 874-2775 Fax: (419) 874-2777 Email: hawkport@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter J. Georgiton, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL-COLUMBUS 191 West Nationwide Blvd., Ste. 300 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 628-6963 Fax: (614) 628-6890 Email: peter.georgiton@dinsmore.com SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Connector Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- SunPower Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2023 that it is facing a purported securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 16, 2022, by putative shareholder Piotr Jaszczyszyn purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from August 3, 2021 to January 20, 2022. The complaint was filed following the company's January 20, 2022 announcement that it had identified a cracking issue that developed over time in certain factory-installed connectors and that it expects to record approximately $27.0 million of supplier-quality related charges in the fourth quarter of 2021 and approximately $4.0 million in the first quarter of 2022, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that defendants failed to disclose the following to investors that certain connectors used by the company suffered from cracking issues, that, as a result, the company was reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the faulty connectors, that, as a result, the company's financial results would be adversely impacted and that, as a result, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 13, 2022, the court appointed Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds as lead plaintiff in the action. On December 15, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that named the same defendants and brought the same claims as the previous complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently due on February 24, 2023. SunPower Corporation (together with its subsidiaries) is a solar technology and energy services provider that offers fully integrated solar, storage, and home energy solutions to customers primarily in the United States and Canada through an array of hardware, software, and financing options and "Smart Energy" solutions. TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren City Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00181-BLW (D. Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants Teleperformance's Motion to Transfer Venue. The City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System ("The City"), a Michigan-based retirement fund, filed a class action lawsuit against Teleperformance, SE, and several of its corporate officers, including CEO Daniel Julien, Deputy CEO and CFO Olivier Rigaudy, and Akash Pugalia, the Global President of Trust and Safety. The lawsuit alleges that Teleperformance and its officers violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements about employee working conditions that inflated the company's stock prices. Teleperformance is a global company that provides "omnichannel customer experience management services and related digital services" to companies. It is based in Paris, France, but has numerous offices throughout the United States in the form of subsidiary entities. These include an office in Boise, Idaho, an office in Port St. Lucie, Florida, and corporate headquarters in Miami, Florida. Of relevance to this action are Teleperformance's content-moderation services. Content moderation services use both AI and company employees to review potentially inappropriate or dangerous user-generated content on digital platforms for the purpose of flagging or removing that content. From 2020 to 2022, Teleperformance provided content moderation services for various digital platforms, including TikTok. Between 2020 and 2022, Teleperformance experienced growth in its Core Services and Digital Integrated Business Services (i.e., content moderation). As a result, content moderation grew to account for approximately 9% of the company's profitability in 2022. During this time, Teleperformance touted its success through numerous press releases and earnings calls, including by highlighting the fact that the company had been named a "Great Place to Work(R)" after evaluation by independent third parties. Teleperformance, through its corporate officers Julien, Rigaudy, and Pugalia, claimed to make employee well-being "a key priority." Teleperformance also claimed to deploy a number of initiatives and tools in the areas of hiring, professional training and development, human rights, diversity and inclusion, wellbeing, and occupational health and safety, and emphasized its commitment to corporate and social responsibility. Teleperformance officers made these and other similar statements between July 29, 2020, and Nov. 9, 2022. On Aug. 4, 2022, Forbes Magazine published an article entitled, "TikTok Moderators are Being Trained Using Graphic Images of Child Sexual Abuse." The article cited interviews with current and past Teleperformance content moderators, who revealed that Teleperformance provided access to real images of child pornography, terrorism, and other graphic content for training purposes. The content moderators were allegedly instructed to refer to this content as they moderated platforms to inform them of what was and was not appropriate. Many of those interviewed also said that repeatedly viewing explicit content on the job severely impacted their mental health, and that they felt Teleperformance did not provide adequate mental health care. Time Magazine published a similar article on Oct. 20, 2022. That article also cited interviews with Teleperformance content moderators, who made similar claims to those described in the Forbes article. Most of the interviewed employees were either based in El Paso, Texas, or Colombia, South America. One prior employee, who was quoted in the article, had previously worked in Boise, Idaho. Following the publication of these articles, the price of Teleperformance American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) declined over 50% from its Class Period high. The City alleges that the Defendants' statements regarding the success of the company and the prioritization of employee well-being were false and, therefore, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In other words, The City alleges that Teleperformance executives made false statements regarding their employees' working conditions and, therefore, knowingly inflated company stock prices. The City then filed a securities class action lawsuit in this Court on behalf of all persons, who purchased Teleperformance ADRs between July 29, 2020, and Nov. 9, 2022. Teleperformance filed the present Motion to Transfer Venue on Aug. 15, 2023, asking this Court to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Winmill notes that the Ninth Circuit has outlined eight private factors (the Jones factors) for courts to consider when deciding Section 1404(a) motions to transfer: (1) the location where any relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the state most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum; (5) contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum; (6) differences in the cost of litigation in the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof (Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 798 (9th Cir. 2000)). Judge Winmill finds that most of the Jones factors weigh in favor of transferring the case. The Court concludes that the City's argument to maintain venue in Idaho essentially boils down to the fact that Idaho was the venue they selected. But that fact, alone, is not enough to overcome the Defendant's showing of inconvenience and cost to the parties and non-party witnesses. The Court, therefore, grants Teleperformance's Motion to Transfer Venue. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2p9a5jt4from PacerMonitor.com. THERMO TECH: Scheduling Order Entered in Lopez Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, v. THERMO TECH MECHANICAL INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a scheduling order as follows: -- That defendants shall file their opposition to the class certification motion no later than January 5, 2024, and plaintiff shall file his reply no later than January 19, 2024. -- The Defendants' counsel's excuse that plaintiff's counsel failed to "provide mailing or payment instructions to Defendants regarding the transmittal of the payment to Plaintiff's counsel's law firm, until 10:36 a.m." on December 1, 2023, does not justify the failure to timely pay the $500 sanction ordered by the Court. Thermo Tec is a local, family-run HVAC company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nmi8CK at no extra charge.[CC] THOMAS J. MCADAM: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas J. McAdam Liquors, Inc. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Thomas J. McAdam Liquors, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09342 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thomas J. McAdam Liquors, Inc. doing business as Buy Rite Liquor -- https://buyriteliquor.com/ -- formerly known as Cedar Gardens Liquors, is a well-known and well reputable Route 33 liquor store that has been serving Hamilton residents for years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Mitchell ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONN MITCHELL, v. TOYOTA OF DALLAS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order: 1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order. The motion must comply with Local Rule 23.2 (except paragraph (f)), and must be accompanied by all supporting evidence, including expert testimony, if any, and supporting brief. 2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60 days of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings after that date must show good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b). 3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. 5. On the Submission Date, the parties must file with the Court the motion for class certification, response, and reply, together with all supporting evidence and briefs. Toyota of Dallas offers Toyota sales and service. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsdFOO at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Yeh Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled HENRY YEH, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01790-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. To provide adequate procedural background on this motion, the Court begins not with the origins of this case, but of another: Price v. Twitter, Inc. Price v. Twitter was filed in May 2022 and alleged various state and common law causes of action arising from Twitter's allegedly deceptive disclosure and sale of user contact information for marketing purposes. At the time of filing, the relevant defendant was known as "Twitter, Inc." Now, of course, that entity is known as "X Corp." Throughout this order, the Court will refer to the Defendant as "Twitter" for the sake of clarity and consistency. Both parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and the case was assigned to The Honorable Sallie Kim. On Aug. 15, 2022, Twitter moved to dismiss the Price action, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Its attack on standing was detailed and extensive: Twitter dedicated pages to arguing that the Price plaintiffs failed to establish "any particularized, concrete, or future injury from Twitter's alleged use of basic contact information to display more relevant advertising." Judge Kim agreed that the Price plaintiffs failed to adequately plead injury sufficient for standing, and on Dec. 6, 2022, granted Twitter's motion with leave to amend. Meanwhile, virtually identical cases were bubbling up elsewhere in the district. On Aug. 15, 2022 -- the same day Twitter filed its motion to dismiss in the Price action --- a group of plaintiffs that included Henry Yeh filed Gianakopoulos v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-04674-AGT. A few days later, yet more plaintiffs initiated another follow-on action: McClellan v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-04758-TSH. On Sept. 23, 2022, both the Gianakopoulos and McClellan actions were reassigned to Judge Kim. Accordingly, by the time the Price plaintiffs received Judge Kim's December ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, multiple cases had been filed alleging overlapping claims. The Price, Gianakoploulos, and McClellan actions were consolidated in January 2023, and the plaintiffs ultimately filed their consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 6, 2023. Notably, the consolidated complaint dropped Mr. Yeh as a named plaintiff. On March 1, 2023, Twitter once again moved to dismiss the consolidated amended Price complaint, and once again argued that the plaintiffs' amended allegations did not support Article III standing. In its Reply, however, Twitter asserted that because standing was intertwined with the merits for some of the plaintiffs' claims, the court could consider (and then dismiss) those claims on the merits. While Twitter's motion was pending, Mr. Yeh reappeared, only this time in state court. On March 10, 2023, Mr. Yeh (represented by the same counsel) filed a class action complaint substantively identical to the consolidated Price complaint in the San Francisco County Superior Court. The Defendants timely removed Yeh v. Twitter, Inc., to federal court, arguing that jurisdiction over this Class Action Fairness Action ("CAFA") case is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) (which vests district courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, there is minimal diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the action involves at least 100 class members). On April 26, 2023, Judge Kim found that Yeh was related to the consolidated Price action, and the case was reassigned to her. However, because Mr. Yeh did not consent to magistrate jurisdiction, the case was reassigned to this Court. Days later, the consolidated Price action was voluntarily dismissed without a ruling on Twitter's second motion to dismiss. Following the dismissal and closure of the consolidated Price action, Mr. Yeh's case remained before this Court (Yeh v. Twitter, Case No. 23-cv-01790-HSG). On May 12, 2023, Mr. Yeh moved to remand his case to state court, arguing that the Court's subject matter jurisdiction was in question given the Defendant's prior attacks on Article III standing for the similarly situated Price plaintiffs. Twitter moved to dismiss the case (on grounds other than deficient standing), and then opposed Mr. Yeh's motion to remand. The parties do not dispute that on the facts of this case, statutory standing exists under CAFA. The only real dispute is whether the Defendant has met its burden of establishing Article III standing. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that it has not, and accordingly, will remand the case. The crux of the Plaintiff's motion is that the Defendant -- the party who invoked federal jurisdiction by removing the case from state court -- bears the burden of showing that Mr. Yeh's claims articulate an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Though all removing parties bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, Judge Gilliam says Twitter's task here is unusually challenging: since it previously spilled considerable ink in the Price action arguing that the plaintiffs identically situated to Mr. Yeh had not shown Article III standing, Twitter's decision to remove this materially identical case to federal court comes as something of a plot twist. Given the inconsistency between the Defendant's arguments in Price and its actions in Yeh, Judge Gilliam points out that the Plaintiff's motion puts the Defendant on the spot to "submit support for standing." The Defendant did not. To be sure, it did other things: it argued that there is "no antiremoval presumption" under CAFA, and that the Court has jurisdiction to hear its claims because the "jurisdictional arguments are intertwined with the merits." But nowhere in its opposition did Twitter affirmatively state that the Plaintiff has standing under Article III -- let alone articulate how, Judge Gilliam observes. Establishing jurisdiction (including Article III standing) was the Defendant's obligation as the party removing the case and invoking federal jurisdiction. While the Plaintiff admittedly did not put forward an affirmative argument as to why standing does not exist (which would be the typical posture), the Court cannot ignore that the Defendant already did. Without the Defendant now showing that standing is proper after previously arguing to the contrary, the Court cannot consider the merits of the case. Though the Defendant suggests that this Court can rule on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instead of on jurisdictional grounds under Rule 12(b)(1) because the jurisdiction and merits issues are intertwined, the Court is not persuaded. After carefully reviewing the parties' cited cases, the Court is of the view that the "intertwined" principle is far narrower than the Defendant urges. Since in this case the jurisdiction inquiries do not arise under a federal statute, but instead under Article III, Judge Gilliam finds that that exceptional rule just does not apply. And though the Defendant asserts that "absent 'truly frivolous' claims, issues that are intertwined with the merits are not matters of constitutional standing," it cites no authority clearly establishing this purported "bedrock principle." To the extent that the Defendant raises this argument to suggest that this Court need not find Article III standing before proceeding to evaluate the Plaintiff's UCL and contract claims, the Court finds no support for that contention, and the cases the Defendant cite (which, as the Plaintiff points out, did not arise in the context of remand) do not supply it. In many of the Defendant's cited cases, for example, Judge Gilliam says the courts clearly addressed the question of Article III standing, even if they then proceeded to dismiss on the merits certain statutory claims for standing reasons. These cases simply do not suggest that where jurisdiction is in doubt, as it is here, the Court can nonetheless proceed to rule on the merits of state and common law claims. Ultimately, the Defendant's argument that the Court can maintain jurisdiction under a plainly inapplicable "intertwined" theory falls short of establishing that the Plaintiff has standing, which is its burden, Judge Gilliam opines. The Defendant's attempt to evade that burden here is notable given its prior arguments against standing, Judge Gilliam points out, among other things. For all of these reasons, the Court is persuaded that since the Defendant did not meet its affirmative burden of establishing the Plaintiff's Article III standing after previously putting it in question repeatedly in materially identical litigation, remand is appropriate. The Court adds that it cannot conclude that the Plaintiff's claims are definitively doomed in state court, and accordingly, will remand rather than dismiss. Hence, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand and terminates as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss and its associated request for judicial notice. The Court remands the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. The Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5cerfsuxfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Suit Moved From Illinois to New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, transfers to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey the lawsuit captioned DEMETRA BINDER, BARBEL PERISSA, and CHRISTINA CALCAGNO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, and USPA PROPERTIES, INC., and DOES 1‒50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 23 CV 2910 (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiffs Demetra Binder, Barbel Perissa, and Christina Calcagno, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring a seven-count first amended class action complaint against Defendants United States Polo Association, Inc. and USPA Properties, Inc., for an alleged false reference-pricing scheme in the Defendants' retail stores in New Jersey, New York, and California, and on the internet. The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of: the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act; the New York Consumer Protection From Deceptive Acts and Practices Act; the New York False Advertising Law; California's Unfair Competition Law; and California's False Advertising Law. On Sept. 28, 2023, the Defendants moved to transfer venue from this Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). For the reasons expressed here, the Court grants the Defendants' motion. Plaintiff Binder, a New Jersey resident, filed her original complaint against the Defendants on May 9, 2023, which included only factual allegations related to her transaction at U.S. Polo Association's outlet store in New Jersey, claims under New Jersey law, and a New Jersey proposed class. On July 17, 2023, the Defendants filed their first motion to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey. Binder then attempted to concurrently file her response and move for leave to file a first amended complaint that would invalidate the Defendants' arguments in its motion. The first amended complaint added: named Plaintiffs Perissa (a New York resident) and Calcagno (a California resident); factual allegations regarding Perissa and Calcagno's transactions at U.S. Polo Association's outlet stores in New York and California; claims under New York and California law; and New York and California proposed classes. After the Court instructed Binder to separately file these briefs, the parties stipulated for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted, and the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on Aug. 31, 2023. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint defines the three proposed classes as "All persons, within the State of New Jersey, New York, or California, who purchased from a New Jersey, New York, or California U.S. Polo Association retail store." The Defendants filed the instant motion to transfer to the District of New Jersey on Sept. 28, 2023. The parties do not dispute that the Northern District of Illinois is a proper venue for the instant case, and this Court properly has jurisdiction. The Defendants, however, move to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey. They argue that none of the alleged acts occurred in Illinois, none of the named Plaintiffs are connected to Illinois, and none of the proposed classes are connected to Illinois. Further, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs bring claims under only non-Illinois state law, and none of the critical witnesses are likely to reside in Illinois. The Plaintiffs counter that it makes sense for the case to be heard in this court because the Defendants are incorporated here. The Plaintiffs also argue that this Court is centrally located, although they acknowledge that the relevant defense witnesses are likely located in Florida where the Defendants are headquartered and, thus, where its pricing policies and practices presumably originated. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs conflate "jurisdiction" and "venue," and the distinction is important. As the Plaintiffs assert in their amended complaint, subject matter jurisdiction over their claims comes from the minimal diversity contemplated by the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The fact that the Plaintiffs bring claims under New York and California law does not change the District of New Jersey's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA, which depends on the diverse citizenship of the parties rather than the source of law that underlies their claims, Judge Gettleman opines. Similarly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants based on their domicile, which makes them "at home" in Illinois. While the Defendants would not be "at home" in the District of New Jersey, that court would have specific personal jurisdiction over them based on their purposeful contacts with the state (i.e., the New Jersey outlet store), Judge Gettleman says. Conversely, venue is based on the Defendants' location or the location of the relevant events. The Court considers, among other things, whether the District of New Jersey has a stronger interest in resolving this controversy. It is true, as the Plaintiffs argue, that Illinois has an interest in regulating the entities incorporated under its jurisdiction from violating consumer protection laws, Judge Gettleman says. Yet, Illinois has no interest in regulating out-of-state transactions that affect non-Illinois citizens. Moreover, Judge Gettleman explains, the District of New Jersey has a stake in resolving this controversy within its community, in front of a locally comprised prospective jury, given the location of the relevant outlet store and its probable customers. Further, the Court acknowledges that Binder added Perissa and Calcagno only after the Defendants filed their initial motion to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey, which would have been an appropriate venue at that time. Ostensibly, Binder sought to amend her complaint in order to moot the Defendants' motion. Engaging in such conduct runs counter to the interest of justice, Judge Gettleman points out. The Plaintiffs cite the median number of months from filing to civil disposition in the two districts: 6.7 months in the Northern District of Illinois compared to 10.0 months in the District of New Jersey, amounting to a difference of 3.3 months. By amending their complaint to avoid transfer, Judge Gettleman notes, the Plaintiffs added almost three months to the timeline of this case in this district, which effectively makes up the difference. Based on its consideration of the factors discussed, this Court concludes that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interest of justice, favor transfer. For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for transfer, relinquishes its jurisdiction, and orders the Court Clerk to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/54f5mrszfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Padilla v. ICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies in part and grants in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled YOLANY PADILLA, IBIS GUZMAN, BLANCA ORANTES, BALTAZAR VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00928-MJP (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiffs and the Class they represent are "inadmissible" noncitizens, who have come to the United States to seek asylum. After being placed in expedited removal proceedings and detained, the Plaintiffs have been found to have a credible fear of persecution and their asylum claims were transferred to standard removal proceedings. In June 2018, the Plaintiffs filed suit to enforce their right to a bond hearing that complies with the Due Process Clause while they await a determination on their asylum application. Although all four named Plaintiffs were given bond hearings, they fear that they and similarly-situated individuals face the risk of being re-detained and deprived of bond hearings in light of the Attorney General's decision that bond hearings will no longer be given to asylum seekers similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. In 2019, the Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that required the Defendants to provide bond hearings to the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated individuals, and set certain procedural requirements consistent with due process. After the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the injunction, the Supreme Court vacated the injunction and remanded the matter to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020). The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court with instructions to vacate the injunction and for further consideration in light of Thuraissigiam and two other Supreme Court decisions. The Plaintiffs have now filed their Fourth Amended Complaint through which they continue to seek to enforce their right to bond hearings that comport with due process. The Defendants challenge the Court's jurisdiction over such claims and the adequacy of the allegations in light of Thuraissigiam and other precedent. The Court initially denied, in part, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and certified two classes of similarly-situated individuals--those seeking a timely credible fear interview (the Credible Fear Class) and those seeking a bond hearing comporting with due process (the Bond Hearing Class). The Court then issued and modified a preliminary injunction, requiring the Executive Office for Immigration Review to: (1) conduct bond hearings within seven days of a request for those in the Bond Hearing Class; (2) satisfy the burden of proof as to why the Bond Hearing Class members should not be released on bond, parole or other conditions; (3) record the bond hearing and produce the recording or verbatim transcript of the hearing upon appeal; and (4) produce a written decision with particularized determinations of individualized findings at the conclusion of the bond hearing. The Defendants timely appealed and the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction in large part, but remanded for consideration of whether all of the procedural requirements and the nationwide scope of the injunction were appropriate. The Supreme Court, then, vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion and remanded the matter to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020). The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court with "instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Biden v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___,142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022), Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, __ U.S.__, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), and Thuraissigiam. Upon receipt of the mandate, the Court vacated the preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs then filed their Fourth Amended Complaint, and the Defendants moved for dismissal of all claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Since then, the Parties settled the credible-fear-related claims, and the Court has set a final fairness hearing on the settlement. The Parties agree that the Motion to Dismiss should only be decided as to the Bond Hearing Class and their bond-hearing-related claims. Accordingly, this Order omits any analysis of the credible fear claims. Plaintiffs Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes, and Baltazar Vasquez filed this class action to challenge, among other things, the government's alleged policy and practice of failing to provide constitutionally-adequate bond hearings for detained asylum seekers, who have been found to have a credible fear and whose asylum applications remain pending. They allege they were detained at the border for entering without inspection and placed into expedited removal proceedings. But each successfully made showings of credible fear and their asylum applications were placed into standard removal proceedings. After receiving positive credible fear findings, each Plaintiff was given a bond hearing. At their bond hearings, the Plaintiffs were all required to prove they were not a danger or flight risk, and no verbatim transcript or recording of the proceedings was made. Although Padilla and Vasquez were released after posting $8,000 bonds, both Plaintiffs Guzman and Orantes were denied bond with little or no explanation. Guzman and Orantes were released from detention only after the government was required to comply with a preliminary injunction in another matter. All four Plaintiffs aver that they and Class members face the prospect of being re-detained without a bond hearing. The Defendants challenge the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants also move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that even if the Court has jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim. Judge Pechman holds that the Defendants incorrectly argue that two provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) bar the Plaintiffs' claims. Neither provision applies to this action, Judge Pechman points out. First, the Court continues to find that Section 1252(a)(2)(A) has no application to the Plaintiffs' claims. Second, the Court continues to find that Section 1252(e)(3), does not strip the Court of jurisdiction. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), which rejected application of a similar jurisdiction-stripping provision to claims challenging the detention process for those facing removal. Judge Pechman points out that the same logic applies here because the Plaintiffs challenge only the constitutionality of their detention, and the relief they seek does implicate the removal system. The Court rejects the Defendants' argument and continues to find that it has jurisdiction over the claims regarding bond hearings. Hence, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion as to jurisdiction, and finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendants primarily argue that Thuraissigiam compels the Court to find that the Plaintiffs enjoy only those procedural protections provided for by statute, and that this does not include bond hearings. The Defendants further contend that beyond Thuraissigiam, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a valid substantive or procedural due process claim. The Court finds no merit in any of the Defendants' arguments. The Court stands unconvinced that the Supreme Court's decision in Thuraissigiam requires dismissal of the Plaintiffs' due process claim. Given the distinct claims presented in Thuraissigiam, the Court finds the decision's narrow holding presents no bar to the Plaintiffs' claim. Nothing in Thuraissigiam suggests the Plaintiffs lack such a due process right, Judge Pechman holds. As such, the Court denies the Motion as to this issue. The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a substantive and procedural due process claim. The Court notes that this Order does not resolve whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a bond hearing within the seven day time-frame they have requested in their complaint. Judge Pechman holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they are entitled to a bond hearing in an expedited fashion. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that their APA claims related to the bond hearing procedural safeguards (Counts II and VI) survive dismissal. The Defendants sought dismissal of these claims on the theory that the Plaintiffs lack a due process right to bond hearings. Because the Plaintiffs have shown a valid due process right to prompt bond hearings before neutral decisionmakers, the attendant APA claims are adequately alleged, Judge Pechman holds. The Defendants also argue that the there is no final agency action to review. But the Court remains convinced that the procedural defects alleged by the Plaintiffs are part and parcel of the bond hearing, which is indisputably a "final agency action" from which legal consequences flow. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion as to Counts II and VI. But two of the Plaintiffs' APA claims must be dismissed, Judge Pechman says. First, the Plaintiffs concede they included Count V in the Fourth Amended Complaint "to preserve it for review," given that the Court has previously dismissed it. The Plaintiffs offer no reason why this claim should survive dismissal and the Court again dismisses this claim for the same reasons as set forth in the original Order on the MTD. Second, the Plaintiffs have withdrawn their APA challenge to the Matter of M-S- set out in Count III and the Court dismisses this claim. The Court finds it has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims. And the Court remains convinced that the Plaintiffs have alleged a viable due process claim and related claims under the APA. The Court finds that the Supreme Court's decision in Thuraissigiam does not undermine the Plaintiffs' due process claim. And the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged an actionable substantive and procedural due process claim. The Court denies the Motion as to Counts I, II, and VI. But the Court grants the Motion as to Counts II and V, and dismisses them. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3c6vy7hfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02342 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/471FSTP at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03475 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GS5zvk at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in C Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-023558 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3th8xXb at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Chaney Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaney et al v. United States of America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02986 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4G0oi at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DG Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.G. v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05339 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tv8x0g at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DS Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DS v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02668 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tzrkNj at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Gonzalez Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. United States of America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04611 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpxi3g at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MS Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.S. v. Federal Correctional Institution - Dublin et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-08924 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NBGvfX at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in P Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as P v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05356 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWTjJP at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in R Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02405 (N.D. Cal.)., the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/476xi64 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in RR Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as R. R. v Garcia, Case No. 4:23-cv-05294 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/478SKYn at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in S Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S v. United States of America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-93538 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41yZXQi at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in V Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as V v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04321 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41s4l3r at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Z Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03827 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15, 2023 Evaluations: Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18, 2023 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28, 2023 Certification Motion In 23-4155: Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024 Certification In 23-4155: All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed until July 19, 2024. Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues. The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed. Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely manner. The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation. All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137. The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/484pPpz at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Rubinstein Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB RUBINSTEIN, et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cv-12685-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Mr. Rubinstein asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class of: -- Persons in federal custody as the result of a conviction of one or more offenses under 18 U.S.C. section 2252 and/or section 22525A (and no other convinctions); -- Zero or one criminal history point at sentencing, with no history of violence and no prior convictions for a sex offense; -- Sentenced to a term of a Supervised Release; and -- United States citizen. United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tu2f17 at no extra charge.[CC] VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Allcock, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. Valley National Bancorp doing business as: VALLEY BANK, Case No. 2:23-cv-20900 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13022-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Valley National Bancorp doing business as Valley Bank -- https://www.valley.com/ -- is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Milz, Esq. Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 1814 East Route 70, Suite 350 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Phone: (856) 396-0600 Fax: (833) 775-3450 Email: amilz@consumerslaw.com jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Adam Sklar, Esq. Omar Abdussellam Bareentto, Esq. Scott S. Christie, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP 100 Mulberry Street Four Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 622-4444 Email: msklar@mccarter.com obareentto@mccarter.com schristie@mccarter.com VEOLIA WATER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH NICHOLLS, WALTER GOODROW, WESLEY DINSMORE, and RICHARD RUPPERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VEOLIA WATER CONTRACT OPERATIONS USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034-MGM (D. Mass.), Plaintiffs ask the Court extending the deadlines by an additional two weeks. The Plaintiffs request that the deadlines be modified as follows: -- Dispositive motions by either party Dec. 29, 2023 shall be filed by: -- Oppositions shall be filed by: Jan. 29, 2024 -- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: Feb. 12, 2024 -- The Plaintiffs shall file any motion Dec. 29, 2023 for class certification by: Veolia operates, maintains and manages water and wastewater systems. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uWNmdp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence E. Coles, Esq. PYLE ROME EHRENBERG, P.C. 2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 367-7200 E-mail: tcoles@pylerome.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen T. Melnick, Esq. Shea A. Miller, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: smelnick@littler.com samiller@littler.com VETERANS ALLIANCE: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN MITCHELL, individually and for others similarly situated v. VETERANS ALLIANCE, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00617 (D. Nev., Dec. 4, 2023) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiff Mitchell was employed by the Defendant as an aircraft maintenance technician from approximately May 2022 until March 2023. The Plaintiff and the other aircraft maintenance employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Veterans Alliance did not pay him and its other aircraft maintenance employees overtime at the proper premium rate, says the Plaintiff. Veterans Alliance provides aircraft maintenance staffing services to companies across the U.S., including in Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com VITAL FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Responses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS USLER, ET AL., v. VITAL FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendant's deadline to file motion to confirm confidentiality designations and response to the Plaintiffs' motion to unseal unredacted motion for class Certification. On September 16, 2022, the Court issued the Confidentiality and Protective Order. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiffs objected pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order to the confidentiality designations of all documents cited in and attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of ethically produced foods nationwide. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJJrDe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas A. Daniels, Esq. John F. Luman III, Esq. Heath A. Novosad, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Facsimile: (713) 917-00226 E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com luman@ dtlawyers.com heath@ dtlawyers.com - and - Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq. Ryan Shelton, Esq. EDMUNSON SHELTON WEIS PLLC 317 Grace Lane, Suite 210 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 596-3058 Facsimile: (512) 532-6637 E-mail: jesse@eswpllc.com rayn@eswpllc.com - and – Richard L. Stone, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 11 East 44th Street, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 358-4800 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com The Defendant is represented by: Dwight M. Francis, Esq. Aimee C. Oleson, Esq. P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 391-7400 Facsimile: (469) 391-7401 E-mail: dfrancis@sheppardmullin.com aoleson@sheppardmullin.com ccardon@sheppardmullin.com jramsey@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Unseal Unredacted Bid in Usler -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS USLER, et al., v. VITAL FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to unseal unredacted motion. The Plaintiffs filed the Unredacted Class Motion under seal because they were required to do so under the Protective Order and Local Rule CV-5.2. Plaintiffs do not submit any reason as to why the information they redacted in their public filing should remain sealed, because Plaintiffs did not designate the documents containing that information confidential, do not believe it is confidential, and do not believe it should remain sealed. Vital has gaslit the American consumer for years. Vital preached the ethical and humane treatment of its chickens, yet Vital' produced documents contradict Vital's very deceptive marketing campaign. Like the Wizard of Oz, Vital does not want the American consumer to look behind the curtain. To prevent anyone from seeing how badly Vital treated its chickens, Vital designated almost every document in its production as confidential with the hope of keeping them secret from the public. Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of ethically produced foods nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GF0feC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas A. Daniels, Esq. John F. Luman III, Esq. Heath A. Novosad, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Facsimile: (713) 917-0026 E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com luman@dtlawyers.com heath@dtlawyers.com - and - Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq. Ryan Shelton, Esq. EDMUNDSON SHELTON WEISS PLLC 317 Grace Lane, Suite 210 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 596-3058 Facsimile: (512) 532-6637 E-mail: jesse@eswpllc.com ryan@eswpllc.com - and - Richard L. Stone, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 11 East 44th Street, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 358-4800 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com VOLVO CAR: Dionysius Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Dionysius, Individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VOLVO CAR NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06791-BHH (D.S.C., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought for overtime violations as a Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA") against Volvo. The Plaintiff and Covered Employees were typically scheduled to work at least 40 hours per week, but at times worked additional hours, including overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Volvo knew, and was aware at all times, that Plaintiff and Covered Employees worked more hours than the hours reflected in their scheduled shifts, and at times more than 40 hours within weekly pay periods of the Violation Period without compensating them at the rate of one and one half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all such overtime hours, as required by the FLSA, and; thereby violated the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a resident of South Carolina and worked as an hourly-paid (protective safety geared) employee of Volvo at its Ridgeville, South Carolina. Volvo Car North America, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Phone (843) 588-5587 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com WALGREEN CO: Faces Simpson Suit Over Mislabeled Cutlery Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO.; SUMTER EASY HOME LLC; NINGBO (USA) HOME-LINK PLASTIC PRODUCT MFG., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-16465 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 4, 2023) f is a consumer protection and false advertising class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants regarding their misleading business practices with respect to the sale of their Complete Home Heavy Duty Cutlery. According to the complaint, the Defendants have marketed and sold the Products with labeling and packaging that leads consumers to believe that the products can be safely washed in the dishwasher in the way standard cutlery is. By labeling the products as "DISHWASHER SAFE" and "HEAVY DUTY," Defendants have misled consumers into believing that the products are actually "dishwasher safe" which, in the context of cutlery, means that the products can be safely washed in the bottom rack of a dishwasher. However, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, the products are not dishwasher safe because they can only be safely washed on the top rack of the dishwasher. In fact, Defendants themselves admit that the products are only "dishwasher safe" if cleaned on the top rack. The Defendants' deception causes consumers to suffer economic damage because they are not getting what they paid for: cutlery that is dishwasher safe, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Complete Home Heavy Duty cutlery at a Walgreens store in Riverside, California in May 2022. Walgreen Co. operates retail drugstores, offering a wide range of prescription and non-prescription drugs, as well as wellness, health and fitness products, everyday wares and foodstuffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 536-2145 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com WALMART INC: Canseco Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marisol Canseco, an individual v. WALMART INC.; WALMART STORES EAST, LP; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL- MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; SANDRA DOE, an individual; GEORGE DOE, an individual; MATTHEW SUEKUT, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 23CV009829 was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02947-KJN. The elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are: an employer-employee relationship, the employer terminated the plaintiff's employment, the termination was substantially motivated by a violation of public policy, and the discharge caused the plaintiff harm.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James T. Conley, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: james.conley@ogletree.com - and - Jane A. Rothbaler, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: jane.rothbaler@ogletree.com WALMART INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court ---------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that the company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the company's disclosures with respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5, 2021, purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those cases have been consolidated. On October 8, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities action. After the parties had fully briefed the motion to dismiss, on September 9, 2022, the court entered an order permitting the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which was filed on October 14, 2022, and which revised the applicable putative class of investors to those who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017, through December 22, 2020. On November 16, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion remains pending. Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. WATA INC: Knight Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to federal Rule of civil procedure 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs are proposing three classes. The Class Period consists of all Wata customers who did not have turnaround times met from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022. However, there are also subclass based on California claims and the time period after Wata was sold to and operated by Collectors Universe from California (July 1, 2021). As such, the Plaintiffs request the certification of a California subclass as follows: A. Proposed "Nationwide Class": With respect to the nationwide plaintiffs, the named Plaintiffs propose to certify the following class: "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's website." B. Proposed Subclass of "California Residents": "All California residents who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's website. C. Proposed Subclass "After Sale Subclass": "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. or Collectors Universe from July 1, 2021 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata on the company’s website." The case involves allegations of misconduct by video game grading company, Wata, now known as Collectors Universe. Defendant Wata, by and through its then-President Deniz Kahn, along with James Halperin, the founder of an associated auction house called Heritage Auctions, and several other Wata associates engaged in a plan to inaccurately publicize the sale of a collectible Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) video game, Super Mario Bros., in order to profit from the corresponding run up of demand for services and prices in the retro video game market. Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and encapsulation services for collectible video games. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47418bk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janeen Carlberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG 1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone: (714) 665-1900 E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com WAYFAIR LLC: Counts Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA COUNTS, KAYLYNN MAJOR, and NATHAN CHURCHILL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAYFAIR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-11706-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for entry of an order: (1) Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as: "All current and former remote hourly-paid remote Customer Service Employees ("CSEs") that held the job titles of Customer Service Representative ("CSR"), Inbound Sales Specialist ("ISS"), or Customer and Resolution Expert ("CARE") who worked for Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the date granting conditional certification (the "FLSA Collective"); (2) Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of the proposed Collective via US Mail and email (3) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and locations of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; (4) Approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents; and (5) Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the Collective via text message and e-mail 30 days into the opt-in period. Wayfair is an American e-commerce company that sells furniture and home goods online. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXybAF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4388 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 S. Main St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 in Droesch --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DROESCH, et al., v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order setting following case schedule through class certification. Wells Fargo Data Production: February 20, 2024 Class Certification Motion Due: May 1, 2024 Deadline for Deposition of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert(s): May 23, 2024 Class Certification Opposition Due: June 14, 2024 Deadline for Deposition of Defendant's Class Certification Expert(s): July 3, 2024 Class Certification Reply: July 11, 2024 Class Certification Hearing: August 8, 2024, at 10:00 in person Wells Fargo operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uV27NQ at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN UNION: Must File Dispositive Bid by Jan. 8 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Radulescu v. Western Union Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03009 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order re: Joint Status Report: -- The plaintiff may file a petition with the circuit clerk for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the Court's order denying class certification in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. -- The defendant must file any dispositive motion regarding whether the plaintiff's individual claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitation by Jan. 8, 2024. -- The parties are directed to jointly contact Magistrate Judge Crews's chambers for instructions on how to proceed with respect to any other scheduling or discovery matters, including (a) whether good cause exists to extend the scheduling-order deadline for amendment of pleadings and (b) the timing, parameters, and scheduling of merits-related fact and expert discovery. -- The Court will contact the parties to set a trial date, Final Pretrial Conference/Trial Preparation Conference date(s), and related pretrial deadlines after discovery has been completed and the Court has issued rulings on any dispositive motions. The nature of suit states Torts - Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Western Union is an American multinational financial services corporation.[CC] WIRECARD AG: EY Germany's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated lawsuit styled IN RE: WIRECARD AG SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03326-AB (E.D. Pa.), Judge Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs in this class action sued Wirecard AG, several of its executives, and Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft ("EY Germany") for violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. They claim that Wirecard and EY Germany, both based in Germany, made false and misleading statements about the financial condition of Wirecard. The Plaintiffs allegedly relied upon those statements when they purchased certain financial instruments relating to Wirecard that were available in the United States. In 2021, Wirecard filed a notice of bankruptcy. This case has been placed in suspense as to Wirecard alone since that filing. EY Germany moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, for insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim, and forum non conveniens. Judge Brody initially granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. But the Plaintiffs asked for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and Judge Brody vacated the dismissal order to allow for it. The parties have now submitted supplemental briefs on the question of personal jurisdiction over EY Germany. Upon reconsideration and review of the jurisdictional record, Judge Brody will again grant EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Wirecard was a global enterprise headquartered in Germany and primarily engaged in processing credit card payments. It grew to encompass approximately 53 subsidiaries across the world. Annedore Streyl, a member of the Management Board at EY Germany, provided a declaration on behalf of EY Germany in support of its motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs then referenced the Streyl Declaration throughout their brief responding to EY Germany's motion as evidence in support of their argument for personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the averments from the Streyl Declaration are included here as undisputed. As an electronic payments processor, Wirecard acted as an "acquirer." When a merchant in Wirecard's network charged a credit card, Wirecard collected the funds from the bank that issued the card and distributed them to the merchant. It made money by taking a small portion of each transaction it processed. In countries where Wirecard did not hold a license to process payments, Wirecard partnered with "third-party acquirers" ("TPAs"). The partnership between Wirecard and these TPAs enabled it to profit from the commissions from transactions the TPAs processed. As part of its acquiring operations and partnership with TPAs, Wirecard maintained various trust accounts holding "reserves." These balances represented funds that Wirecard owed to merchants, who initiated credit card transactions but which were held for a period of time before distribution to provide for potential refunds, known as "chargebacks." Wirecard reported it had trust accounts in banks in Singapore and later the Philippines, among other locations. Beginning in 2017, Wirecard's reporting of its cash balances—a key metric of financial health—included the cash held in these trust accounts. In March 2017, Wirecard closed on two transactions with Citigroup. One involved the acquisition of Citigroup's portfolio of customers based in Asia. The other was the acquisition of Citigroup's "issuing" business, which had been known as Citi Prepaid, and which was renamed "Wirecard North America." In contrast to Wirecard's "acquiring" business operations in other parts of the world, Wirecard North America was an "issuing" business. It provided prepaid cards that clients used as incentives, disbursements, compensation, or payments. Wirecard touted the acquisition of the issuing business from Citigroup as significantly extending the company's geographical reach and the available licensing framework. It also envisioned a connection between its newly acquired United States business and its existing Asian businesses. Beginning in 2015, independent research groups and journalists at the Financial Times raised questions about Wirecard's accounting and business practices. They suggested that Wirecard inflated its revenues in its Asian business operations and misrepresented the value of an acquisition in India. A February 2019 article in the Financial Times described a pattern of book-padding across Wirecard's Asian operations. This included a plan orchestrated by Edo Kurniawan, Wirecard's head of accounting in Asia, to "round trip" several million euros from Wirecard in Germany, through entities in Hong Kong, and ultimately onto Wirecard's Indian subsidiary. The scheme to route funds through Hong Kong would enable Wirecard to obtain from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority a license to sell prepaid credit cards in the region. According to another article published in March 2019 by the Financial Times, whistleblowers indicated that the 2018 revenues reported by Wirecard's subsidiary based in Singapore likely reflected sham financial transactions. A subsequent Financial Times article in October 2019 suggested Wirecard was reporting substantial revenue from TPAs that did not exist. In response to these reports, in October 2019, Wirecard commissioned accounting firm KPMG to conduct an additional independent audit of its practices. KPMG examined: (1) the amount and existence of revenues from TPAs; (2) Wirecard's merchant cash-advance business, in which it issued short term loans to merchants; (3) "roundtripping" and other misconduct alleged in Singapore; and (4) potential overpayment for two subsidiaries based in India. KPMG produced a report that Wirecard published in April 2020, as well as a confidential addendum. In the spring and into summer of 2020, with its annual audit and financial reporting overdue, Wirecard ran out of answers for its detractors. As noted, Wirecard had represented that it held trust funds related to potential "chargebacks" in its acquiring business in several banks, including two in the Philippines. In June 2020, it was forced to acknowledge that EUR1.9 billion said to be held as cash balances on trust accounts in the Philippines could not be verified by auditors. The two Philippine banks then confirmed that the trust accounts did not even exist. Wirecard announced that it needed to withdraw its 2019 and 2020 preliminary financial results in light of this discrepancy as to its reported cash holdings. Share prices dropped precipitously following these admissions. Wirecard also defaulted on a EUR2 billion loan and entered insolvency proceedings. Subsequent investigations suggested that Wirecard's accounting fraud began as early as 2015, when key executives allegedly agreed to inflate Wirecard's revenue in an attempt to deceive investors. The global scope of the fraud became apparent in July 2020, when several investigations were commenced or became public. German prosecutors charged Wirecard's former CEO with fraud and brought charges against the head of Wirecard's CardSystems entity in Dubai. Law enforcement in Ireland launched an investigation of Wirecard UK & Ireland, a Wirecard entity responsible for funneling revenue and earnings from TPAs to Wirecard. Subsequent investigations concerned the existence and value of its net assets and escrow holdings. Prosecutors in Singapore brought fraud and forgery charges against the man, who acted as the trustee for the bank accounts that were claimed to hold EUR1.9 billion of Wirecard's cash. Investigators learned that Wirecard also loaned "millions" to a company incorporated by this man, which prosecutors suspected was "part of a scheme to loot Wirecard." While Wirecard engaged KPMG for the specific investigation following the Financial Times reporting, its primary independent auditor for over ten years was EY Germany, an accounting firm incorporated and operating in Germany. EY Germany has no offices or employees in the United States. It is a member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited. Wirecard retained EY Germany on an annual basis to audit the consolidated financial statements of "the Wirecard Group," comprised of Wirecard AG and its subsidiaries. EY Germany involved teams at other auditing firms to perform audit work on certain Wirecard subsidiaries located outside of Germany. It referred to those subsidiaries as "components" and the respective auditing teams as "component auditors." EY Germany routinely issued an "unqualified" opinion, which reflected its determination that Wirecard complied with international and German accounting requirements and that Wirecard's consolidated financial statements gave an accurate view of the company's financial position. Wirecard then published EY Germany's audit opinion in its annual report to investors. As EY Germany prepared its audit of Wirecard's 2016 financial results in early 2017, it threatened Wirecard that it would publish only a "qualified" audit opinion due to concerns about accounting malpractice in India. But ultimately it issued an "unqualified" opinion. Two years later, the audit of the FY18 annual results coincided with news accounts suggesting improprieties in Wirecard's Singapore subsidiary. In April 2019, however, EY Germany issued an "unqualified" audit opinion as to Wirecard's annual financial reports. EY Germany specifically noted in that year's opinion letter that Wirecard's financial reports did not, at that time, require correction due to the "ongoing investigations by the authorities in Singapore." EY Germany continued to issue "unqualified" opinions as to Wirecard through the 2019 audit year. The special investigation by KPMG of Wirecard's practices ultimately revealed various deficiencies by EY Germany in its role as an auditor. KPMG concluded that EY Germany relied on flawed data when it reviewed whistleblower allegations regarding Wirecard Singapore. It found that EY Germany's audit was deficient as to the value of the Indian business that Wirecard purchased. It also recounted a report that a senior Wirecard executive had tried to bribe an EY Germany employee in connection with Wirecard's acquisition of the Indian company and that Wirecard executives were among the seller's shareholders. The Plaintiffs allege that EY Germany's annual audits of Wirecard's group financial statements were intentionally, or at a minimum recklessly, deficient in failing to detect the accounting deficiencies and misconduct by Wirecard. They believe that Wirecard was only able to successfully perpetrate its massive accounting scheme because of EY Germany's knowing complicity or egregious refusal to see the obvious or to investigate the doubtful. They allege that EY Germany's "prestige and reputation" was "instrumental in convincing investors" of the legitimacy of Wirecard's reported financial results. The Plaintiffs recount, among other things, the many warnings and red flags that should have caused EY Germany to question Wirecard's practices. As noted, EY Germany personnel had reason to believe that senior Wirecard executives profited from Wirecard's overpayment for the Indian subsidiary from a company in which they were shareholders; that Wirecard inflated sales at the subsidiary to increase post-sale payments to the entity in which they were shareholders; and that a senior Wirecard executive had tried to bribe an auditor to sign off on the accounts of the Indian subsidiary. EY Germany has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The parties recognize that EY Germany lacks continuous and systematic general business contacts with the United States. Therefore, the Plaintiffs must establish that this court has specific jurisdiction over EY Germany due to forum contacts that relate to this particular litigation. Judge Brody says there are three considerations. First, the defendant must have purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)), or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State (Hanson v. Denckla, 375 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). Second, the litigation must "arise out of or relate to" at least one of those activities by the defendant in, or directed at, the forum (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021)). Finally, if those elements are satisfied, a court may consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction in the circumstances of the particular case would comport with fair play and substantial justice. In the prior round of briefing on the jurisdictional question, the Plaintiffs contended that EY Germany purposefully availed itself of the forum of the United States "through its numerous auditing activities, including its auditing of Wirecard and through its participation in EY Global's integrated network." They also suggested that EY Germany intended that its audit reports of Wirecard would reach American investors. Following jurisdictional discovery, the Plaintiffs point to an additional factual basis to support their contention that EY Germany purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum: its personnel traveled to the United States for the two-day site visit in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, concerning the operations of Wirecard North America. Having reconsidered the Plaintiffs' arguments in light of the facts adduced by them in jurisdictional discovery, Judge Brody again reached the conclusion that specific jurisdiction over Defendant EY Germany does not lie here for the fraudulent activities alleged in the complaint. Judge Brody finds that the Plaintiffs have established purposeful availment by EY Germany of the United States as a forum through its participation in a business meeting with its American counterpart and Wirecard North America personnel in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. They fail to demonstrate purposeful availment by EY Germany in relation to the actual audit activity conducted as to the Wirecard entities. But the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the relatedness prong of the specific jurisdiction test as to either contact, Judge Brody holds. They have not established any relationship -- much less the "strong relationship" that the Court of Appeals required in Hepp -- between EY Germany's contacts to the United States and the fraud perpetrated by Wirecard personnel in Europe and Asia as set out in the complaint and allegedly overlooked in EY Germany's annual reviews. The Due Process Clause does not countenance haling EY Germany into an American court to answer for these alleged auditing failures and misrepresentations as to Wirecard, Judge Brody opines. Hence, the Court grants EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/avf45y8ffrom PacerMonitor.com. XYBION CORPORATION: Brumbaugh Sues Over Failure to Protect PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Brumbaugh, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XYBION CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-05019-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for failure to adequately protect consumers' personally identifiable information ("PII"). In September 2022, the Defendant discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). On information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted thousands of consumers. Xybion's breach differs from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who had no relationship with Xybion, never sought one, and never consented to Xybion's collecting and storing their information. Due to Defendant's intentionally obfuscating language, it is unclear when the Data Breach precisely occurred and how long cybercriminals had unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive information. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to current and former consumers' personally identifiable information ("PII"). On November 30, 2023--an appalling fifteen months after the Data Breach Occurred--Xybion finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted--refusing to tell its consumers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant fifteen months to begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and in mitigating the effects of PII misus In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Xybion is a SaaS company dedicated to providing life sciences and health companies with software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Plaintiffs & Merrill Agree to Adopt Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned McKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the stipulation between the Plaintiffs and R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC, to adopt the Court's Rule 12 briefing schedule and procedures. Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiffs McKenna Duffy and Michael Brett, and Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC, by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows: 1. Whereas, on Oct. 31, 2023, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC, Substituted for Pillar Properties, LLC, and directed that the Plaintiff's amended complaint be served on Merrill; 2. Whereas, on Nov. 15, 2023, the First Amended Class Action Complaint was served on Merrill; and 3. Whereas, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the deadline for Merrill to file its answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint was Dec. 6, 2023. Therefore, the Plaintiffs and Merrill Stipulate and Agree that in the interest of judicial efficiency, they will adopt the Rule 12 briefing schedule and procedures in the Court's Nov. 9, 2023 Order for Merrill's Rule 12 response to the First Amended Class Action Complaint. In the interest of judicial efficiency, Judge Lasnik says the previously filed Joint Status Report should apply to Merrill as if Merrill were a signatory as a Lessor Defendant to that document, such that the Plaintiffs and Merrill need not submit a duplicative Joint Status Report. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/34y976mefrom PacerMonitor.com. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Theodore Wojcik -- tedw@hbsslaw.com -- Stephanie A. Verdoia -- stephaniev@hbsslaw.com -- Xiaoyi Fan -- kellyf@hbsslaw.com -- in Seattle, Washington 98101; Rio S. Pierce -- riop@hbsslaw.com -- in Berkeley, California 94710, Attorneys for Plaintiffs MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT. K&L GATES LLP -- Christopher M. Wyant -- chris.wyant@klgates.com -- Tyler Lichter -- tyler.lichter@klgates.com -- in Seattle, Washington 98104; Lauren Norris Donahue -- lauren.donahue@klgates.com -- in Chicago, Illinois 60602; Derek Sutton -- derek.sutton@klgates.com -- in Raleigh, North Carolina 27603, Attorneys for Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC. ZURU LLC: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Bui Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANNAH BUI, et al., v. ZURU, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06125-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order re: motions for class certification. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.) Zuru designs, manufactures and markets innovative toys and consumer products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47UiqZI at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. 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 ***