/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240123.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 17 Headlines 213 RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Stroude Says 23ANDME INC: Picha Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info 3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Collins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Craig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Ehlers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ACUITY BRANDS: To Settle Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court OK's Settlement in Stewart Suit ALL AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Quijano Says ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Nelson Suit Claims ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hoskins Breach Suit Removed to D. Nevada ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION: Torres Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Action Settlement in Tuttle Gets Final Nod BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Additional Swaps Data in Philadelphia BARK INC: Vernon Suit Voluntarily Dismissed BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Operators Win Conditional Class Certification BETH ISRAEL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Alleges BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Zamani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices BLUE BOTTLE: Greeley Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal. BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Grady Suit BRANCHING OUT: Perez et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations CAFE BASIL: Jimenez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Premiums CANACCORD GENUITY: Court Dismisses NBI Class Suit CARGILL INC: Target Corp. Alleges Beef Price-fixing Conspiracy CENTERRA GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants Class Gets Certification CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiff's Bid to Seal Exhibits Denied COBALT 27: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Troche Class Suit Alleges CR BARD: Court Denies Class Certification in North Brevard Suit DADA NEXUS: Wang Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities DDS INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices DELTA DENTAL: Meeks Sues Over Unprotected Private Information DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DX ENTERPRISES: Joint Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines OK'd EIGHT ORANGES: Court OK's Bid for More Response Time to Class Cert ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: St. Mary Sues Over Private Data Breach EXACT CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid EXACT CARE: Everett Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Strikes Curry's Class Action Complaint FRANK KENDALL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in Hoffler Suit GATOS SILVER: Orozco Sues Directors for Breach of Fiduciary Duties GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Battle Suit Stayed GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Can File Materials Under Seal GEORGE MASON: 4th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Dismiss Amison Suit GODADDY.COM LLC: Simon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices GROWGENERATION CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HANPOOL INC: Faces Park Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HEALTH & GLOW: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Rhoade Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Palmiter Says HIS GUAM: Igarashi Wins Class Certification Bid IDAHO: Prosecutor's Bid to Dismiss Poe Class Suit Nixed ILLINOIS: Seeks Leave to File Class Reply in Cross Suit ILLINOIS: Seeks to Withdraw Portions of Romanotto Declaration INTEGRIS HEALTH: Bointy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma INTEGRIS HEALTH: Campbell-Detrixhe Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma INTEGRIS HEALTH: Civi Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma INTEGRIS HEALTH: Leeb Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma INTEGRIS HEALTH: Zinck Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma IROQUOIS NURSING: Bid to Amend Pleading Due Feb. 27 in Pallotta JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Halls Wins Class Certification Bid JUMP TRADING: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit With Leave to Amend KAISER FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 28 KANSAS CITY, MO: Melton's Bid to Amend Pleadings Granted in Part KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Notice in Council Class Suit KEEFE COMMISSARY: Settlement Deal in Reichert Suit Gets Final Nod KEYCORP: Court Appoints Robert Titmas as Lead Plaintiff LEGENDS OWO: Puller Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Processing Fee LIV GROUP: Meza-Soliven Sues Over Liquid I.V. Stick Mixes False Ads LOCAL FAVORITE: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks M&T BANK: McCloud Sues Over Labor Law Breaches MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Brief in Breach Suit Due Jan. 26 MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Sues Over Unclaimed Property Compensation MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero and Orosco Allege Labor Law Breaches MDL 3071: Court Denies LRO's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit MDL 3071: Court Denies PMDs' Bid to Dismiss Rental Software Suit MDL 3071: Court Resolves Bids to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit MDL 3071: TREV's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit Granted META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material in Klein Suit MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gail Due Jan. 23 MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hester Seeks to Certify Class of CSRs MPM HOLDINGS: $19MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Feb. 23 MYOVANT SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Zappia Suit NAVY FEDERAL: Robinson and Williams Allege Discriminatory Lending NECSOSA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Suit Alleges NEW YORK: Class Settlement in Bronx v. MTA Has Prelim. Approval NEXTCARE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, White Suit Claims O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Initial Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025 OLIN CORPORATION: Court Tosses DPPs' Bid for Class Certification OREGON: Court Appoints Co-Class Counsel in Wyatt B. v. Kotek OSF HEALTHCARE: Quintanilla Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices PARKMOBILE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Feb. 12 PAYSIGN INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod PDM STEEL: Payne & Williams Sue Over Labor Code Breaches PENNSYLVANIA: Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts Due Dec. 13 PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11 PERMIAN RESOURCES: Rosenbaum Alleges Oil Production Conspiracy PHILADELPHIA, PA: O'Reilly Sues Over Police Officers' Unpaid OT PIPELINERS LOCAL: Williams Sues Over Race Discrimination PIPELINES LOCAL 798: Faces Williams Suit for Racial Discrimination PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Indiana Public PLUSHCARE INC: Settles Robbins Auto-Debit Row in California Court POSTMEDS INC: Moran Files Suit in N.D. California PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Bid for Class Certification PRIME HEALTHCARE: Forcen Suit Removed to C.D. California PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RAAKA CHOCOLATE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RADIUS GLOBAL: Butts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Suit Removed to C.D. California REATA PHARMA: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 29 RED BALLOON: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Deadlines Extended by 30 Days RISE SERVICES: Anthony Wins Class Action Certification Bid ROADRUNNER TRANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 5 ROYAL SWEET BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Canales Suit Claims SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Brown SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Suit Removed to D. Connecticut SELENE FINANCE: Milam Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices SIKA AG: H & S Ready Mix Sues Over Alleged Price Fixing of CCAs SMUGGLER JACK'S: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SNAP INC: Court Sets Feb. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SRG GLOBAL: Thomure's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Mignott Class Suit STATE FARM: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines STATE FARM: Sept. 12 Extension for Class Cert Bids Sought STG LOGISTICS: Quinones Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement STRATEGIC STAFFING: Norton Suit Removed to N.D. California SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Hearing in Class Suit to be Held on April 1 SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Levings Suit Removed to C.D. California TELADOC HEALTH: Pattison Files Suit in S.D. New York TENNESSEE: Clark, et al., Severed from Moore Class Action TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Moore Suit TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal TK ELEVATOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Machinists, Taylor Says TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Loses Class Certification Bid TVI INC: Hughes Class Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in Cushman Suit UNITED AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 9 UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Hearing on Bid to Compel UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit Over TPS Designations VEOLIA WATER: Nicholls Seeks Class Certification VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Gabel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties VITALS CONSUMER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26 VMWARE INC: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 15 WAKE COUNTY, NC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Stays Clem Securities Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Devane Suit WATA INC: Knight Seeks to Refile Class Certification Bid WATA INC: Knight Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes WEBMD LLC: Pretrial Class Discovery in Sweeton Due March 27 WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Levison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida WHIRLPOOL CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Salas Due Sept. 30 WILLIAM VALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Stroude Claims WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California YOUNG LA TRADING: Hindi Files Suit in S.D. Florida ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Matczak Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ZILLOW GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Barua Extended to March 14 ********* 213 RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Stroude Says ----------------------------------------------------------- COLETTE STROUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 213 RESTAURANT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00021 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nanxiangxiaolongbao.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted on December 21, 2023 and again on December 22, 2023 to access Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of obtaining menu and location information in order to visit a restaurant, alleges the suit. Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit says. 213 Restaurant Corp. owns the website that offers users the ability to peruse the restaurants website services to view the menu and obtain the restaurants location information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com 23ANDME INC: Picha Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Camie Picha, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 23andMe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-06719 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on behalf of the victims of a targeted cyberattack on 23andMe that was announced on October 6, 2023 wherein Plaintiff and the Class members' most sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information was compromised and exfiltrated. 23andMe collects and maintains the genetic information of Plaintiff and similarly situated customers -- one of if not the most personal and highly sensitive forms of personally identifiable information and protected health information in existence. 23andMe profits from the highly sensitive private information that it collects and maintains, including through providing direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. 23andMe recognizes that it has an enormous responsibility to protect this highly sensitive private information, and it assures consumers through its privacy and data protection statement, the suit asserts. However, 23andMe completely failed to meet these promises and responsibilities to protect the private information of millions of its customers. Instead, 23andMe suffered a massive data breach in which the most highly sensitive private information of approximately 7 million of its consumers was compromised, says the suit. 23andMe, Inc. is a genetic testing company that designs its products in California, and its marketing efforts emanate from California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com - and - Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 9f8101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com 3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- David Mark Cohen, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06492-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: (843) 546-2408 Fax: (843) 546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540)343-9711 Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Collins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Collins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-06573-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Craig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Craig, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06490-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: (843) 546-2408 Fax: (843) 546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540)343-9711 Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Ehlers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles D. Ehlers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06489-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: (843) 546-2408 Fax: (843) 546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540)343-9711 Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Fleming, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06493-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting career and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 N. Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: (843) 546-2408 Fax: (843) 546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC 347 Highland Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540)343-9711 Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com ACUITY BRANDS: To Settle Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Acuity Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023., filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2024, that on December 1, 2023, the parties in a putative class action complaint against the company in the United States District court for the Northern District of Georgia reached a proposed settlement and release of all claims in the class action and executed a Settlement Agreement and Release, which is pending approval from the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. On December 14, 2022, a former associate filed said action on behalf of all persons whose personal information was compromised as a result of data security incidents the company experienced in October 2020 and/or December 2021. On January 25, 2023, a second putative class action complaint was filed in the same venue by two other former associates. Both complaints contain similar allegations and claim that the company failed to exercise reasonable caution in securing and safeguarding associate information. On that basis, the complaints assert claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence. The plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, certain injunctive relief regarding the company's data-security measures, additional credit-monitoring services, other equitable relief (including disgorgement), attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-and post-judgment interest. T Plaintiffs recently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the company continues to prepare its response strategy to any forthcoming claims. Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company based in Georgia. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court OK's Settlement in Stewart Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that Circuit Oourt, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon granted final approval of a class action lawsuit entitled "Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc.," by way of an order dated July 20, 2023 where the company had a liability recorded equal to the amount of the settlement, and the company paid the settlement on September 11, 2023. a settlement Plaintiffs have alleged that Safeway engaged in unfair trade practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015 and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free" and similar promotions. On February 17, 2023, plaintiffs and Safeway executed an agreement that settled all claims in the lawsuit for approximately $107 million, which agreement received preliminary approval by the court on March 6, 2023. The settlement includes a claim administration process whereby affected customers, who do not elect to opt out of the settlement, file a claim to participate in the settlement. The court had a hearing last July 10, 2023. Albertsons is a food and drug retailer based in Idaho. ALL AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Quijano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL QUIJANO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00930 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 11, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff and class members regularly worked more than eight hours per day and/or more than 40 hours per week and were not paid correctly for all of their overtime hours. Defendants did not accurately record Plaintiff and class members' hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of regular and overtime wages. Instead, employees' time cards reflected employees' scheduled hours, were rounded to the nearest hour, and/or were inaccurate because Defendants required and/or suffered or permitted Plaintiff and class members to work off-the-clock, says the suit. Based in New Jersey, All American Healthcare Services, Inc. is a nursing staffing agency nursing homes, long-term care and assisted living facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. Carson M.Turner, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (213) 674-6080 Facsimile: (213) 674-6081 ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Nelson Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- GARY NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANHEUSER BUSCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00029-UNA (D. Del., January 11, 2024) seeks redress for unpaid overtime compensation and employee misclassification in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Nelson's job titles at Anheuser-Busch between May 16, 2022 and October 1, 2023 were Group Manager, Process Support Manager, and Shift Manager. The primary duty of his job was to package beer and bottle beer on the bottling, canning, and keg lines. However, he was classified by Anheuser-Busch as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and Defendant failed to pay an overtime premium when Plaintiff worked nine, 10, and 11 hour days, says the suit. Anheuser-Busch is a beer manufacturer that owns and operates twelve breweries across the United States, including locations in Merrimack, NH; Baldwinsville, NY; Newark, NJ; Williamsburg, VA; Columbus, OH; Jacksonville, FL; Cartersville, GA; St. Louis, MO; Houston, TX; Fort Collins, CO; Los Angeles, CA; and Fairfield, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com - and - Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200K Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com - and - William A. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80303 Telephone: (303) 800-1952 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hoskins Breach Suit Removed to D. Nevada ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY HOSKINS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. A-23-879061-C. (Filed Oct. 5, 2023), was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on Jan. 3, 2024. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10021-ADB to the proceeding. The suit alleges that Aristocrat "failed to investigate the vulnerability and any potential attack into their system," and "failed to inform the Plaintiff and the Class Members that their personally identifiable information (PII) was at significant risk of being stolen." The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff asserts these causes of action on behalf of "all individuals whose PII may have been accessed and/or acquired in the Data Breach that is the subject of the Notice of Data Breach that Defendant sent to the Plaintiff and the Class Members around September of 2023. Aristocrat designs, manufactures, and markets gaming machines and software.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason D. Smith, Esq. Nicholas J. Santoro, Esq. HOLLEY DRIGGS LTD 300 South 4th Street, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 791-0308 E-mail: jsmith@nevadafirm.com nsantoro@nevadafirm.com - and - Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Esq. Micaela R.H. McMurrough, Esq. Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: mrodgers@cov.com tsankoorikal@cov.com mmcmurrough@cov.com ichaput@cov.com ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION: Torres Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE TORRES, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, v. J. ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION, INC. (a California corporation), ERICK ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION (a California Corporation), JORGE ARREOLA (an individual), ERICK ARREOLA (an individual) and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00110 (Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendants regularly failed to pay minimum wages to the Plaintiff pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved an hourly wage. Rather, it paid them on a piece rate basis, based on the tons of material they transported. The Defendants also did not pay the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for any non-driving (non-productive) duties, including maintaining trucks and completing paperwork. Accordingly, the Defendants classified the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees as independent contractors, rather than employees, says the suit. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any compensation for work he performed on July 10-14, 2023, or July 17-19, 2023. The Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff' final wages, and retained those wages, without the Plaintiff's agreement or consent, to pay for damage to the truck the Plaintiff was driving. Furthermore, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to pay to fix a tire on a Company truck and did not reimburse him for this. This violates Labor Code section 2802, which requires employers to reimburse employees for all necessary business expenses incurred. The Defendants also failed to reimburse the necessary business expenses of other Aggrieved Employees, the suit asserts. The aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent are: "All individuals who work (or worked) as Drivers for the Defendants in the State of California from Oct. 12, 2022, through the date this matter is resolved." The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 2023 through July 2023 as a driver. J. Arreola is in the transportation business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy S. Ramsey, Esq. ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C. 21 Miller Alley, Suite 56 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 310-0101 Facsimile: (626) 310-0103 E-mail: aramsey@advantage-law.com AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Action Settlement in Tuttle Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN J. TUTTLE, et al., v. AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01081-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the parties' class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service awards. The court orders as follows: 1. The parties' proposed class action settlement is approved; 2. The Plaintiffs' request for an award of $290,000 in combined attorneys’ fees and costs is granted; 3. The Plaintiff’s request for $10,000 service awards for class representatives Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman is granted; 4. The Parties are directed to proceed with the settlement payment procedures specified in the settlement Agreement; 5. The Defendants are directed to fund the settlement; 6. The Settlement Administrator is authorized to distribute the settlement funds; and 7. The Settlement Administrator is directed to distribute the attorneys' fees and service awards as provided in this order. -- Settlement Terms The proposed settlement class is comprised of: "All original retail consumers in the United States who, from March 19, 2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either directly from a Defendant or other retail merchants, new and unused Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc. ("MoFi") vinyl recordings which were marketed by Defendants using the series labeling descriptors "Original Master Recording" and/or "Ultradisc One-Step," that were sourced from original analog master tapes and which utilized a direct stream digital transfer step in the mastering chain, and provided that said purchasers still own said recordings." Excluded from the Class are persons who obtained subject Applicable Records from other sources. Thus, individuals who (1) no longer own the Applicable Records they purchased, (2) purchased their Applicable Records on the secondary market, or (3) received their Applicable Records from third parties (for example, as gifts) are expressly excluded from the Class. Audiophile is a producer and seller of vinyl music records. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47yf2Tt at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Additional Swaps Data in Philadelphia ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The City of Philadelphia, et al., v. Bank of America, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendants to Produce Additional Swaps Data. -- Most of the Defendants' arguments to the contrary relate to the merits of arguments that Plaintiffs may raise in the future and, thus, are premature. -- The Defendants shall promptly produce the relevant discovery to Plaintiffs. With that, "top off" discovery is deemed to be closed. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41ZGPLm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - David H. Wollmuth, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 5th Ave, New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana. Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 BARK INC: Vernon Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------- BARK, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 8, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 2024, that on December 12, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against BARK, Inc. and certain current and former members of its board of directors under the caption "Vernon v. BARK, Inc. et al.," C.A. No. 2023-0866-PAF as moot. Said case was filed on August 23, 2023 by plaintiff Geoffrey Vernon. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Article Thirteenth of the company's Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which provides for the waiver and renunciation of corporate opportunities related to the company, violates Sections 102(b)(7) and 122(17) of Delaware's General Corporation Law as impermissibly broad and impermissibly waiving fiduciary duties of the members of the Board. On December 12, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action as moot, which the court approved by order dated December 13, 2023. BARK has agreed to pay $95,000, inclusive of a $500 service award, to plaintiff's counsel to resolve the anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Bark Inc. is a dog-specific pet supply company based in New York NY. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Operators Win Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order granting conditional class certification under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to: "All current and former Berkeley County Convenience Center Operators who worked off the clock before and/or after their scheduled shift resulting in them not being paid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 4 hours per week at any time from three years prior to the date of this Order to the present." The Court approves the proposed notices and consent forms, and directs Defendant to provide the required information within 15 days of this order. Plaintiff shall comply with the details of this order when disseminating notice to the Putative Class members. Plaintiff is also ordered to email, mail and text the approved notice on the same date. Each individual member of the Putative class has up to sixty days from that date to return the Consent Form to Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff was employed as an operator at Berkeley County's convenience centers, which are residential waste disposal sites. Berkeley County operates ten convenience centers. Operator's primary job duties and responsibilities are to open and close the convenience centers and to assist residents with their trash disposal. The operators are paid an hourly rate. The Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendant failed to pay the convenience center operators for mandatory duties performed before and after their scheduled shift. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required operators to arrive approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before their scheduled to shift to perform duties before they opened the convenience centers. Berkeley consists of a low-lying area on the Coastal Plain, with the suburbs of Charleston at its southern tip. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXLA2j at no extra charge.[CC] BETH ISRAEL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH TAYLOR, AUBREY ARPIE, KIMBERLY FULLER and PAULA ROBICHAUD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS HOSPITAL-PLYMOUTH, INC., MERCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., TRINITY HEALTH OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION, INC., and HEYWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10028 (D. Mass., Jan. 3, 2024) seeks relief on a collective basis challenging the Defendants' practice of failing to pay hourly employees the full amount of wage to which they are entitled for all of their work in a timely fashion, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and Collective Members are hourly employees who did not receive the full amount of wages in a timely fashion as a result of a data breach on December 11, 2021 ("Kronos Outage"). On that date, and possibly on others, the Defendants were unable to access their workforce management software application they used to process payroll and store data of the Plaintiffs and other individuals, the lawsuit says. On December 13, 2021, the Defendants instituted a "payment freeze" for all hourly employees, such that the pay for each pay period following that date was set arbitrarily to the period prior to the freeze, with limited exception. The Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' representatives made numerous requests for payment of their wages in full, but these requests were allegedly denied. The Plaintiffs and Collective Members were not paid for the full amount of time they worked in one or more pay periods or in successive pay periods approximately December 11, 2021, onward. The Plaintiffs, like all Collective Members, have lost time and expenses from mitigating the consequences of the delay in payment of their paychecks. The Defendants have the resources to accurately track the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and Collective Members. The Defendants failed to undertake adequate analyses and testing of its systems, training of its personnel, and other data security measures to ensure vulnerabilities were avoided or remedied, the suit contends. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are employees who were not exempt from overtime under the FLSA, were not paid owed minimum wages and/or for all overtime hours worked, and/or were not paid owed minimum wages or their proper overtime premium on time, if at all, for all regular hours and overtime hours worked during and after the Kronos Outage. Beth Israel provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Zamani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- FARINASP ZAMANI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public; Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; MACY'S INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00738 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 10, 2024) alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code in connection with, among other things, the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages and failure to provide paid rest periods. Plaintiff Zamani worked for Defendants as a sales associate in Los Angeles, CA from approximately March 2013 until August 2023. However, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for time spent in non-selling activities. Instead, Defendant classified all of Plaintiff's hours as productive hours even though Plaintiff was required to spend one hour to 1.5 hours per shift on non-productive sales activities, says the suit. Headquartered in New York City, Bloomingdale's LLC operates as a luxury department store chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omid Nosrati, Esq. Rene Maldonado, Esq. Amir Navab, Esq. NOSRATILAW 1801 Century Park East, Suite 840 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5630 Facsimile: (310) 553-5691 Email: omid@nosratilaw.com rene@nosratilaw.com amir.navab@nosratilaw.com BLUE BOTTLE: Greeley Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA GREELEY, MARK HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-610084 (Filed Oct. 30, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 3, 2024. The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00052 to the proceeding. The suit alleges that Blue Bottle "maintained and enforced policies and/or practices pursuant to which Plaintiffs and Class Members" were required to work during meal periods and not authorized and permitted to take legally compliant rest breaks. The suit also alleges that Blue Bottle entirely failed to "pay Plaintiffs and Class Members the wages due for missed meal periods." The Plaintiffs allege that Blue Bottle's maintenance and enforcement of these policies and practices was due to Blue Bottle's misclassification of Cafe Leaders as exempt employees. Blue Bottle is a coffee roaster and retailer.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 526-7903 Facsimile: (949) 526-7903 E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com jmhoffman@vorys.com BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Grady Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHARLES LEE GRADY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Case No. 2:22-cv-01043-SSV-MBN (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons: (a) denying the Plaintiff's motion to continue trial and pre-trial deadlines; (b) denying the Plaintiff's motion to defer briefing on Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company's motion for summary judgment; and (c) granting the Defendants' opposed motion for summary judgment. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil, other hydrocarbons, and dispersants from his work as a cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in allergic rhinitis with chronic sinusitis, and that he has suffered physical, mental and emotional pain, suffering, and anguish; the need for medical monitoring; costs and inconvenience associated with obtaining past and future medical treatment risk and fear of developing future diseases becoming saddled with financial burden; inconvenience; and emotional strain as a result of the spill. The case was filed under the Back End Litigation Option ("BELO") provisions of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement reached in the multidistrict litigation previously pending before Judge Carl Barbier, and is governed by a Case Management Order ("CMO") generally applicable to all BELO suits. On the date of the deadline for his expert disclosures, Oct. 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial and pre-trial deadlines. In the motion, he requests a 120-day extension of all unexpired CMO deadlines to settle ongoing discovery disputes and provide his experts with additional time to assess the quality of the data they have. The Defendants oppose the motion, contending that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the documents he intends to seek are relevant to the issue of causation. The Defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in accordance with the deadlines set out in the CMO, contending that the Plaintiff has not produced any admissible expert evidence regarding causation. The Plaintiff filed a motion to defer consideration of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of the ongoing discovery disputes and the pending motion to continue. The Court considers four factors in deciding whether a scheduling order should be modified: (1) the explanation for the failure to timely comply with the scheduling order; (2) the importance of the modification; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the modification; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice, citing Squyres v. Heico Cos., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015). Judge Vance finds that the first factor weighs against granting a continuance. The Plaintiff has not shown that he has been diligent in seeking information about the toxicity from available sources, and there is nothing to indicate that any expert has even begun to analyze his claims. The second factor weighs against granting a continuance. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown that the discovery he seeks will be important to develop expert causation evidence. The third factor also weighs against granting a continuance. Judge Vance points out that the Plaintiff waited to file the motion to continue until the date of its deadline to disclose expert reports. Judge Vance notes that this litigation has been lengthy, expensive, and complicated. Granting the Plaintiff a continuance would result in further delay and expense, including a greater burden of discovery and retention of additional experts by defendants to counteract new evidence propounded by the Plaintiff. The fourth factor also weighs against granting a continuance, since the availability of a continuance would not cure the prejudice of additional expense that the Defendants would incur, Judge Vance holds. Considering the relevant Rule 16 factors, the Court finds that the Defendants have not established that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish good cause to modify the scheduling order. In his motion for deferral, the Plaintiff asserts that deferral is appropriate because (1) there are the outstanding discovery issues that formed the basis of his motion to continue, (2) plaintiff has not had time to review discovery that has already been produced, (3) the complexity of the science at issue here, and (4) he has been diligent in pursuing discovery. Because the Court has found that the Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an extension of his expert disclosure deadline, and he has not produced expert reports, the Plaintiff cannot produce expert evidence on the issue of general causation. None of the Plaintiff's contentions demonstrate how a deferral would produce specific facts relevant to deciding the motion for summary judgment within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the Court has already found that the Plaintiff has not established that the discovery he seeks will be important in creating a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment. The Plaintiff does not point to any specific facts indicating that the discovery he seeks will help him demonstrate that COREXIT is capable of causing allergic rhinitis or chronic sinusitis in the general population. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that deferring consideration of the motion for summary judgment is warranted. In their motion, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Expert testimony is required to establish general causation in toxic-tort cases like this one. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, Judge Vance says his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motions to continue trial and pretrial deadlines and to defer briefing on the motion for summary judgment. The Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mr3wyfdyfrom PacerMonitor.com. BRANCHING OUT: Perez et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- NEHEMIAS NAVAS PEREZ, ERICK RAMIREZ SANCHEZ, OSCAR ALMAZAN LINARES, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANCHING OUT TREE SERVICE, INC., and MICHAEL REITER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00248 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful compensation practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. One of the Plaintiffs, Nehemias Navas Perez, commenced his employment with Defendants in 2011. Plaintiff Perez worked as a groundman and truck driver for six years. He was promoted to a non-exempt "supervisor" in 2017, a position which he held until on or about May 24, 2023. Despite this title, Plaintiff Perez continued to perform the same or similar production worker duties as he did as a groundman and truck driver. Throughout Perez's employment, Defendants failed to pay him at his statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours during each workweek in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Branching Out Tree Service, Inc. provides specialized services in tree removal, trimming and pruning, stump grinding, commercial and municipal services, land clearing, roof line clearing and aerial bucket tree removal throughout Long Island, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara V. Messina, Esq. David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 CAFE BASIL: Jimenez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------- Mayco Daniel Martinez Jimenez, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. Cafe Basil Groups, LLC d/b/a Sweet Basil Restaurant, April Mankiewicz, Basil Group I, LLC, Denise Karonis, and Jim Karonis, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (N.D. Ill., January 11, 2024) seeks redress for Defendants' willful violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime and/or minimum wages owed. The Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a restaurant cook/cleaner in Algonquin, IL; Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this position from approximately February 28, 2013 until July 14, 2023. The Plaintiff was scheduled and required to work for Defendants at least 70 hours every week. However, Plaintiff was only paid for all hours worked at straight-time, alleges the suit. Café Basil Groups, LLC is a restaurant in the Sweet Basil Restaurant chain d/b/a Sweet Basil Restaurant along with other Sweet Basil restaurants in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Mata, Esq. James M. Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 Email: jmata@justicialaboral.com jdore@justicialaboral.com CANACCORD GENUITY: Court Dismisses NBI Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTHWEST BIOTHERPEUTICS, INC., v. CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, G1 EXECUTION SERVICES LLC, GTS SECURITIES LLC, INSTINET LLC, LIME TRADING CORP., and VIRTU AMERICAS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10185-GHW-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Since the Court does not believe that an amendment would be futile, the Court further recommends that Plaintiff be given leave to file a further amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies in the FAC's loss causation allegations. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., a public biotechnology company trading under the symbol "NWBO," filed this federal securities action against the Defendants Canaccord Genuity, LLC, Citadel Securities LLC, G1 Execution Services LLC, GTS Securities LLC, Instinet LLC, Lime Trading Corporation, and Virtu Americas LLC. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in illegal market manipulation by repeatedly "spoofing" the market for NWBO's stock. Northwest is a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the development of personalized cancer vaccines designed to treat a broad range of solid tumor cancers more effectively than current cancer treatments, and without the side effects of chemotherapy. Canaccord is an independent, full-service financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48VwFxo at no extra charge.[CC] CARGILL INC: Target Corp. Alleges Beef Price-fixing Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION (a/k/a CARGILL PROTEIN), JBS S.A., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, JBS PACKERLAND, INC., NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY LLC, TYSON FOODS, INC. and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Defendants, is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated purchasers, for Defendants' alleged engagement in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the goal of the Defendants' conspiracy was to fix, raise, stabilize and/or maintain the price of beef sold to Plaintiff and others at supra-competitive levels - that is, prices artificially higher than beef prices would have been in the absence of their conspiracy. As alleged in this complaint, Defendants and their co-conspirators implemented their conspiracy through one or more anticompetitive means. The Defendants colluded during the conspiracy period to reduce supplies of beef in tandem, thereby raising and fixing beef prices at levels higher than prices that would have prevailed had the beef market been competitive. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered antitrust injury by paying illegally inflated prices for beef it purchased from Defendants, the suit asserts. Target Corp. is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Defendants are meat processing and packing companies, known in the industry as meatpackers or packers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Iovieno, Esq. Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Esq. Lawrence S. Brandman, Esq. Jack G. Stern, Esq. Mark A. Singer, Esq. Justin V. Arborn, Esq. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 504-6000 Facsimile: (212) 504-6666 E-mail: philip.iovieno@cwt.com nicholas.gravante@cwt.com lawrence.brandman@cwt.com jack.stern@cwt.com mark.singer@cwt.com justin.arborn@cwt.com CENTERRA GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants Class Gets Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Williams, David Green, Jamie Coomes, Malcum Kenner, and Andrew Barrett, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Centerra Group, LLC 401(k) Plan (nka the Constellis 401(k) Plan), v. Centerra Group, LLC; The Benefit Plan Committee of the Centerra Investment Group, LLC; The Investment Committee of the Centerra Group, LLC; AON Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc. (nka Aon Investments USA, Inc.); Paul P. Donahue; Deborah F. Ricci; Marcia Aldrich; and John Does 1–10; Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order accepting the parties' joint stipulation, and grating Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, as follows: 1. The court certifies the class, which is defined as: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Centerra Group, LLC 401(k) Plan from July 1, 2016, until January 1, 2019, excluding the Defendants and members of the Benefit Plan Committee of Centerra Group, LLC, and the Investment Committee of Centerra Group, LLC." 2. The Plaintiffs Shawn Williams, David Green, Jamie Coomes, Malcum Kenner, and Andrew Barrett are appointed as class representatives. 3. The attorneys of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP who have entered their appearances in this action and Beth B. Richardson of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, are appointed class counsel under Rule 23(g), FRCP. The court also finds the Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, and local counsel, Beth B. Richardson of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, are competent and experienced and do not appear to have any conflicts of interests that would hinder them from vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the class. The court thus approves the appointment of Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP as Plaintiffs' lead counsel and Beth B. Richardson of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC as local counsel. The Plaintiffs are five current employees of Centerra Group, LLC, who are participants in the Centerra 401(k) Plan. They aim to obtain relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, ("ERISA") and assert claims against Centerra Group. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty imposed by 29 U.S.C. section§ 1104(a)(1)(A) and (B) and engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1106(a). Centerra Group is a global government & critical infrastructure services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S2M2h3 at no extra charge.[CC] CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiff's Bid to Seal Exhibits Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibits 4 and 10-A. -- The Plaintiffs shall file an unredacted version of these exhibits on the public docket. -- The Plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibits 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, and 30 is denied without prejudice to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to seal the entire exhibit. -- Within five days of the Order, the Plaintiffs may re-file an administrative motion to file either these documents in full with appropriate redactions or an excerpted version of these transcripts entirely under seal. -- If Plaintiffs do not file another sealing motion within five days, they shall file unredacted versions of these exhibits on the public docket. The Court orders sealed the material listed below: Document or Portion Evidence Offered in Ruling of Document Sought to Support Of be Sealed Sealing Exhibit 1 MPI-C0000230 Modiano Dec. section 2 GRANTED Exhibit 2 MPI-C0000216 Modiano Dec. section 3, GRANTED Exhibit 3 Gabriel Smith Modiano Dec. section 4, DENIED W/O DepositionTranscript PREJUDICE Exhibit 4 Plan Language Modiano Dec. section 5 DENIED Chart Exhibit 5 Michael Modiano Dec. section 6 DENIED W/O Battistoni Deposition PREJUDICE Transcript Exhibit 6 Expert Report Modiano Dec. section 7 GRANTED of Mark Hall Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S03DGk at no extra charge.[CC] COBALT 27: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Troche Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA TROCHE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COBALT 27, LLC, d/b/a CARBON 2 COBALT, Case No. 1:24-cv-00041-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.carbon2cobalt.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public on the Defendant's Website in Bronx County. These access barriers that the Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of the Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter the Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website in the future, the suit claims. On November 16, 2023, the Plaintiff attempted to access the information offered on the Defendant's Website, and once she was on the Home-Page, she requested information on "Women's Fleece Jackets for under $100.00," and was directed to the "Women's Sale" section of https://www.carbon2cobalt.com. The lack of descriptive elements caused the Plaintiff to suffer confusion and exasperation while navigating https://www.carbon2cobalt.com. On the first occasion, the Plaintiff was unable to complete her search for a quality, reasonably priced fleece jacket and left the subject Website, the suit says. On November 17, 2023, the Plaintiff returned to the Website in order to determine whether the Defendant had corrected its deficiencies. Yet despite the Plaintiff's use of the screen reader, she was unable to determine whether those items offered on sale met her requirements. As a result, the Plaintiff did not complete her purchase of the desired apparel. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Plaintiff is unable to utilize a computer or device without the assistance of screen-reading software, such as Nonvisual Desktop Access or "NVDA." Cobalt 27 is a California corporation, and provides to the public a website, https://www.carbon2cobalt.com, which offers consumers access to an array of "Quality, unique apparel for all gender, hats, footwear, flasks, wallets and other assorted curated products," within their eCommerce platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com CR BARD: Court Denies Class Certification in North Brevard Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH BREVARD COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER, v. C.R. BARD, INC. and BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00144-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby entered an order denying class certification motion. The Court said, "Parrish has not met its burden for certification of either a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class or a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class." Bard's arguments are well-taken, but the court finds Parrish's request for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) fails for a more fundamental reason. The Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification, seeking to represent a class of purchasers of select medical products sold by Defendants. Parrish alleges Bard unlawfully monopolized the market for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) by tying the sale of its tip-location system (TLS) to its sale of PICCs, in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. Bard is a medical device manufacturer producing a range of products, including PICCs, which it sells to hospitals and medical service providers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HfpCUC at no extra charge.[CC] DADA NEXUS: Wang Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities -------------------------------------------------------------- YAN WANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DADA NEXUS LIMITED, JEFF HUIJIAN HE, and BECK ZHAOMING CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00239 (C.D. Cal., January 10, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dada securities between May 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024, inclusive. Allegedly, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Dada revenues from online advertising, marketing services, and operations and support costs were materially overstated; as a result, Dada would need to conduct an independent review to ascertain the financial impact and the scope of suspicious practices that led to overstated revenues and costs. The Defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of the company's securities was artificially inflated during the class period, says the suit. Headquartered in Shanghai, China, Dada is a platform for local on-demand retail and delivery in China. The company operates JD-Daojia, one of China's largest local on-demand retail platforms for retailers and brand owners, and Dada Now, a leading local on-demand delivery platform open to merchants and individual senders across various industries and product categories. Dada's securities trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DADA." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com DDS INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- LIZBETH MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEIVAN SARRAF, DDS, INC., DBA TOTAL CARE DENTAL AND ORTHODONTICS, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00954 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendants violated several provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory Class Period, working as an hourly, non-exempt Dental Receptionist for Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to fully conform their pay practices to the requirements of the law. Among other violations, the Class Members were subject to the control of Defendants while off-the-clock and did not receive minimum wage for each hour worked, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Los Angeles County, DDS, Inc. is a preferred provider organization that provides administrative services for self-insured group dental plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan N. Higday, Esq. Emma McGinn, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com em@melmedlaw.com - and - Peter Horton, Esq. LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Third Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 720-8335 E-mail: phorton@lfecr.com DELTA DENTAL: Meeks Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00202-LB (N.D. Cal., January 11, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and adequate data security measures to securely maintain personally identifiable information and protected health information against unauthorized access and disclosure, alleging claims for negligence and declaratory judgment, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Despite Delta Dental's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI of its members, Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive information was access and exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach that occurred between May 27, 2023, and May 30, 2023. In addition, despite becoming aware of the data breach on June 1, 2023, Delta Dental waited more than six months to notify individuals impacted by the breach. Indeed, Defendant waited until on or about December 14, 2023 to begin notifying its members that their PII and PHI had been compromised, says the suit. Delta Dental is a California-based dental insurance company. Its network and affiliates provide dental insurance to more than 45 million members across 15 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 550-1250 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY G. FRANKLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR DUKE UNIVERSITY, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:23-cv-00833-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying all claims in this action as a class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed Class Representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(B) and have Siri & Glimstad LLP appointed as Class Counsel for the proposed Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(g). Duke University is a private research university in Durham, North Carolina, United States. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sk53N6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com DX ENTERPRISES: Joint Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McClaine v. DX Enterprises, Inc. Case No. 3:23-cv-01168 (S.D. Ill., Filed April 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting joint motion to stay all pending deadlines. The parties are directed to file a joint status report by February 1, 2024 detailing their positions on the continued appropriateness of the stay, unless events before that date warrant an earlier report to the Court. Further, should circumstances change such that additional discovery becomes necessary or a recognizable prejudice befalls one or more of the parties during this stay, the parties may move to modify the stay as may be appropriate. In light of the Order, the Court cancels all pending deadlines. In this putative class action, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Ac. On October 5, 2023, and at the parties' request, the Court stayed all discovery in this matter so the parties could engage in settlement negotiations. This discovery stay has been continued at the parties request on two occasions. By Agreed Motion dated December 26, 2023, the parties now request a stay of all pending deadlines, including the class certification briefing deadlines, in addition to a stay of discovery. The nature of suit states Labor - Other Labor Litigation DX Enterprises is a full service staffing company.[CC] EIGHT ORANGES: Court OK's Bid for More Response Time to Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mangahas v. Eight Oranges Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04150 (S.D.N.Y., Filed May 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Class Certification motion. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: St. Mary Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA ST. MARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla., January 11, 2024) arises from the Defendant’s failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the personally identifiable information and personal health information of approximately 543,000 individuals. On May 13, 2023, the Defendant detected suspicious activity within its computer network. In response, Defendant commenced an investigation, ultimately confirming that an unauthorized party accessed confidential information stored on Defendant’s network between April 27, 2023, and May 13, 2023. Despite learning of the data breach as early as May 13, 2023, Defendant failed to announce the data breach publicly more than seven months later on or around December 28, 2023, and did not begin sending out data breach notification letters to affected individuals until around that time, says the suit. Based in Tampa, FL, Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. is a privately-held medical device company specializing in home electrical stimulating devices, bracing, and accessories for pain management and physical rehabilitation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC One World Trade Center 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC One World Trade Center 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 10 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com EXACT CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Julia K. Munley entered an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of deadline to move for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or before a date to be jointly proposed by the parties in their Joint Scheduling Report. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/422t6mQ at no extra charge.[CC] EXACT CARE: Everett Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her unopposed motion for extension of Lr 23.3 class certification deadline: Pursuant to Local Rule 23.3, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on January 2, 2024. However, upon a showing of good cause, including the need to sufficiently develop the record before moving for certification, courts in this District will permit an extension of time. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy care provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48M2GbX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Strikes Curry's Class Action Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, strikes the class action complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE CURRY, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., and LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. The Plaintiff initiated the instant action on Dec. 27, 2023, by filing a seven-count Class Action Complaint. Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible "shotgun pleading." A shotgun complaint contains multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint, Judge Howard explains, citing Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015). As a result, Judge Howard says, most of the counts contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. Here, Counts II-VII of the Complaint incorporate by reference all allegations of all the preceding counts. In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are altogether unacceptable, Judge Howard opines, citing Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight. As the Court in Cramer recognized, shotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court's docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court's parajudicial personnel and resources. When faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court's obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative, and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Judge Howard strikes the Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff was directed to file a corrected complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on Jan. 17, 2024. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3bytjscpfrom PacerMonitor.com. FRANK KENDALL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in Hoffler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOFFLER v. FRANK KENDALL, Case No. 8:23-cv-00170 (D. Md., Filed Jan. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an order withdrawing motion to certify Class. The nature of suit states Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.[CC] GATOS SILVER: Orozco Sues Directors for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOAH OROZCO, derivatively on behalf of GATOS SILVER, INC., Plaintiff v. JANICE STAIRS, KARL HANNEMAN, DAVID PEAT, CHARLES HANSARD, IGOR GONZALES, ALI ERFAN, DANIEL MUÑIZ QUINTANILLA, and STEPHEN ORR, Defendants, and GATOS SILVER, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.1:24-cv-00040-UNA (D. Del., January 11, 2024) alleges the Company's officers and directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties between at least March 29, 2021 and January 25, 2022. Allegedly, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements in connection with, among other things, the company's initial public offering and the company's secondary public offering. These statements have exposed the company to substantial class-wide liability as well as the expenditure of substantial defense costs in connection with the securities class action captioned Bilinsky v. Gatos Silver, Inc., et al. The Plaintiff, on behalf of one and more shareholders of the company, also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Headquartered in British Columbia, Canada, Gatos Silver, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in silver mining. The company's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GATO."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Erica L. Stone, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com estone@rosenlegal.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Battle Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW BATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion & Order granting: (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to modify the scheduling order and to file a first amended complaint; (2) the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; and (3) joint motion to stay all proceedings. The Plaintiffs--purchasers of new and used vehicles equipped with certain eight-speed transmissions--have filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant General Motors, LLC, based on alleged defects to those transmissions (the Hydra-Matic 8L90 and Hydra-Matic 8L45) installed in 2019–2022 model year vehicles. The Plaintiffs allege that the eight-speed transmissions at issue have a dangerous shift defect, and that GM concealed this defect. They seek to bring suit on behalf of "[a]ll original purchasers or current owners of Class Vehicles who purchased the Vehicles from authorized GM dealers" in California, Michigan, New Jersey, Indiana, and Washington. They bring claims under the applicable state law of where each Plaintiff purchased a vehicle. Plaintiff Juan Castaneda--a named Plaintiff in the class action--alleges that he purchased a new 2021 GMC Canyon containing an 8L90 or 8L45 transmission from Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck, a dealership in Seaside, California. He alleges that his vehicle's "transmission exhibited hard shifting, clunking, jerking and vibrating." He executed an agreement with the dealership entitled, "Retail Installment Sale Contract - Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision)." The agreement includes the terms under which the dealership financed Castaneda's vehicle purchase. The agreement also contains an arbitration provision. GM, a non-party to the arbitration agreements, moves to compel Castaneda's claims to arbitration. The Plaintiffs seek leave to modify the scheduling order and to amend their complaint by adding 15 additional plaintiffs from nine states and removing surplus allegations and causes of action. GM only opposes the Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that it seeks to add three plaintiffs, who have signed agreements to arbitrate, Banessa Canales-Carayhua, Carly Ball, and Robert Krause. Since the filing of these motions, the parties have filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending the Sixth Circuit's rulings in two recently granted appeals of certification orders in automotive-defect class actions: In re General Motors LLC, No. 23-11044 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023), and In re Nissan North America, Inc., No. 23-0501 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023). The Court held a status conference to discuss all pending motions on Dec. 27, 2023. At the status conference, all counsel agreed that if the Court were to grant GM's motion to compel, it should make that ruling applicable to any newly added plaintiffs, who have signed binding arbitration agreements with GM. Judge Goldsmith notes that this case concerns a "gateway" question of arbitrability--that is, whether GM, a non-party to the contract, can enforce Castaneda's agreement to arbitrate. The parties' dispute centers around who can answer this gateway question. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court is the appropriate forum, while GM contends that the gateway question of arbitrability must be decided by an arbitrator. GM has the better of the argument, Judge Goldsmith holds. Because Castaneda's arbitration agreement contains a valid delegation clause that he has failed to specifically challenge, only an arbitrator can decide the gateway question of arbitrability. Mr. Castaneda states that he "only and specifically challenges the delegation clause nestled within the arbitration provision." But "a party's mere statement that it is challenging the delegation provision is not enough; courts must look to the substance of the challenge," Judge Goldsmith explains, citing In re StockX Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 19 F.4th 873, 885 (6th Cir. 2021). Here, Mr. Castaneda challenges the delegation clause on the grounds that the clause cannot be read to include any dispute related to the vehicle, by non-signatories beyond those identified by the dealership in the agreement (such as GM). Judge Goldsmith opines that this is not a specific challenge to the delegation clause. Lyman v. Ford Motor Co., a recent case where another judge in this district was faced with facts very similar to these, is particularly informative, No. 21-CV-10024, 2022 WL 856393 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2022), Judge Goldsmith explains. In Lyman, the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles through financing from a credit company pursuant to an agreement containing an identical arbitration provision to the one at issue in this case. Ford Motor Company, a non-party to the contract, sought to enforce the arbitration agreement against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs purported to specifically challenge the delegation clause by arguing that Ford should not be able to compel arbitration because it was not a party to that agreement. The court in Lyman held that this was not a specific challenge to the delegation clause because it did "not go to the validity of the delegation clauses" and instead went "to the enforceability of the whole arbitration agreement." The court left the gateway issue of whether Ford could enforce the arbitration agreement for an arbitrator to decide. The reasoning in Lyman was correct, and the same outcome is required here, Judge Goldsmith holds. Even though Castaneda purports to be challenging the delegation clause specifically, in substance he is challenging the enforceability of the entire arbitration agreement. This holding is consistent with the Sixth Circuit's recent cases explaining that whether a non-party can enforce an arbitration agreement is a question reserved for the arbitrator, Judge Goldsmith opines, citing In re StockX, 19 F.4th at 883 (describing the type of challenge brought by Castaneda as an issue of enforceability and, thus, a question of arbitrability delegated to an arbitrator). Because the Court finds that Castaneda's challenge is not specific to the delegation clause, the gateway question of whether GM can compel Castaneda to arbitrate must be decided by an arbitrator. Judge Goldsmith clarifies that this does not mean that GM, a non-party to Castaneda's contract, can necessarily force Castaneda to arbitrate his claims--it simply reserves that question for arbitration. An arbitrator might still find that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to GM. For these reasons, the Court grants GM's motion to compel arbitration, the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order and to file a first amended complaint, and the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings. The Plaintiffs were to file an amended complaint within three days. Consistent with the parties' agreement at the Dec. 27, 2023 status conference, this ruling compelling arbitration applies to any newly added plaintiffs, who have signed binding arbitration agreements with GM. The case is stayed pending the decision of the Sixth Circuit in the appeals referenced here or until further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4m4fjpfxfrom PacerMonitor.com. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Can File Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Trauernicht, et al., v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file material under seal: -- The reply Memorandum of law in further support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is filed under seal. -- Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Decla of John C. Roberts in further support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification are filed under seal. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6aX1P at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGE MASON: 4th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Dismiss Amison Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuits titled KYLIE AMISON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; THE RECTORS AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, Defendants - Appellants, and JOHN DOES 1-25; SOCRATES DIMITRIADIS, Defendants, Case No. 23-1042 (4th Cir.), and KYLIE AMISON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SOCRATES DIMITRIADIS, Defendant - Appellant, and GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; RECTORS AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 23-1385 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reverses the district court's orders denying the Defendants-Appellants' motions to dismiss. The Appeals are from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria; Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge, Case No. 1:22-cv-00731-CMH-WEF. The matter was submitted on Oct. 25, 2023, and decided on Dec. 28, 2023. The matter is before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. In these consolidated appeals, Defendants George Mason University and Socrates Dimitriadis appeal the district court's orders denying their motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reverses the district court's orders and remands with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint. Generally, a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss is not immediately appealable. However, the Defendants appeal the denial of sovereign immunity on the claims against the University and the denial of sovereign and qualified immunity on the claims against Dimitriadis in his official and individual capacity, respectively. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court's orders. Plaintiff Kylie Amison filed this putative class action lawsuit based on disciplinary proceedings instituted against her while she was enrolled as a student at Mason. According to Amison's amended complaint, in May 2020, Dimitriadis, a professor in the Computer Science Department, accused her of violating the University's Honor Code by engaging in academic misconduct. Dimitriadis determined that the program code Amison submitted in one of her assignments in his course was "unorthodox," and a program he used--Measure of Software Similarity ("MOSS")--had flagged the assignment for plagiarism. Mr. Dimitriadis notified Amison of the alleged violation and informed her that she would be referred to the Office of Academic Integrity. Amison asserts that the Computer Science Department regularly levels false accusations of cheating against students as a result of inter-departmental politics. Approximately one month later, Amison appeared before the University's Honor Committee, and Dimitriadis testified. According to Amison, despite the fact that her challenged assignment contained less than two pages of code, and other universities have found that MOSS is ineffective for reviewing shorter assignments, Dimitriadis failed to inform the Committee of this limitation. Ms. Amison also alleged that the Honor Committee failed to afford her the opportunity to cross-examine Dimitriadis and that she was otherwise ill-equipped to do so because her expert witness was sequestered from the hearing during Dimitriadis' testimony. The Honor Committee found Amison responsible for violating two sections of the Honor Code; she failed the course and was suspended for one semester. Based on these allegations, Amison raised two claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She argued that the Defendants deprived her of her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and, further, had conspired to deprive her of this right. She also brought a state law claim of breach of contract against Mason. In addition to monetary damages, Amison sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Defendants' actions unlawful and enjoining investigation and hearing of her and the putative class because the investigation and hearing was conducted in an unprofessional and prejudicial manner, it was tainted, and that evidence obtained through MOSS software be excluded. Mason moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that it was not a "person" amenable to suit under Section 1983 and that, as a state-supported university, it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as "an arm of the Commonwealth of Virginia." The district court summarily denied the motion, stating: "It appear[s] to the Court that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted." Mason moved for reconsideration and renewed its motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), emphasizing that the court had not addressed Mason's claim of sovereign immunity. The court summarily denied the motion. Mr. Dimitriadis similarly moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), echoing Mason's sovereign immunity argument and further contending that he was entitled to qualified immunity for the claims brought against him in his personal capacity. The court summarily denied Dimitriadis' motion. On appeal, the Defendants reiterate their arguments that they are entitled to sovereign immunity and that Dimitriadis is entitled to qualified immunity. Turning first to the Defendants' assertion of sovereign immunity, the Panel notes that it is well established "that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State." This immunity also extends to state agencies and other government entities properly characterized as "arms" of the State. Like the State itself, state officers acting in their official capacity are also entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection because a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office and, as such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself. Ms. Amison concedes that Mason, as a public university, is an "arm" of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She argues, however--as she did in the district court--that her claims fall within the Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908) exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity because she sought injunctive relief. However, the Panel opines that the Ex parte Young exception is narrow: it applies only to prospective relief, does not permit judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past, and has no application in suits against the States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought. Accordingly, as the Defendants assert, it necessarily cannot apply to Amison's claims against Mason, which retains its immunity "against all suits in federal court." Further fatal to Amison's argument is that her requested relief was not prospective; rather, she sought a declaration that the Defendants' actions were unlawful, and requested that the district court enjoin the investigation and hearing. However, it is clear from Amison's amended complaint that the investigation and hearing occurred entirely in the past. The Court of Appeals finds that the Ex parte Young exception is inapplicable to Amison's claims, and the Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the district court erred by denying Mason's motions to dismiss on this ground. Similarly, as a state officer, Dimitriadis is entitled to sovereign immunity on the claims brought against him in his official capacity, and the court erred by denying his motion to dismiss on this ground. The Court of Appeals also finds that Dimitriadis is entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the individual capacity claims against him on that ground. Accordingly, the Panel reverses the district court's orders and remands with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint. The Panel dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Reversed and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/cxuk4r2bfrom PacerMonitor.com. Attorney General Jason S. Miyares -- jmiyares@oag.state.va.us -- Deputy Attorney General Coke Morgan Stewart -- ecms@yahoo.com -- Assistant Attorney General Eli S. Schlam -- eschlam@gmu.edu -- Solicitor General Andrew N. Ferguson -- aferguson@oag.state.va.us -- Principal Deputy Solicitor General Erika L. Maley -- EMaley@oag.state.va.us -- Deputy Solicitor General Graham K. Bryant -- gbryant@oag.state.va.us -- Assistant Solicitor General M. Jordan Minot -- mminot@oag.state.va.us -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, in Richmond, Virginia, for the Appellants. Keith Altman -- kalonline@kaltmanlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN, in Farmington Hills, Michigan, for the Appellee. GODADDY.COM LLC: Simon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Simon, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00065-ROS (D. Ariz., January 10, 2024) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. Plaintiff Jason Simon is a resident of Tyler, TX and worked for Defendant remotely as a care agent from approximately December 2020 to June 2021. Allegedly, Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate Plaintiff and its other care agents for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in nonpayment of all overtime hours worked and regular hours in non-overtime workweeks. Headquartered in Tempe, AZ, GoDaddy.com LLC provides web hosting and domain registration services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com - and - Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq. BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC 401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205 Tempe, AZ 85283 Telephone: (480) 550-5165 E-mail: jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com GROWGENERATION CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Growgeneration Corp. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Growgeneration Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-11312 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GrowGeneration -- http://www.growgeneration.com/-- is the nation's largest hydroponic store and organic garden center supplier selling hydroponic supplies, commercial grow lights and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal HANPOOL INC: Faces Park Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE PARK, CELESTE VARGAS, ALFREDO LARIOS SALVADOR, WILMER ADOLFO LARIOS SALVADOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HANPOOL, INC., GAM MEE OK, INC., HYUNG K. CHOI, JUNSIK MOON (a/k/a DEREK DOE), HONG JUN AN (a/k/a JUN DOE), and HYUNG MO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11309 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the state and federal laws by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wage notices, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, failing to pay wages on a weekly basis, and unlawfully retaining part of the gratuities earned by Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiffs were employed as servers and bussers working at the Defendants' Gammeeok restaurants in New York and New Jersey. Hanpool, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 559-6517 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com HEALTH & GLOW: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLEGRA NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH & GLOW PRIMARY CARE & MED SPA LLC and SWAPNA KALLIKADAN M.D., Individually Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00128 (M.D. Fla., January 12, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with the Defendants' unlawful pay practices as well as asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff began her employment on or about November 2022, as a Medical Assistant. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, for which she was not compensated at the overtime rate. In addition, Plaintiff was constructively discharged after expressing disappointment in the doctor's discriminatory conduct patients. Following her termination, Plaintiff was also informed that the doctor was filling prescription medication at a local pharmacy in Plaintiff's and other employees names, unbeknownst to them, and reselling the medication to patients at a significantly inflated price, says the suit. Based in Tampa, FL, Health & Glow is Florida limited liability company that operates a primary care clinic with a medical spa and IV lounge. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN|GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 220-4000 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wflorin@floringray.com cgray@floringray.com HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Rhoade Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- LAURA RHOADES, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF, v. HEALTH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60063-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2024), arises from the Defendants' standard and illegal pay practices and policies of failing to pay their employees proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants also failed keep adequate records of Plaintiff's work hours and pay. Health Management Corporation of America is a diagnostic imaging management services company specializing in operating Stand-Up MRI facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Palmiter Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DESTINY PALMITER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTHEC LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00027 (D.N.J., Jan. 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to safeguard the consumers' personally identifiable information and private health information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The lawsuit claims that the Data Breach's impact has affected at least 1 million consumers. HealthEC's breach differs from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who had no relationship with HealthEC, never sought one, and never consented to HealthEC's collecting and storing their information, the Plaintiff asserts. The Data Breach began on July 14, 2023, and was allowed by the Defendant to continue until July 23,2023, providing cybercriminals unfettered access to consumers' highly private information for at least nine days. On December 22, 2023, HealthEC finally notified State Attorneys General and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell its victims how many people were impacted, when Defendant actually discovered the breach, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant five months after discovering the Breach to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly private Sensitive Information. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information, the Plaintiff says. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff, Destiny Palmiter, is a natural person and citizen of Michigan, residing in Lincoln Park, Michigan where she intends to remain. Ms. Palmiter is a Data Breach victim, receiving HealthEC's Breach Notice on December 22, 2023. HealthEC is a population health technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 751-0868 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com HIS GUAM: Igarashi Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S. GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiff alleges class members were employees of Defendant, terminated by Defendant through the same "separation notice," and the "separation notice" was received by all on May 30, 2020 effective on May 31, 2020 without prior notice. Managing a class action of this alleged size would not be particularly difficult because the proposed class all had the same employer, were terminated at the same time, and in the same way. The court finds that class certification is superior to other methods available for adjudicating the proposed class's claims. During March of 2020, Defendant's employees stopped working due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the employees were not working, Defendant paid its employees' wages until May 30, 2020. On May 30, 2020, the Plaintiff along with other allegedly "affected employees" received a "separation notice" from Defendant stating employees would be placed on a " furlough status" effective May 31, 2020. On Sept.16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint alleging Defendant violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2102, when the Defendant furloughed Plaintiff and "affected employees" without the 60-day advanced notice required by the WARN Act. HIS Guam is a Guam corporation that operated as a travel service Agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tPYmZS at no extra charge.[CC] IDAHO: Prosecutor's Bid to Dismiss Poe Class Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAM POE, by and through her parents and next friends, Penny and Peter Poe; PENNY POE; PETER POE; JANE DOE, by and through her parents and next friends, Joan and John Doe; JOAN DOE, and JOHN DOE, v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho; JAN M. BENNETTS, in her official capacity as Ada County Prosecuting Attorney; and the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE IDAHO CODE COMMISSION, in their official capacities, Case No. 1:23-cv-00269-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order that: 1. Prosecutor Bennetts' Motion to Dismiss is denied. 2. Attorney General Labrador and the Idaho Code Commission Members' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: -- The motion is granted as to the Idaho Code Commission defendants and denied as to Defendant Attorney General Labrador. 3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted. Accordingly, the Defendants Attorney General Labrador and Ada County Prosecutor Bennetts and their successors in office are enjoined from enforcing any provision of House Bill 71 during the pendency of this litigation. The Court concludes that the parent plaintiffs have asserted a fundamental right and that HB 71 must therefore survive strict scrutiny. And given that HB 71 is unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny, it is also unlikely to survive strict scrutiny. The parent plaintiffs have thus shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The Court finds that a statewide injunction is appropriate here for three reasons. First, all plaintiffs in this case are proceeding under pseudonyms, and it would be administratively burdensome, if even possible, to fashion an injunction that would allow them to secure relief without compromising their anonymity. Second, the Ninth Circuit has upheld statewide injunctions in similar cases. Third, if the Court were to issue a plaintiffs-only injunction, it would likely face a number of follow-on lawsuits by similarly situated plaintiffs, which would create needless and repetitive litigation. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which is slated to take effect on January 1, 2024. The plaintiffs -- two transgender minors and their parents—allege that the Act's prohibition on the use of puberty blockers, hormones and other treatments violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. They ask the Court to enjoindefendants from enforcing the Act during the pendency of this lawsuit. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint and oppose the request for injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ynO3K at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: Seeks Leave to File Class Reply in Cross Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN CROSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, Case No. 3:23-cv-03165-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for leave to file a reply in support of his motion for class certification instanter (unopposed). 1. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify this case as a class action on Aug. 31, 2023. The Defendant responded in opposition to the motion on Nov. 13, 2023. 2. In its response, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not established the "numerosity," "commonality" and "typicality" requirements of Fed. R. 23(a). In support, Defendant makes a number of factual and legal representations that the Plaintiff believes to be incorrect. 3. The Plaintiff does not seek leave to file this brief in order to burden Defendant on the Court, but rather to give the Court the necessary information to decide the motion. 4. The Plaintiff's counsel spoke to Mary Johnston, one of the attorneys for Defendant, today, December 28, 2023, regarding the Plaintiff's intent to seek leave to file a reply brief. Illinois State Police is a multifaceted police agency which specializes in enforcing the laws and protecting the public. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U3MXAe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net ILLINOIS: Seeks to Withdraw Portions of Romanotto Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN CROSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Police, Case No. 3:23-cv-03165-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting his unopposed motion for leave to (1) withdraw paragraphs 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 from Lynn Romanotto's declaration; (2) file an amended declaration on behalf of Ms. Romanotto with those paragraphs withdrawn; and (3) file an amended response brief that removes the sections that refer to the proposed withdrawn paragraphs of Ms. Romanotto's declaration. The Defendant, Brendan Kelly, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, by his attorney, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, for leave to withdraw five paragraphs of Lynn Romanotto's November 13, 2023 declaration and amend Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on August 31, 2023. The Defendant filed his response on November 13, 2023. Illinois State Police is a multifaceted police agency which specializes in enforcing the laws and protecting the public. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6bil7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marci L. Sahinoglu, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (311) 814-3131 E-mail: Marci.sahinoglu@ilag.gov INTEGRIS HEALTH: Bointy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph E. Bointy, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01206-JD (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Campbell-Detrixhe Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Dia Campbell-Detrixhe, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01209-R (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Civi Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Onur Civi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01210-JD (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Leeb Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Gregory Leeb, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01207-J (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Zinck Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Aaron Zinck, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01208-D (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com IROQUOIS NURSING: Bid to Amend Pleading Due Feb. 27 in Pallotta --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan Pallotta, v. Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01197-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to join any person as a party Feb. 27, 2024 to this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this Feb. 27, 2024 action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a status March 5, 2024 report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are Jan. 10, 2024 to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must Jan. 26, 2024 be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is to be Sept. 27, 2024 completed on or before: Iroquois Nursing Home is a Senior Living provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47tzN2J at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Halls Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order granting motion for class certification: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded J&J equity securities, as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 78c(11) and 17 C.F.R. section 240.3a11-1, between February 22, 2013 and December 13, 2018." The following will be excluded from the class: defendants, present or former executive officers of defendants and members of their immediate families, present or former directors of defendants and members of their immediate families, any entity in which a defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. SDCERA is certified as Class Representative. Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP is appointed as class. J&J is a multinational company engaged in research and development, manufacturing, and sale of a broad range of healthcare products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SklOqv at no extra charge.[CC] JUMP TRADING: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit With Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants, with leave to amend, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled NICK PATTERSON, Plaintiff v. JUMP TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-03600-PCP (N.D. Cal.). In this putative securities class action, Lead Plaintiff Michael Tobias and additional Plaintiff Nick Patterson assert various securities fraud claims against Defendant Jump Trading LLC for Jump's involvement in the promotion and sale of cryptocurrency tokens that dramatically dropped in price within a matter of days in May 2022. Jump moves to compel arbitration and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. This case at one time involved multiple defendants. It now involves just one: Jump Trading LLC. Jump Trading LLC, in conjunction with its business division Jump Crypto (together "Jump"), is a Delaware limited liability company that engages in algorithmic trading of a variety of asset classes, including digital and traditional assets. The Plaintiffs initially brought the seconded amended complaint against TerraForm Labs Ptd Ltd., Jump Trading LLC, Tribe Capital, DeFinance Capital/Definance Technologies Oy, Three Arrows Capital Ptd Ltd., and individual defendants Nicholas Platias and Do Kwon. The Plaintiffs have since moved to voluntarily dismiss, without prejudice, Defendants Nicholas Platias, Definance Capital/Definance Capital OY, Tribe Capital, and Three Arrows Capital Pte. Ltd., as well as Defendants Terraform Labs, Pte. Ltd., and Do Kwon. The Plaintiffs allege that Jump colluded with and was a principal participant in a fraudulent scheme with former Defendants, including Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. (TFL) and its Chief Executive Officer Do Kwon. In 2018, Mr. Kwon founded TFL, a company headquartered in Singapore that focuses on developing, marketing, and selling a suite of digital assets and financial products. Cryptocurrency tokens—one form of digital asset—are a kind of financial product that is contractually based (via a 'smart' contract) and is created and uploaded permanently to a given blockchain. A "blockchain protocol" is computer code that operates as a set of regulations and guidelines that govern the functioning of various parts of a blockchain company's technology. Cryptocurrency markets are notoriously volatile. "Stablecoins" are a form of cryptocurrency that purport to solve the problem of wild fluctuations by attempting to tie or "peg" their market value to an external collateral with less volatility, such as another currency (e.g., U.S. dollars), commodity (e.g., gold), or financial instrument (e.g., stocks, cryptocurrencies, etc.). The price of a stablecoin is supposed to always remain at $1, or the value of whatever other external collateral the coin is pegged to. Stablecoin developers have devised two primary ways to maintain price stability: overcollateralization with fiat reserves and algorithmic stablecoins. TFL operates the "Terra" blockchain and protocol. "Terra Tokens" refer to the range of TFL's digital assets, including the UST and LUNA coins, which are TFL's largest Terra ecosystem digital assets by market cap. The UST is an algorithmic stablecoin that operates through a pair of tokens (the stablecoin itself and another digital asset that backs the stablecoin) and a smart contract that regulates the relationship between the two (i.e., the algorithm). The UST is pegged to $1 and backed by the LUNA, its companion coin. While an overcollateralized coin would allow swapping the coin for $1 in dollar reserves, the algorithmic UST stablecoin instead allows coin holders to exchange one UST stablecoin for $1 worth of TFL's LUNA coin. To maintain UST's 1:1 parity with the U.S. dollar, TFL's algorithm mints and burns UST and LUNA to control the supply and keep the value of UST steady at $1, while at the same time incentivizing arbitrageurs to trade the UST back to its peg of $1 if it deviates. TFL never registered any offering of securities nor registered the Terra Tokens as a class of securities pursuant to federal securities law. TFL and Mr. Kwon, however, touted the expertise and success of the Terraform team and aggressively marketed TFL's crypto asset securities to U.S. investors. Investors like Mr. Tobias and Mr. Patterson allegedly invested fiat and digital currencies to purchase Terra Tokens with the expectation of profit. TFL also developed protocols to support the sale and promotion of Terra Tokens. These protocols operate like company charters with a set of regulations and guidelines that govern the functioning of various technologies. TFL launched its most popular protocol, the Anchor Protocol, in August 2020. The Anchor Protocol allegedly functions like a type of high-yield savings account whereby investors can "stake" or deposit UST with TFL in exchange for a guaranteed 20% rate of return. Users, including the Lead Plaintiff, accessed the Anchor Protocol through a web application called the Anchor Protocol Interface ("Interface"). In order to connect to the Interface, users first had to accept the Anchor Terms of Service (TOS) that explain the terms and conditions by which users may access and use the Interface. Jump has been involved with TFL since at least 2019, when Jump's President Kanav Kariya met with Mr. Kwon to discuss UST. In November 2019, TFL loaned Jump 30 million LUNA to improve liquidity because of LUNA's lackluster performance. Jump began to sell LUNA into the market in July 2020, thereby allowing investors to purchase LUNA through transactions in secondary markets. In September of that year, TFL loaned Jump an additional 65 million LUNA. To receive the LUNA, Jump had to meet certain thresholds related to trading in UST. Jump met the first threshold and began receiving LUNA pursuant to the loan from TFL in January 2021. The loan and Jump's sales of LUNA allowed public investors, including U.S. investors, to acquire LUNA through transactions in the secondary market, and generated speculative interest in LUNA. In late May 2021, the UST began to de-peg from the U.S. dollar dropping to nearly $0.90 by May 23, 2021. That morning and throughout the day, Kwon communicated repeatedly with Jump and expressed concern over UST's value. After Mr. Kwon discussed with Jump how to restore UST's peg to the dollar, Jump purchased large quantities of UST throughout the day on May 23 and continuing through May 27. Following those purchases, UST's market price began to rise and eventually was restored to near $1. This conduct was allegedly central in efforts to mislead investors about the stability of the algorithm. Subsequently, Mr. Kwon agreed to remove the loan agreement conditions requiring Jump to achieve the requisite benchmarks to receive the loaned LUNA tokens and agreed to deliver the remaining 61,458,334 LUNA tokens to Jump. Those modifications were reduced to writing in a July 21, 2021 agreement, whose terms promised Jump LUNA tokens at $0.40 per token during a time when LUNA was trading at more than $90 in the secondary market. In total, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump generated profits of $1.28 billion as a result of its agreements with TFL. The cause of the re-peg, TFL's loans to Jump, and Jump's role in increasing the price of Terra Tokens were not publicly disclosed to investors. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump joined TFL and others in misleading investors, who were actively buying and trading UST, to believe that the algorithm had "self-healed" to restore the peg without any human involvement. In January 2022, as part of its efforts to promote the stability of the algorithm, TFL formed the Luna Foundation Guard--a group of six venture capital groups that promised to support and fund the Terra ecosystem and to "defend the peg" in the event that high volatility caused the UST/LUNA pair to become untethered from one another. Mr. Kariya served as a founding member of the Luna Foundation Guard's Governing Council. The Plaintiffs allege that the Luna Foundation Guard and its members made a series of statements attributing UST's recovery from the May 2021 depegging to the resiliency of algorithmic stablecoins--rather than an infusion of capital without disclosing the nature of the intervention that restored the UST's peg. In addition to those statements, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump, without disclosing its role in stabilizing the peg, made a series of misleading statements and misrepresentations that are actionable under the securities laws. First, on Oct. 11, 2021, Jump published a "now-deleted" blog post on their website titled "Stablecoins: The Impending Rise of a Multi-Trillion Dollar Market." Second, on Jan. 28, 2022, Mr. Kariya posted statements about Terra Tokens on Twitter. Third, in a Luna Foundation Guard press release issued on Feb. 22, 2022, Mr. Kariya stated that UST Forex Reserve further strengthens confidence in the peg of the market's leading decentralized stablecoin UST. Fourth, on March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs allege that Kwon appeared with Jump's Kariya on the Ship Show and promoted the stability and security of the UST and LUNA peg as Terra's two most "attractive" features. Fifth, on March 10, 2022, Jump promoted an article titled "Yield Farming for Serious People" on its website. The Plaintiffs allege that by May 2022, structural vulnerabilities within the Terra ecosystem precipitated a massive selloff of both UST and LUNA. Between May 7 and May 12, 2022, the price of UST and LUNA Tokens dropped by 91% and 99.7% after it was revealed that TFL's largest digital assets were unstable and unsustainable. After purchasing 454,991 Terra Tokens on April 6, 2022, for $1 per token, Mr. Tobias lost $441,062.82 as a result of the selloff. Mr. Patterson purchased Terra Tokens in the first few months of 2022 as well, resulting in significant investment losses because of the same selloff. On these allegations, Lead Plaintiff Mr. Tobias and co-plaintiff Mr. Patterson bring this putative class action alleging several violations of federal securities law. The Plaintiffs also bring claims in the alternative under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment under California state law. Jump now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement between Mr. Tobias and TFL and to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When registering to use TFL's Anchor Protocol Interface, Lead Plaintiff Michael Tobias and TFL agreed that they would arbitrate certain disputes that might arise between them. It is undisputed that Jump was not a party to that agreement and has never entered into any other arbitration agreement with Mr. Tobias. Jump nonetheless contends that it may invoke Mr. Tobias's agreement with TFL to compel arbitration of Mr. Tobias's claims against Jump in this lawsuit. Jump's motion presents two distinct issues: (1) whether Mr. Tobias has agreed that the arbitrator, rather than this Court, must determine whether his claims against Jump are subject to the TFL arbitration agreement, and, if not, (2) whether Mr. Tobias must arbitrate his claims against Jump. The Court answers both questions in the negative. Judge Pitts holds that Jump cannot compel arbitration under the agreement between Tobias and TFL, and Jump may not compel arbitration because the Plaintiffs' claims against Jump do not fall within the arbitration agreement's scope and equitable estoppel does not require arbitration here. In its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, Jump argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Jump committed securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b), failed to allege that Jump committed securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10(a) and 10(c), and failed to plead control person liability for TFL and the Luna Foundation Guard's actions. Additionally, Jump argues that the plaintiffs have failed to state alternative claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment under California state law. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that terra tokens are securities. The Court also finds that the second amended complaint fails to adequately plead that Jump made material misrepresentations, and that Jump committed a manipulative or deceptive act. In sum, Judge Pitts opines, the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead a single actionable misrepresentation or omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b). The Court, therefore, grants Jump's motion to dismiss this claim with leave to amend. Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the Terra Tokens are securities, the Court grants Jump's motion to dismiss those claims without prejudice to their reassertion in the future should the Court's conclusion that Terra Tokens are securities be revisited and changed. For these reasons, Judge Pitts rules that Jump's Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied and Jump's Motion to Dismiss is granted with leave to amend. Any amended complaint will be filed within 21 days of the entry of this order and will include a chart listing numerically each alleged false or misleading statement, the speaker, the date, and the arguments supporting the Plaintiffs' claim of falsity and scienter. The chart will also cite the paragraphs in the amended complaint where the allegations are made. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3zmnreusfrom PacerMonitor.com. KAISER FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE II, JANE DOE, JANE DOE II, JANE DOE III, JANE DOE IV, and JANE DOE V, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting a joint stipulation regarding case management schedule and order: Action Schedule Defendants' Replies ISO Motion to Dismiss Feb. 14, 2024 and Motion to Compel Arbitration Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss March 14, 2024 and Motion to Compel Arbitration at 1:30 PM Remaining Discovery Begins Apr. 1, 202 Class Certification Motion; Class June 28, 2024 Certification Expert Report Deadline. Opposition to Class Certification Motion; Aug. 27, 2024 Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report Deadline Class Certification Hearing Nov. 7, 2024 Hearing Date for Dispositive Motions July 24, 2025 at 1:30 PM Pretrial Conference Oct. 7,2025 On Oct. 10, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report and Case Management Statement where Plaintiffs and Defendants proposed separate discovery plans and case schedules. The Parties appeared at the Initial Case Management Conference before Hon. Edward M. Chen on October 17, 2023. Kaiser operates as a non-profit health care organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzmnF0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com - and - James Cecchi, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. Anne-Marie D. Dao, Esq. Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. Tenaya Rodewald, Esq. Kari M. Rollins, Esq. Charles L. Glover, Esq. Nolan J. Walter, Esq. Kevin Murphy, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 E-mail: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com adao@sheppardmullin.com dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com trodewald@sheppardmullin.com krollins@sheppardmullin.com cglover@sheppardmullin.com nwalter@sheppardmullin.com kemurphy@sheppardmullin.com KANSAS CITY, MO: Melton's Bid to Amend Pleadings Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS MELTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00409-RK (W.D. Mo.). The Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 15 to amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of the Class claims against the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and to join another named plaintiff (Michael Collins) as class representative. The Plaintiff also requests that Mr. Collins' claims relate back to the filing date of the initial pleading. The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's proposed amendment with respect to clarifying the factual allegations in support of his claims; however, the Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's adding a new plaintiff, who would also act as an additional class representative and whose claims would relate back to the date the Plaintiff filed his initial petition. Judge Ketchmark grants in part the motion, in that Plaintiff Melton is granted leave to amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of the class claims against the City, and to join Michael Collins as an additional Plaintiff and as an additional class representative, and denies in part, in that Michael Collins' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") do not relate back to the initial pleading date of Dec. 13, 2022, but rather are commenced as of the filing of Collins' Consent to Sue, which occurred on Sept. 11, 2023. The Plaintiff filed his complaint, styled a collective action under Missouri Wage and Hour law and the FLSA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, on Dec. 13, 2022, in state court. The Plaintiff is a firefighter, and the Collective Class are similarly situated members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 42 (IAFF). In his complaint, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant failed to properly calculate and pay overtime hours in violation of Missouri Wage and Hour law and the FLSA based on the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective from May 1, 2021, to present at the time of filing. The complaint alleges (1) that on Jan. 10, 2019, IAFF members brought a collective class action against the Defendant in Adams v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 19-CV-00093 (W.D. Mo. Feb 8, 2019); (2) thereafter, in September of 2021, Judge Gaddy, who presided over the Adams action, found that the Defendant had violated the FLSA; and thus (3) the Defendant's violations of Missouri Wage and Hour law and the FLSA subsequent to Judge Gaddy's Order were knowing and willful." The Plaintiff attached to the complaint a blank Consent to Sue form, but not a Consent to Sue form signed by the Plaintiff. Between the filing of the initial Collective Action Petition on Dec. 13, 2022, and the filing of the Plaintiff's motion to amend pleadings on Aug. 3, 2023, there were no signed Consent to Sue forms filed in this case. Although not relevant for ruling on the present motion, the Court notices that both Plaintiff Thomas Melton and Michael Collins filed a signed Consent to Sue on March 20, 2020, in the Adams case. Melton and Collins were member of the collective class that sought specialty overtime pay from the Defendant under the IAFF's 2015 collective bargaining agreement. As part of the dispositive settlement agreement, Melton received a payout of $6,634.14, and Collins did not receive a payout because Collins was one of the thirty-seven (37) class members, who either did not work overtime or the difference between calculated damages and actual pay was zero or less than zero. Judge Ketchmark says granting leave to amend pleadings is within the discretion of the trial court and should be freely given when justice so requires. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of the class claims against the Defendant. Plaintiff Melton has not filed a (signed) Consent to Sue, Judge Ketchmark notes. Thus, Plaintiff Melton's collective cause of action has not commenced for statute of limitations purposes. Collins' Consent to Sue was filed on Sept. 11, 2023, thus, commencing his claims as of that date. Collins, however, is time-barred from pursuing any claims for non-willful violations of FLSA. Because Collins has filed a signed Consent to Sue, albeit after the briefing on the motion, the Court finds nothing in the FLSA language and interpreting authority that would prevent the Plaintiff from adding Collins as a named plaintiff in his FLSA collective action at this juncture. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the FLSA statute of limitations does not allow relation back and controls the analysis here, rather than the general provisions for relation back provided in Rule 15. However, even if Rule 15 applied, the Plaintiff's argument for relation back of Collins' FLSA claims to the filing date of the Plaintiff's complaint fails under the Rule's parameters. The Court finds the Defendant only had notice that it would be called on to defend claims asserted by Collins and those similarly situated as of the filing of Collins' Consent to Sue on Sept. 11, 2023. Judge Ketchmark opines that the Defendant would be unfairly prejudiced in maintaining a defense against Collins for a time period based upon Melton's Dec. 13, 2022 filing of a complaint in which Collins was not named and in which he had not filed a Consent to Sue. Because the requirements of notice and lack of unfair prejudice are not satisfied for purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's amendment adding Collins as an additional named plaintiff and class representative does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint on Dec. 13, 2022. In other words, any claim by Collins for violation of the FLSA that was not willful is time barred, and the relevant time period for Collins' claims of willful violation of the FLSA can only potentially cover Sept. 11, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Accordingly, and after careful consideration, Judge Ketchmark rules that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings is granted in part, in that the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of the class claims against the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and to join Michael Collins as named plaintiff and class representative, and denied in part, in that Michael Collins' claims under the FLSA do not relate back to Dec. 13, 2022, but rather are commenced as of the filing of his Consent to Sue, on Sept. 11, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc29jtjafrom PacerMonitor.com. KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Notice in Council Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL COUNCIL AKA KINETIK JUSTICE, et al, v. KAY IVEY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00712-CLM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of Exhibits A–H, J–V, and HH to the Declaration of Amanda C. Lynch in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification and Request for Judicial Notice. The Plaintiffs include Lee Edward Moore Jr., Jerame Aprentice Cole, Frederick Denard McDole, Michael Campbell, Arthur Charles Ptomey Jr., and Alimireo English. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzMhbx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Rubin, Esq. Barbara J. Chisholm, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Amanda C. Lynch, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: mrubin@altber.com bchisholm@altber.com cchan@altber.com alynch@altber.com - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 40 Rector Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10008 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org - and - Lauren Faraino, Esq. FARAINO, LLC 2647 Rocky Ridge Ln. Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 737-3171 E-mail: lauren@farainollc.com KEEFE COMMISSARY: Settlement Deal in Reichert Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY MOYER, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. d/b/a ACCESS CORRECTIONS; RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM; and CACHE VALLEY BANK, Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and its terms shall bind class members, except any members who timely opted out. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval is granted. 2. Class counsel is awarded attorney fees, litigation costs, and reimbursement of costs of notice and administration, as set forth above. These amounts are authorized and directed to be paid to class counsel from the Qualified Settlement Fund. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is granted. 3. Class counsel and/or Kroll is also authorized to distribute checks to class members and the Plaintiffs in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and this Order. These amounts are authorized to be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. 4. Case contribution awards of $11,000 to each Plaintiff, totaling $22,000, is approved, and class counsel and/or Kroll is authorized to distribute that sum from the Qualified Settlement Fund. 5. Class counsel and/or Kroll is authorized to pay the continuing costs of claims administration and class notice from the Qualified Settlement Fund. On September 8, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs Jeffrey Reichert and Gary Moyer, each on their own behalf and on behalf of the National Class and Washington State Subclass and Defendants Rapid Investments, Inc. and Cache Valley Bank. On September 22, 2023, the Court approved Kroll as the Notice and Claims Administrator. In conjunction with that Order, the Court directed Kroll to: (1) provide direct United States mailed short form or summary notice to those class members with valid addresses, or addresses that have been returned with a forwarding address; (2) provide email notice to those class members where emails are available; and (3) provide telephone support in both English and Spanish. Keefe supplies food, personal care products, electronics and clothing to correctional facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NK7hTn at no extra charge.[CC] KEYCORP: Court Appoints Robert Titmas as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENACHEM GUREVITCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KEYCORP, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01520-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent entered an order: -- Appointing Robert J. Titmas as Lead Plaintiff; and -- Approving the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel and the law firm of Cummins Law LLC to serve as Liaison Counsel. The Complaint asserts that "this is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants [who] purchased or otherwise acquired [KeyCorp] securities between February 27, 2020, and June 9, 2023, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff Gurevitch is an investor who purchased 1,000 shares of KeyCorp securities in June 2020. KeyCorp operates as a holding company for KeyBank National Association, which provides various retail and commercial banking products and services in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OM2XT at no extra charge.[CC] LEGENDS OWO: Puller Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Processing Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL PULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGENDS OWO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00209-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2024) alleges Defendant's violations of the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law. On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff purchased two tickets to One World Observatory on Defendant's website and was forced to pay Defendant's processing fee. In addition, the Defendant failed to disclose the total cost of their tickets, including Defendant's processing fee, throughout the online ticket purchase process, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Legends OWO, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that owns and operates One World Observatory. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com LIV GROUP: Meza-Soliven Sues Over Liquid I.V. Stick Mixes False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MEZA-SOLIVEN, MICHAEL BETZAG and LINDA ESOPA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE LIV GROUP, INC. and UNILEVER NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00019-TWR-DDL (S.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2024) contends that the Defendants have falsely represented its Liquid I.V. hydration electrolyte drink powder stick mixes by dressing the Product as a health halo and touting its clean label features promising their Products to be free from GMO, dairy, gluten, soy, artificial sweeteners, flavors, and colors. The Defendants claim to have developed "smart hydration technology" that "hydrate[s] better than water alone," a system "designed to enhance rapid absorption of water and other key ingredients." By using a "specific ratio of glucose, sodium, and potassium," Liquid I.V. claims to deliver "water and key nutrients directly to the body faster and more efficiently than water alone." Unfortunately, the claim that their Products contain "No Preservatives" is false, as they each contain a significant amount of the preservatives including, most prominently, citric acid. Citric acid's primary use is as a preservative, despite potentially having additional functions. It functions as a preservative in the Products, regardless of the Defendants' subjective purpose(s) for adding it to the Products, and regardless of any other functions citric acid may perform, says the suit. The Defendants have profited from consumers' preference for products that are perceived to be healthier by being preservative free, the suit claims. As a result of this false and misleading labeling, the Defendants were able to sell these Products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California, New York, and the United States. The Plaintiffs allege Defendants' conduct is in breach of warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq., California's Business & Professions Code section l7500, et. seq., California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., N.Y. Gen. Bus U. Law section 349 et seq., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 350 et seq., and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Meza-Soliven is a resident of San Diego, California. Liv Group manufactures, markets, and sells a line of hydrating electrolyte drink mixes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com LOCAL FAVORITE: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jaclyn Predmore and Danielle Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Local Favorite Operations LLC d/b/a Snuffer's Restaurant & Bar, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02874 (N.D. Tex., Dec. 29, 2023) is a collective action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant pays all its servers and bartenders, including Plaintiffs, wages that are less than the minimum wage. Instead of paying the federally mandated minimum wage, Defendant is purportedly trying to take a credit for the tips its employees earn to meet the minimum wage requirement. The Defendant also engages in unlawful kickbacks as Plaintiff-Predmore and Bartender Collective Members were required to pay for certain expenses and non 203(m) items including walked tabs and cash shortages, the suit says. Plaintiffs Predmore and Foster were employed by Defendant within the three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit as a bartender and a server, respectively. Local Favorite Operations LLC d/b/a Snuffer's Restaurant & Bar is engaged in a restaurant business located in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com M&T BANK: McCloud Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------- Delores McCloud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&T Bank Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00045 (W.D.N.Y., January 11, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff McCloud was employed by Defendant as a customer service representative from about April 1, 2019 through approximately September 26, 2023. The Defendant regularly required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours in given workweek. However, when such overtime hours were recorded by Defendant, Defendant paid Plaintiff at one-and-half times her base rate of pay, without including Plaintiff's non-discretionary performance based bonus payments in her regular rate of pay. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees when not clocked in, says the suit. Headquartered in Buffalo, NY, M&T Bank Corporation is a bank holding company that is engaged in retail and commercial banking, trust, wealth management and investment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 438-9115 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Brief in Breach Suit Due Jan. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Case No. 8:19-md-02879-JPB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge John Preston Bailey entered an order setting a class certification briefing schedule as follows: -- Class certification brief by Jan. 26, 2024 the Plaintiff: -- Class certification Opposition Feb. 23, 2024 Brief by the Plaintiffs: -- Class certification reply brief by March 8, 2024 the Plaintiffs: -- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures are due March 1, 2024 on or before: -- Defendants' expert disclosures are due April 1, 2024 on before: -- Discovery must be completed on or before: July 1, 2024 -- Discovery must be completed on or before: July 1, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HnwkYR at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Sues Over Unclaimed Property Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS R. NARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG, in her official capacity As Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10107 (D. Mass., January 12, 2024) challenges the constitutionality under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution of the provisions of the statute of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning abandoned and unclaimed property, Massachusetts General Laws, which requires the Commonwealth to take for public use, without paying just compensation, private property that the Commonwealth classifies as "presumed abandoned." The Massachusetts Act limits and sets out certain criteria for any payment to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed property that is over and above the original amount received by the Treasurer, and it does not permit payment of the just compensation due from the Commonwealth for the use of that property while in state custody. Thus, Plaintiff Narrigan argues that this Act violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution because it denies just compensation to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed property, says the suit. The class action also challenges the Act under the Takings Clause, Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution. Deborah B. Goldberg has been serving as the Treasurer of Massachusetts since January 2015. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C 176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com - and - Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM 120 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-444-9656 E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com - and - Arthur Susman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN 1540 N. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (847) 800-2351 E-mail: arthur@susman-law.com MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero and Orosco Allege Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN OROZCO MADERO and ESTEBAN OROSCO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00073 (C.D. Cal., January 12, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the Unfair Competition Law in connection with the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and to reimburse for work expenses. Plaintiff Madero worked for Defendants from approximately August 2019 to September 11, 2023 while Plaintiff Orosco worked for them from approximately July 2018 to November 10, 2023. Both Plaintiffs were deprived of proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week due to Defendants' illegal pay procedures, says the suit. McLane is a trucking and logistics company that operates out of Temple, TX. With over 80 distribution across the United States, McLane is one of the largest supply chain service leaders, providing grocery and food service solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com MDL 3071: Court Denies LRO's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the LRO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.). Bell Partners, Inc., Brookfield Properties Multifamily LLC, CONAM Management Corporation, ECI Group, Inc., Equity Residential, Independence Realty Trust, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Mid-America Apartments, L.P., Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC, The Related Companies, L.P., Related Management Company, L.P., Security Properties Residential LLC, Simpson Property Group, LLC, Thrive Communities Management, LLC, Windsor Property Management Company, WinnCompanies LLC, and WinnResidential Manager Corp. (collectively the "LRO Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support on Oct. 9, 2023. The Multifamily Plaintiffs responded, and the LRO Defendants filed a Reply. The LRO Defendants are Owner-Operators and Managers, who used one of RealPage's revenue management services, Lease Rent Options ("LRO"), during the relevant period. The Motion is not joined by all Defendants alleged to have used LRO. Furthermore, several of the 16 LRO Defendants bringing this motion are also alleged to have use RealPage's YieldStar or AIRM in addition to LRO. RealPage, Inc., developed an integrated technology platform that provides software solutions for the multifamily housing market. RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software, YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002. From 2002 to early 2016, YieldStar operated as a rent advisory service. In early 2016, RealPage transitioned YieldStar to become a "rent-setting software." RealPage then acquired Lease Rent Options ("LRO") from Rainmaker Group in 2017. It integrated LRO and YieldStar into a "unified platform." RealPage launched AI Revenue Management ("AIRM"), a combination of its legacy revenue management platforms YieldStar and LRO and a super-charged price optimization and revenue management tool. Today, RealPage operates this full suite of revenue management services, which also includes RealPage Revenue Management ("RPRM") (collectively the "Revenue Management Solutions" or "RMS"). RealPage's clients include owners of residential properties ("Owners"), companies that serve as both owners and operators of residential properties ("Owner-Operators"), and property management companies ("Managers"). These companies are horizontal competitors. As of December 2020, RealPage had over 31,700 clients, including owner operators and each of the 10 largest multifamily property management companies in the United States. The Multifamily Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients have formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimal price for multifamily housing units regardless of market forces. RealPage's clients, including the Owner, Owner-Operator, and Manager Defendants, each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage periodic fees and, critically, providing RealPage their independent commercially sensitive pricing data. RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data pool of competitor information to determine optimal rent prices for each of RealPage clients, which is then available for each RealPage client to apply to multifamily and student apartment units in each of the markets where those clients are located. Not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire RMS suite; for example, some use only LRO while others have used YieldStar, LRO, and AIRM. But regardless of which services a client subscribes to, by no later than 2020, all RealPage RMS were combined into a single unified database. By using the RMS, RealPage's clients are able to price their units according to their collective goal of securing revenue lifts by increasing rents without regard for the typical market forces that drive supply and demand in a competitive environment. They do this by (1) collectively agreeing to price their rental units in accordance with RealPage's RMS pricing recommendations; (2) controlling the supply of rental units by allowing a larger share of their units to remain vacant; and (3) staggering lease renewals to minimize naturally occurring periods of oversupply. This collective behavior, driven by RealPage's pricing recommendations, has resulted in "parallel pricing that cannot be explained by typical economic factors" among the Owners, Owner-Operators, and Managers, who use RealPage's RMS. Additionally, between March 2015 and March 2023, increased usage of RealPage's RMS corresponded with increasing rents over the same period. To state a plausible claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must allege three elements: 1) the existence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy among two or more separate entities that 2) unreasonably restrains trade and 3) affects interstate or foreign commerce. The LRO Defendants' Motion attacks only the first element. They argue that a necessary ingredient to the alleged conspiracy is RealPage's use of its clients' non-public, proprietary commercial information to make pricing decisions. They further argue that, contrary to this central conspiracy feature, the Multifamily Plaintiffs' earlier-filed complaints alleged that LRO uses only public data to make its pricing recommendations, and Multifamily Complaint does not specifically allege that after acquiring LRO, RealPage began to use non-public information as part of LRO's algorithm. Because the Multifamily Plaintiffs have not alleged a central feature of the conspiracy as to LRO, the LRO Defendants argue that dismissal of the Section 1 Sherman Act claims, as they relate to LRO, is required. The Multifamily Plaintiffs oppose the motion because the LRO Defendants misconstrue the allegations from their earlier-filed complaints, including their reliance upon a ProPublica article, "Rent Going Up? One Company's Algorithm Could Be Why." Judge Crenshaw opines that there are at least three reasons why the LRO Defendants' motion must be denied: 1. The Multifamily Complaint adequately alleges that the "enhanced" LRO uses private data; 2. The Multifamily Plaintiffs' earlier filed complaint does not contradict the operative complaint; and 3. The Multifamily Plaintiffs' earlier-filed statements are possible evidentiary admissions not appropriate for judicial notice. In short, Judge Crenshaw says, the Multifamily Plaintiffs and LRO Defendants appear to agree on one thing--that the use of non-public proprietary data is a component of the alleged price fixing conspiracy. Judge Crenshaw finds that the Multifamily Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the LRO service offered by RealPage both collected this non-public data from LRO clients and used this non-public data in LRO's algorithm. The Court will not dismiss the claims as they relate to LRO from the Multifamily Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2fpa9ptnfrom PacerMonitor.com. MDL 3071: Court Denies PMDs' Bid to Dismiss Rental Software Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the Property Management Defendants' motion to dismiss. Pending before the Court is Defendants Apartment Management Consultants, LLC ("AMC"), Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Bozzuto Management Company ("BMC"), First Communities Management, Inc. ("FMC"), FPI Management, Inc. ("FPI"), Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, Rose Associates, Inc., and ZRS Management, LLC's ("ZRS") (collectively, the "Property Management Defendants" or "PMDs") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Plead Agency Liability. Judge Crenshaw considers as true the allegations from the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Multifamily Complaint") to resolve the pending motion. RealPage, Inc., developed an integrated technology platform that provides software solutions for the multifamily housing market. RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software, YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002. From 2002 to early 2016, YieldStar operated as a rent advisory service. In early 2016, RealPage transitioned YieldStar to become a "rent-setting software." RealPage then acquired Lease Rent Options ("LRO") from Rainmaker Group in 2017. It integrated LRO and YieldStar into a "unified platform." In 2020, RealPage launched AI Revenue Management ("AIRM"), a combination of its legacy revenue management platforms YieldStar and LRO and a super-charged price optimization and revenue management tool. Today, RealPage operates a full suite of revenue management services, which also includes RealPage Revenue Management (collectively the "Revenue Management Solutions" or "RMS"). RealPage's clients include owners of residential properties ("Owners"), companies that serve as both owners and operators of residential properties ("Owner-Operators"), and property management companies ("Managers"). These companies are horizontal competitors. As of December 2020, RealPage had over 31,700 clients, including owner operators and each of the 10 largest multifamily property management companies in the United States. The Multifamily Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients have formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimal price for housing units regardless of other normal market forces. RealPage's clients each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage periodic fees and, critically, providing RealPage their independent commercially sensitive pricing data. RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data pool of competitor information to "recommend" optimal rent prices for each of RealPage clients, which is then available for each RealPage client to apply to multifamily and student apartment units in each of the markets where those clients are located. To be sure, not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire RMS suite; for example, some use only LRO while others have used YieldStar, LRO, and AIRM. But regardless of which services a client subscribes to, by no later than 2020, all RealPage RMS were combined into a single unified database. By using the RMS, RealPage's clients are able to price their units according to their collective goal of securing revenue lifts by increasing rents without regard for the typical market forces that drive supply and demand in a competitive environment. They do this by (1) collectively agreeing to price their rental units in accordance with RealPage's RMS pricing recommendations; (2) controlling the supply of rental units by allowing a larger share of their units to remain vacant; and (3) staggering lease renewals to minimize naturally occurring periods of oversupply. This collective behavior, driven by RealPage's pricing recommendations, has resulted in parallel pricing that cannot be explained by typical economic factors among the Owners, Owner-Operators, and Managers, who use RealPage's RMS. Additionally, between March 2015 and March 2023, increased usage of RealPage's RMS corresponds with increasing rents over the same period. The Property Management Defendants make two arguments for dismissal. First, the Multifamily Complaint does not plausibly allege that the PMDs directly participated in the conspiracy to use RMS and follow its rent recommendations. Second, the Multifamily Complaint does not plausibly allege that any PMD can be liable as an agent of its owner or owners. The Court finds that neither argument requires dismissal. Judge Crenshaw opines that the Multifamily Complaint plausibly alleges that the PMDs directly participated in the alleged conspiracy, and that the PMDs should be liable as agents. The PMDs' motion cannot succeed in the face of these allegations, Judge Crenshaw points out. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/25rz7ncafrom PacerMonitor.com. MDL 3071: Court Resolves Bids to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued an Omnibus Order resolving several motions to dismiss in the matter captioned IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.). The multidistrict litigation involves two complaints alleging unlawful price-fixing schemes among landlords organized by a software algorithm company: RealPage. "Landlords" here refers to all Defendants named in the complaints, save RealPage, Inc., and its private-equity owners. One complaint (the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint) alleges an unlawful agreement to use RealPage software recommendations to raise multifamily rental housing prices. The second (the Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint) alleges a similar scheme to artificially inflate the prices of student housing. RealPage, the complaints allege, unlawfully combines competing landlords' decisionmaking on housing prices. To participate in the service, landlords must share in "realtime" their "non-public," "competitively sensitive" data, including actual rents paid, occupancy rates, and records of lease transactions. RealPage then feeds this data into a common algorithm, which uses these common data for a single, common purpose: to generate forward-looking, unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations for all participating landlords. To ensure that the landlords abide by these "recommendations," RealPage puts significant "pressure" on them "to implement RealPage's prices," including by requiring clients to submit requests to deviate to the "corporate office" and tracking the identity of the client's staff that requested a deviation. As a result, landlords using RealPage adopt RealPage's recommendations 80-90% of the time. The complaints allege that RealPage was clear about the purpose of its common pricing scheme: to increase prices above competitive levels through collaboration. RealPage's own marketing materials make clear that it utilizes the competitive data of competitors to allow those competitors to outperform the market. As RealPage allegedly put it, it offered clients the ability to "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage," allowing RealPage to set prices for its clients' properties as though it owed them itself. Collaboration on prices, including via sharing nonpublic pricing and supply information, is thus the central feature of the product. Put simply, RealPage allegedly replaces independent competitive decisionmaking on prices, which often leads to lower prices for tenants, with a price-fixing combination that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 685), Judge Crenshaw rules that Thoma Bravo Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint are denied. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 686), TREV Management II LLC's Motion to Dismiss Student-Housing Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is granted. TREV Management II LLC is dismissed with prejudice from the Student Complaint. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 687), the Motion to Dismiss LRO Claims for Failure to State a Claim is denied. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 688), Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Plead Agency Liability is denied. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 690), the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is granted. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is denied. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 689), the Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waivers is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the class action waiver of Selena Vincin and her class action claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied as to the class action waivers for Brandon Watters and Jeffrey Weaver. The motion is granted in part and denied in part as to the class action waivers for Joshua Kabisch and Meghan Cherry. A full-text copy of the Court's Omnibus Order dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/46rjanafrom PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of each of the Memorandum Opinions are available from PacerMonitor.com at: * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 685) -- http://tinyurl.com/2hm9n5rw; * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 686) -- http://tinyurl.com/bdfncdw7; * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 687) -- http://tinyurl.com/2fpa9ptn; * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 688) -- http://tinyurl.com/25rz7nca; * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 689) -- http://tinyurl.com/mraz3sk5;and * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 690) -- http://tinyurl.com/c876d728. MDL 3071: TREV's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants TREV Management II LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 3:23-cv-00792. RealPage, Inc., provides revenue management software that "collects realtime pricing and supply levels" from its clients, who are horizontal competitors in the student housing market. RealPage then compiles this data into a common algorithm that sends the participants unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations. RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software, YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002. In 2009, RealPage launched its first revenue management software aimed at the student housing market, YieldStar Student Housing. Today, RealPage operates a full suite of revenue management services for student housing, including YieldStar Student, RealPage Student Revenue Management ("Student RPRM"), and Student Lease Rent Options ("Student LRO") (collectively, the "Student Revenue Management Solutions" or "Student RMS"). RealPage's student housing clients include large property managers and lessors of student housing ("Lessors"). These companies are horizontal competitors. In 2019, YieldStar Student had more than 50 clients with more than three million rental units. The Student Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients have formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimized price for student housing units regardless of market forces. RealPage's clients, including the Defendants, each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage annual license fees as well as periodic fees and providing RealPage their commercially sensitive pricing and supply data. RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data pool of competitor information to determine optimal rent pricing for RealPage clients' student apartment units in each of the markets where those clients are located. Not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire suite of RMS services; while the Student Plaintiffs allege most student housing clients use only YieldStar Student, they also allege that at least Greystar uses other student housing RMS through RealPage in addition to YieldStar Student. The Student Plaintiffs allege that RealPage's student housing RMS provides the platform and the algorithms for collusion, giving its clients the unprecedented ability to facilitate collaboration among operations and track [the] competition's rent with precision. They do this by collectively agreeing to price their rental units in accordance with RealPage's RMS recommendations. This has resulted in higher rents among the Lessor Defendants' student housing properties than properties not using RealPage. TREV argues that the Student Plaintiffs have not alleged any participation by TREV in the alleged conspiracy aside from its ownership of BH Management Services LLC and B.HOM Student Living. Specific to TREV, the Student Plaintiffs allege that TREV owns, as its affiliate, B.HOM Student Living ("B.HOM"), a client of RealPage. In fact, their only allegations against TREV are contained in two paragraphs of their 107-page complaint. Judge Crenshaw notes that those two paragraphs do not raise any plausible allegation of independent action in the conspiracy beyond "mere ownership" of B.HOM. Perhaps knowing that their allegations against TREV are insufficient, the Student Plaintiffs argue that regardless of its role in the conspiracy, TREV can be sued as part of "one economic entity" with B.HOM. They derive this argument from Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984). The Student Plaintiffs argue that a logical conclusion of Copperweld's holding is that parent companies are liable alongside their wholly-owned subsidiaries for the anticompetitive conduct of those subsidiaries. They are not the first to advance this "single entity" argument, Judge Crenshaw says. In Arandell Corp. v. Centerpoint Energy Services, Inc., 900 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit addressed this "novel" approach to Copperweld. Likewise, in Lenox MacLaren Surgical v. Medtronic, Inc., 847 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2017), the Tenth Circuit addressed this somewhat unusual antitrust theory. Judge Crenshaw holds that the Student Plaintiffs' interpretation of the single enterprise doctrine and the Arandell and Lenox cases is strained at best. Judge Crenshaw explains that Arandell does not help the Student Plaintiffs here. In contrast to Arandell, TREV's motion argues that the Student Plaintiffs have not alleged any conduct on its part in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The Student Plaintiffs ask the Court to ascribe B.HOM's conduct to TREV. But they have not adequately alleged any facts to advance such an inference, as the plaintiffs did in Arandell, Judge Crenshaw opines. In short, there are no factual allegations that TREV acted in furtherance of the conspiracy or that it did anything to accomplish B.HOM's alleged anticompetitive conduct. Applying Arandell's analysis, Judge Crenshaw holds the Student Complaint fails to state a claim. Lenox is even less helpful to the Student Plaintiffs' arguments, Judge Crenshaw says. The Lenox court did not adopt the Student Plaintiffs' "single enterprise" approach. Thus, neither Lenox nor Arandell allows plaintiffs to sue a parent company under Section 1 of the Sherman Act without pleading any independent action on the part of that parent. The other cases Student Plaintiffs cite to support their single enterprise theory are equally unpersuasive, Judge Crenshaw holds. Judge Crenshaw says it is true that if private plaintiffs, who do not have access to inside information, are to pursue violations of the law, the pleading standard must take into account the fact that a complaint will ordinarily be limited to allegations pieced together from publicly available information. But the Student Plaintiffs have not even met the "publicly available information" standard in their allegations against TREV, Judge Crenshaw points out. Because the Student Plaintiffs have not alleged any independent conduct in the conspiracy by TREV, their claims against TREV must be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bdfncdw7from PacerMonitor.com. META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material in Klein Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation headquartered in California, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), Meta file a supplemental administrative motion to seal materials submitted in connection with class certification and Daubert briefing. On Nov. 21, 2023, the parties filed an omnibus motion to seal certain portions of the parties' class certification and Daubert briefing. On Dec. 1, 2023, Meta filed a supplemental motion to seal addressing twelve of Meta's sealing requests that were inadvertently omitted from the proposed order submitted in connection with the omnibus motion to seal. Meta is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vD3H7m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. David Z. Gringer, Esq. Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq. Ryan Chabot, Esq. Paul Vanderslice, Esq. Ari Holtzblatt, Esq. Molly M. Jennings, Esq. Michaela P. Sewall, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gail Due Jan. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL J. ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge William P. Kelly entered A scheduling and trial setting order as follows: -- Initial Disclosures shall be made by: Jan. 16, 2024 -- Motions to add parties shall be filed by: June 26, 2024 -- Motions for leave to amend pleadings June 26, 2024 shall be filed by: -- Non-expert discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 6, 2024 -- Substantial production of all documents Aug. 30, 2024 shall be completed by (for documents requested by Jan. 16, 2024): -- Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for Class Jan. 23, 2025 Certification and any supporting declarations or evidentiary submissions shall be on or before: Jan. 23, 2025: -- Deadline for Defendant's Resistance to April 24, 2025 the Motion for Class Certification and any supporting declarations or evidentiary submission shall be on or before: -- Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in support July 2, 2025 of the Motion for Class Certification shall be on or before: -- The Plaintiff shall designate expert Oct. 3, 2025 witnesses and disclose their written report per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by: -- The Defendant shall designate expert Dec. 1, 2025 witnesses and disclose their written report per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by: Midland offers annuities and life insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6tcUV at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hester Seeks to Certify Class of CSRs -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA HESTER, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-08006-MEMF-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and implementing a procedure whereby potential opt-in plaintiffs are notified of Plaintiff's FLSA claims and given an opportunity to join this collective action as party plaintiffs: "All former and current customer service representatives or persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions and/or duties to customer service representatives employed by Molina Healthcare, Inc. within the three year period prior to the filing of this lawsuit." On Sept. 25, 2023, Ms. Hester initiated the FLSA collective action against Molina Healthcare. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, as a result of its practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt customer service representatives, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, violated the FLSA. The Plaintiff, a remote customer service representative, and other similarly situated employees were not paid for work performed before their scheduled start times, and for work generally performed outside their scheduled work times. Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48O9MvZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. Macy Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: (714) 854-7205 Facsimile: (714) 854-7206 E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org macy@lakeshorelaw.org - and - David J. Steiner, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250 Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: david@lazzarolawfirm.com MPM HOLDINGS: $19MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Feb. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE In RE MPM HOLDINGS INC. APPRAISAL AND STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 2019-0519-NAC SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of MPM Holdings Inc. ("MPM") common stock who held such shares as of May 15, 2019 (the date of the Merger's closing) and who received or were entitled to receive $32.50 in cash per share of MPM common stock as Merger consideration.1 PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Frank Funds ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Class, defendants Apollo Global Management, Inc., Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC, Euro VI (BC) S.A.R.L., John G. Boss, Samuel Feinstein, Robert Kalsow-Ramos, Scott M. Kleinman, Jeffrey M. Nodland, and Marvin O. Schlanger ("Defendants"), and MPM (together with Plaintiff and Defendants, the "Settling Parties") have reached a proposed settlement for $19,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release entered into by the Settling Parties, dated November 17, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. The proposed Settlement, if approved, will resolve the Class Claims asserted in the Action, and the Class Claims will be dismissed with prejudice. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 23, 2024 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor, in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to, among other things: (i) determine whether the Action may be finally maintained as a non-opt-out class action and whether the Class should be finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be finally appointed as representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP and Anderson Sleater Sianni LLC, may be finally appointed as counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Class Claims asserted in the Action with prejudice; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting A.B. Data, Ltd. at (877) 495-0892 or Info@MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members who held shares of MPM common stock at the closing of the Merger on May 15, 2019 (the "Closing") and therefore received or were entitled to receive the Merger Consideration of $32.50 per share for their "Eligible Shares". Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than February 8, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Info@MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Ned Weinberger Labaton Sucharow LLP 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 (866) 640-7254 DelawareSettlements@labaton.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"). Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice or the Stipulation, both of which are available at www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. Contacts Ned Weinberger (866) 640-7254 DelawareSettlements@labaton.com MYOVANT SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Zappia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH ZAPPIA, Individually and, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff v. MYOVANT SCIENCES LTD., MYOVANT SCIENCES, INC., SUMITOMO PHARMA AMERICA, INC., TERRIE CURRAN, MARK GUINAN, DAVID MAREK, NANCY VALENTE, AND MATTHEW LANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08097-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Joseph Zappia alleges that Myovant Sciences Ltd. and other Defendants filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a materially false and misleading proxy statement in connection with Myovant's acquisition, in violation of Rule l4a-9 promulgated under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. In particular, Zappia takes issue with the proxy statement's representation that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, the law firm hired to represent Myovant's special committee for the acquisition, had an "absence of conflicts" and was "independent." In reality, Zappia contends, Skadden had a conflict and lacked independence because of its representation of companies that shared "informal business relations" with, and small indirect ownership interests in, Myovant's acquirer. The Court now grants defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint because it fails to plausibly allege a materially false or misleading statement or omission. Defendant Myovant, a biopharmaceutical company that has developed drugs to treat hormone-sensitive conditions, was acquired by its majority shareholder Sumitovant Biopharma Ltd. in an all-cash merger on March 10, 2023. Sumitovant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese pharmaceutical company Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd., itself majority—owned (51.76%) by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.. Sumitomo Pharma and Sumitomo Chemical are members of the "Sumitomo Group," a leading keiretsu in Japan. As the Amended Complaint alleges, keiretsu are networks of Japanese businesses connected by cross-shareholdings and informal business relations, which typically feature a member bank that lends funds to other companies in the keiretsu. That member bank for the Sumitomo Group is Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation ("Sumitomo Banking"), which provided the financing for Sumitovant's $1.7 billion acquisition of Myovant. Sumitomo Banking owns approximately 1.4% of Sumitomo Chemical, the corporate grandparent of Sumitovant. On Jan. 23, 2023, Myovant's board filed, with the authorization of the Individual Co-Defendants, a proxy statement with the SEC, soliciting Myovant's public shareholders to vote in favor of the acquisition by Sumitovant. Co-Defendants Terrie Curran, Mark Guinan, David Marek, Nancy Valente, and Matthew Lang were at all times relevant members of Myovant's board of directors. Curran, Guinan, and Valente, the non—officer directors, comprised the special committee. The merger was expressly conditioned not only on approval by a majority of Myovant public shareholders -- which could be satisfied with Sumitovant's vote alone, because Sumitovant then owned approximately 52% of Myovant -- but also approval by a majority of Myovant's minority shareholders. Those conditions were satisfied on March 1, 2023, when Sumitovant and a majority of Myovant's other public shareholders voted in favor of the merger for $27 per share. That price had been negotiated by a special committee of Myovant's three independent directors, which retained Goldman Sachs as its financial advisor and Skadden as its legal advisor. As a result of the special committee's negotiations, Sumitovant over time increased its initial offer of $22.75 per share, to $25.25 per share, to $26.25 per share, to $26.75 per share, and ultimately to its best and final offer of $27 per share, which the special committee eventually accepted and shareholders approved. On Sept. 13, 2023, Joseph Zappia, who owned Myovant shares at the time of the merger and voted in the merger's favor, filed this putative class action against Myovant, Myovant's U.S. subsidiary (Myovant Sciences, Inc.) that employed its executives, Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc., and five of Myovant's officers and/or directors, alleging' that the proxy statement contained materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and accompanying Rule l4a-9. On July 1, 2023, Sumitovant and other U.S. subsidiaries of Sumitomo Pharma were combined into Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc. On consent, the Court appointed Zappia as Lead Plaintiff on Oct. 10, 2023, and Zappia filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 17, 2023. The Amended Complaint takes issue with Myovant's representation in the proxy statement that the Skadden law firm was chosen as a legal advisor to Myovant's special committee based on, among other things, the absence of conflicts on the part of Skadden and the related representation in the proxy statement that Skadden was "independent." Mr. Zappia alleges that Skadden was in fact conflicted in its representation of the special committee because Skadden was concurrently representing and had previously represented Sumitomo Banking, which financed the merger, and other members of the Sumitomo Group, in other (unrelated) matters. He further alleges that the Individual Co—Defendants are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. He adds that the Defendants were at least negligent in filing the Proxy with these material misrepresentations and omissions. On Oct. 31, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. After full briefing, the Court heard oral argument on Dec. 12, 2023. Whether assessed under the usual plausibility standard of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the more stringent standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), Judge Rakoff finds that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege a false or misleading statement or misleading omission. Additionally, the information supposedly omitted from the alleged misstatements was a matter of public knowledge. Finally, an independent basis for dismissal is that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege negligence, Judge Rakoff points out. Because the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege a violation of Rule l4a-9, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. At oral argument, Judge Rakoff says the Plaintiffs' counsel, confronted with all the arguments considered here, could not identify a single additional fact that any Second Amended Complaint would allege beyond what has already been pleaded. Accordingly, Judge Rakoff rules that the dismissal is with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close documents 23 and 27 on the docket, enter final judgment, and close this case. While briefing on the motion to dismiss was underway, Zappia and another potential plaintiff, Baruch Halberstam, moved to appoint Halberstam as Co—Lead Plaintiff. The Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint and entry of final judgment render that motion moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/452hhh8zfrom PacerMonitor.com. NAVY FEDERAL: Robinson and Williams Allege Discriminatory Lending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Robinson and Elise Simone Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00049-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va., January 10, 2024) alleges that the Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class based on race in connection with the denial of their mortgage applications. Allegedly, Navy Federal had a statistically significant denial rate between Black and White applicants for Veterans Affairs home loans, which are loans backed by the federal government. While other lenders made changes their automated systems to try to account for inherent bias, Navy Federal failed and refused to make any changes to account for the unprecedented racial disparity, says the suit. Headquartered in Vienna, VA, Navy Federal is a not-for-profit, federally chartered credit union that serves members of the Armed Forces, Department of Defense, veterans, and their families and provides a wide range of financial services and products to its members. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Petty, Esq. Christopher P. Yakubisin, Esq. PHELAN PETTY PLC 3315 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 980-7100 E-mail: jpetty@phelanpetty.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott Harris, Esq. Michael Dunn, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com sharris@milberg.com michael.dunn@milberg.com - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com NECSOSA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NECSOSA LLC and DAVID DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00199 (D.N.J., January 11, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. From August 2022 until February 2023, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a construction assistant/mason at Necsosa LLC. He worked approximately 66 hours weekly. However, the Defendant did not possess a time clock in order to record, document, and memorialize Plaintiff's work hours. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for those hours he worked beyond 40 hours per week, says the suit. Headquartered in Blairstown, NJ, Necsosa is domestic limited liability company that provides construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.stillmanlegalpc.com NEW YORK: Class Settlement in Bronx v. MTA Has Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an amended order granting motion for preliminary approval of class settlement in the lawsuit styled BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, a nonprofit organization; DISABLED IN ACTION OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, a nonprofit organization; ROBERT HARDY, an individual; and RODOLFO DIAZ, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation; JANNO LIEBER, in his official capacity as chairman and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation; and RICHARD DAVEY, in his official capacity as president of the New York City Transit Authority; Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05023-ER (S.D.N.Y.). On June 28, 2016, Plaintiffs Bronx Independent Living Services, Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York, Robert Hardy, and Rodolfo Diaz filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 16-CV-5023 (ER) (the "Action") with allegations related to the Defendants' failure to install elevators at the Middletown Road subway station during the Defendants' renovation of that station. On Feb. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff-Intervenor the United States of America filed a Complaint-in-Intervention against the Defendants alleging that they failed to install elevators at the Middletown Road subway station during their renovation of that station. On April 25, 2018, the Court a) certified a class of "all persons with mobility disabilities who cannot currently use the Middletown Road subway station because of accessibility barriers at that station and who would use the station if it were made accessible"; b) appointed Plaintiffs as class representatives, and c) appointed Disability Rights Advocates as Class Counsel. On March 5, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff Class seeks relief against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Janno Lieber, in his official capacity as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority, and Richard Davey, in his official capacity as President of the New York City Transit Authority (collectively, "Defendants") for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and the Defendants (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated Sept. 29, 2023, which if approved by the Court resolves the class claims raised in this Action by the Plaintiffs and provides for the dismissal of this Action. The Plaintiffs previously moved the Court, pursuant to Rule 23I(1)(c) for (i) preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 1 to the Rodgers Declaration dated Sept. 29, 2023; (ii) approval of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Class Notice," comprised of the Full Notice and Short Form Notice), Exhibit 2 to the Rodgers Declaration; (iii) approval of a plan for providing notice to the Class; and (iv) assuming the preliminary approval was granted, for a Fairness Hearing to be conducted no earlier than 104 days after the date that preliminary approval is granted. The Plaintiff-Intervenor and the Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Court adopted and issued an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling Hearing on Final Approval on Oct. 2, 2023. The Parties have requested the Court adjourn the Fairness Hearing contemplated by the October 2 Order to a later date. The deadlines with respect to the Issuance and Posting of the Settlement Notice and for Class Member Objections contained in Paragraphs 7, 13, and 14 of the October 2 Order are not altered and are reproduced here. Judge Ramos finds that the Proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and warrants the dissemination of notice to the Class Members to apprise them of the Settlement. The Court grants preliminary approval of the terms and conditions contained in the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Agreement appear to be within the range appropriate for approval, pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law. The Court approves the Class Notice. Within thirty days of the October 2 Order, the Class Notice will be disseminated in both English and Spanish to the Class, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 2 to the Rodgers Declaration by the following means: a. Class Counsel will post the Class Notice in a prominent place on its website and will distribute the Class Notice by email to stakeholders; b. Plaintiffs BILS and DIA will distribute the Notice electronically to their consumers/members; c. The Defendants will translate the Notice into Spanish, post the Notice, in both English and Spanish on at least two places on their website, including their "Accessibility" page, and will distribute the Notice via the Systemwide Accessibility Team's newsletter; d. The Notice will be provided in a format that is accessible to persons with disabilities; and e. Each party will bear its own costs of providing any Notice required by this Order. A Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be held before Judge Ramos on April 11, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. At least fourteen days before the Fairness Hearing, counsel for the Defendants and Class Counsel will each provide a declaration to the Court attesting to the manner in which they disseminated the Class Notice consistent with the Agreement. Any member of the Class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in this action through that Class Member's own attorney (at their own expense) but need not do so. Class Members who do not enter appearances through their own attorneys will be represented by Class Counsel. As provided in the October 2 Order, any member of the Class may object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. Any Class Member who fails to properly and timely file and serve objections or comments will be foreclosed from objecting to the Stipulation of Settlement, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendants will respond to any timely filed objections not later than fourteen days prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs will file their Motion for Final Approval of Settlement no later than fourteen days before the Fairness Hearing. The Court further orders that pending further order from the Court, all proceedings in this Action, except those contemplated herein and in the Stipulation of Settlement, will be stayed. A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Order dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mr7rj8bafrom PacerMonitor.com. NEXTCARE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, White Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paige M. White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nextcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00064-JFM (D. Ariz., January 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately July 2022 through November 10, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift differentials and non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA, says the suit. Headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, Nextcare, Inc. operates urgent care clinics that medical care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com - and - Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq. BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC 401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205 Tempe, AZ 85283 Telephone: (480) 550-5165 E-mail: jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Initial Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01648-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered a case management conference order as follows: 1. The final date for the joining of Jan. 25, 2024 additional parties is: 2. The final date for the amendment March 15, 2024 of pleadings is: 3. All fact discovery shall be Oct. 7, 2024 completed by: 4. Expert reports will be due Nov. 6, 2024 from the Plaintiff on or before: 5. All expert discovery shall Feb. 3, 2025 be completed by: 6. Motion for Preliminary Feb. 28, 2025 Class Certification shall be filed on or before: 7. The Defendant's opposition brief April 25, 2025 shall be filed on or before: 8. The Plaintiff's reply brief May 30, 2025 shall be filed on or before: 9. Motion(s) for Summary Judgment Feb. 28, 2025 and supporting brief(s) shall be filed on or before: 10. Opposing brief(s) shall be filed March 28, 2025 on or before: O'Reilly is an American auto parts retailer that provides automotive aftermarket parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and accessories A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48pcloi at no extra charge.[CC] OLIN CORPORATION: Court Tosses DPPs' Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order: -- Denying Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs') motion for class certification; -- Denying as moot Shintech's motion to exclude certain of Dr. Lamb's opinions; -- Denying DPPs' motion to strike and exclude certain of Dr. Johnson's opinions and proposed testimony; -- Denying as moot Formosa's motion to exclude certain of Dr. Lamb's opinions; and -- Denying as moot Defendants' joint motion to exclude certain of Dr. Lamb's opinions and proposed testimony. The Court's denial of the parties' motions to strike/exclude shall not preclude the parties from raising any issues related to the admissibility of expert testimony in motions in limine filed pursuant to a pretrial order entered at a later stage of this case. DPPs allege that the Defendants have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, by entering into a combination or conspiracy to artificially reduce or eliminate competition for the pricing of caustic soda sold to purchasers in the United States. DPPs seek to certify a class with the following definition: "All persons and entities who purchased in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendants (or from any of the Defendants' predecessors, subsidiaries, or affiliates) liquid forms of membrane or diaphragm grade Caustic Soda at any time between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018." Excluded from the class are Defendants, their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all government entities, agencies, and instrumentalities. For purposes of this exclusion, "predecessors" includes The Dow Chemical Company, whose chlor- alkali business was acquired by Olin effective October 5, 2015, and Axiall Corporation, which was acquired by Westlake effective August 31, 2016. Also excluded are purchases under: (i) long-term fixed- price contracts that predate October 1, 2015, (ii) costbased contracts (such as cost-plus contracts) with no component of price based on a Caustic Soda index, and (iii) contracts that are priced on an ECU (electrochemical unit) basis with no component of price based on a Caustic Soda index. Olin is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and distributor of chemical products and a U.S. manufacturer of ammunition. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47B6pr5 at no extra charge.[CC] OREGON: Court Appoints Co-Class Counsel in Wyatt B. v. Kotek ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Co-Class Counsel in the lawsuit entitled WYATT B., et al., Plaintiffs v. TINA KOTEK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA (D. Or.). The Plaintiffs move to appoint Steven Rizzo and Mary Skjelset of Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC as co-class counsel to represent the certified class and subclasses in this action. Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset affirm that they have familiarized themselves with the docket, the pleadings, and the significant motions in this case in order to prepare themselves to assist with the late stages of litigation and with the upcoming trial. Judge Aiken finds that the Declarations of Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset demonstrate that both attorneys have considerable experience litigating tort and civil rights claims involving the children in the Oregon foster care system. Although the Declarations reflect limited experience with class actions, both Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset have a great deal of relevant experience with litigating claims involving the Department of Human Services ("DHS") and with interpreting and assessing DHS practices and records. Giving due consideration to the factors outlined in Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concludes that Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset have met the standards for appointment as co-counsel for the class and subclasses in this case. For the reasons set forth, Judge Aiken grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Co-Class Counsel. Steven Rizzo, Esq., and Mary Skjelset, Esq., of Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC are appointed as co-class counsel to represent the class and subclasses in this action, joining with existing class counsel A Better Childhood, Disability Rights Oregon, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4z9bm3cbfrom PacerMonitor.com. OSF HEALTHCARE: Quintanilla Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ TRACY QUINTANILLA, individually and for others similarly situated v. OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Case No. 1:24-cv-00294 (N.D. Ill., January 11, 2024), arises from the Defendant's uniform auto-deduct policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff Quintanilla and the other patient care employees of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiff Quintanilla worked for OSF as a Surgical Tech in Evergreen Park, IL from approximately March 2021 until February 2023. Throughout her employment, OSF subjected Quintanilla to its common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks." However, Plaintiff did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. As a result, OSF failed to pay Quintanilla and the other patient care employees wages (including overtime) for the compensable work they performed during their unpaid meal breaks, says the suit. Headquartered in Peoria, IL, OSF is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation that operates 16 hospitals--10 acute care, five critical access, one transitional care--with 2,131 licensed beds throughout Illinois and Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, 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 cfitz@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 PARKMOBILE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Feb. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, MARIAM GEORGE, EMMA JACKSON, SAIT KURMANGALIYEV, GREGORY MANSON, HERIBERTO TRAVIESTO and JACK WEAVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs have until February 12, 2024, to file their motion for class certification. -- The Defendant has eight weeks after Plaintiffs serve their motion for class certification to submit an opposition. -- The Plaintiffs will have eight weeks after Defendant serves its opposition to file any reply in support of their motion. Parkmobile provides mobile parking solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RWEMTL at no extra charge.[CC] PAYSIGN INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned IN RE PAYSIGN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.). Lead Plaintiffs Johann Francisconi and Raheel Shahzad, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, and Defendants Paysign, Inc., Mark Newcomer, Mark Attinger, Daniel Spence, signed a stipulation dated Dec. 15, 2023, for the proposed settlement and dismissal of this securities class action lawsuit (the "Action"). Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of the Settlement only, Judge Navarro preliminarily certifies the Action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of all persons and entities, who purchased or acquired Paysign common stock between March 12, 2019, and March 31, 2020, both dates inclusive and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are the Released Defendant Parties, including the Defendants and those persons, who file valid and timely requests for exclusion. Pursuant to Rule 23, preliminarily and for the purposes of this Settlement only, Judge Navarro certifies the Plaintiffs as the class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class and Lead Counsel, previously selected by the Plaintiffs and appointed by the Court, are appointed as Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to further consideration at a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") pursuant to Rule 23(e), which is scheduled to be held before the Court on April 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The Court approves the form, substance and requirements of (a) the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class ("Long Notice"), (b) the Proof of Claim and Release Form, (c) the Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement; and (d) the Postcard Notice, all of which are attached as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, respectively, to the Stipulation. For settlement purposes only, Strategic Claims Services is appointed and approved as the Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims. The Escrow Agent may, at any time after entry of this Order and without further approval from the Defendants or the Court, disburse at the direction of Class Counsel up to $175,000 from the Settlement Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay Notice and Administration Expenses. In order to be entitled to participate in recovery from the Net Settlement Fund after the Effective Date, each Settlement Class Member will take the action set in the Stipulation and be subject to the conditions therein. Each Settlement Class Member must submit a properly completed and executed Claim Form to the Claims Administrator: (a) electronically through the Claims Administrator's website, www.strategicclaims.net/Paysign/, by 11:59 p.m. EST, on March 4, 2024; or (b) at the Post Office Box indicated in the Notice, postmarked no later than March 4, 2024 (forty-four (44) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing). Such deadline may be further extended by Order of the Court. All Settlement Class Members, who do not submit a valid and timely Claim Form, will be forever barred from receiving any payments from the Net Settlement Fund, but will in all other respects be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Stipulation and the Order and Final Judgment, if entered. Settlement Class Members will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such Persons request exclusion from the Settlement Class in a timely and proper manner, as provided in the Stipulation. All Persons, who submit a valid, timely and unrevoked request for exclusion, will be forever barred from receiving any payments from the Net Settlement Fund. The Court reserves the right to alter the time or the date of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Class Members. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to consider all further matters arising out of, or relating to, the Stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2nmfymtffrom PacerMonitor.com. POMERANTZ LLP -- Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- in Chicago, Illinois 60603, Lead Counsel. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP -- Daniel J. Tyukody -- tyukodyd@gtlaw.com -- in Los Angeles, California 90067, Counsel for the Defendants. PDM STEEL: Payne & Williams Sue Over Labor Code Breaches -------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN PAYNE and JOHNNY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PDM STEEL SERVICE CENTERS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00942 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., January 12, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating several provisions of the California Labor Code, including the minimum wage and overtime provisions. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs Payne and Williams machinery maintenance helpers at Defendants' location at 3535 E. Myrtle Street, Stockton, CA. Allegedly, they engaged unlawful labor practices against Plaintiffs and their hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees. These unlawful practices include requiring Plaintiffs and the class members to work off-the-clock without compensation, failing to properly pay minimum wages or regular rate/straight time wages for all hours worked, failing to properly pay all overtime wages, failing to provide all meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled and failing to pay meal and rest break premiums when due. PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. manufactures and distributes steel products. It employs workers throughout the state of California, including in Los Angeles County, Fresno County, and other counties in the state. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq. Alexander K. Spellman, Esq. P.J. Van Ert, Esq. Annabel Blanchard, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com BDC@blackstonepc.com aspellman@blackstonepc.com PENNSYLVANIA: Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts Due Dec. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMEY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00753 (W.D. Pa., Filed May 26, 2020), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order setting additional deadlines as follows: -- All depositions of Plaintiffs experts Dec. 13, 2024 shall be completed by: -- All depositions of Defendants experts Jan. 24, 2025 shall be completed by: The nature of suit Contract -- Other Contract. Pennsylvania State University is a public state-related land-grant research university.[CC] PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RAMEY, TYLER THOMSON, and JEFFREY BINET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00753-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered a case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend pleadings by Jan. 17, 2024. 2. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by Sept. 16, 2024. 3. The parties will file expert reports in conjunction with any Motion for Class Certification. 4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by Feb. 16, 2024. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by Oct. 11, 2024. 6. The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by December 13, 2024. 7. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by Jan. 24, 2025. Pennsylvania State University is a public state-related land-grant research university. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0S3We at no extra charge.[CC] PERMIAN RESOURCES: Rosenbaum Alleges Oil Production Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ROSENBAUM; RENELDO RODRIGUEZ; and THOMAS CARON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00103 (D. Nev., January 12, 2024) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of retail gasoline in and throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' cartel is an unlawful restraint of trade under numerous state antitrust and competition laws. They bring this class action to recover from the substantial harm they have suffered from the supracompetitive prices they paid for retail gasoline for personal use as a direct and proximate result of the cartel to constrain domestic production of shale oil in the United States. Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation, formerly known as Centennial Resource Development, is an oil and gas production company that acquires and processes shale oil in Texas and New Mexico. The company's common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol PR. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Turtzo, Esq. MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 405-8100 Facsimile: (702) 405-8101 E-mail: turtzo@morrissullivanlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com dbrockwell@scott-scott.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: O'Reilly Sues Over Police Officers' Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH O'REILLY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-05188 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 29, 2023) is a class and collective action lawsuit against Defendant, the City of Philadelphia, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Pennsylvania common law. The Plaintiff is a current City of Philadelphia police officer in the K9 unit, as are his similarly situated colleagues. He asserts the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages and willful policy and practice of denying him and the Pennsylvania Class Plaintiffs their full wages for work performed caring for K9 Partners off the clock. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties and damages owed to him and all similarly situated current and former City of Philadelphia K9 officers. City of Philadelphia is a municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian M. Bryson, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 391-4790 E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com PIPELINERS LOCAL: Williams Sues Over Race Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Tareck Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIPELINERS LOCAL 798 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, MICHELS PIPELINE, INC., and MICHEL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-05189 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 29, 2023), is brought arising out of Defendants' uniform pattern and practice of race discrimination against Plaintiff and the other Class members, including disparate treatment discrimination, disparate impact discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, and retaliation. The Plaintiff, a member of the Local 798 labor union, was hired as a welder's helper at the Michel's Pipeline worksite in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on April 28, 2023. This is not the first time Plaintiff has worked at a Michel's worksite. Within two weeks of working as a helper at the Michel's worksite, Plaintiff began to experience a racially hostile environment, highlighted by severe and pervasive harassment that changed the terms and conditions of his employment. From that point on, on a daily or near-daily basis, Plaintiff incrementally experienced verbal, written, symbolic, and overt racial discrimination from his coworkers and superiors that worsened over time including but not limited to: a. Being sexualized and stereotyped constantly by Daniel Parmateer and Kevin Woods because of his race through the repeated, unwanted reference and jokes about his "big black cock." b. Being taunted by Daniel Parmateer and Kevin Woods, with derogatory pictures of malnourished and impoverished African children and families that were distributed and compared to the resemblance to Plaintiff's family. c. Being compared to and called apes and monkeys, through the display and dissemination of photos and the comparison of Plaintiff's facial features by Kevin Woods and Daniel Parmateer. d. Being subjected to "jokes" about watermelon, Moon Pies, fried chicken and chittlins during lunch breaks. e. Being called "Boy" regularly and repeatedly despite being asked to be called by his name. f. Being called "Nigger," which was also generically used to refer to all Black people. g. Having White coworkers, including but not limited to Kevin Woods and Daniel Parmateer, speak in a louder than usual tone saying the word "Niggers" when Plaintiff was seen approaching. h. Being directly called a "Nigger" by white coworkers and supervisors, including but not limited to Kevin Woods and Daniel Parmateer, even after asking that they did not call him that. i. Subjected to nooses at the worksite. j. Being threatened by Daniel Parmateer with a story of the murder of a Black welder's helper who was also a Local 798 member being made to look like a suicide. Black union members at the worksite were in the minority of people at the worksite and White workers were a significant majority. The sheer number of racially discriminatory acts by the White workers far outnumbered the amount of Black Workers that were actually at these sites, but the White workers felt like welding was the last frontier for White worker's monopoly of an industry. The White workers were visibly offended by Plaintiff's presence because of his race, and they let him know about it, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Black man and a resident of Easton, Pennsylvania, and citizen of Pennsylvania, has been a member of Defendant Local 798 since April of 2017 and was an employee of Michel's since April 28, 2023. Local 798, which is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is a member organization of the United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Pollack, Esq. POLLACK LAW, LLC 210 E. Street Road. Suite 3A Feasterville, PA 19053 Office: 215-396-9660 Fax: 215-396-9690 Email: ron@fightingforpeople.com PIPELINES LOCAL 798: Faces Williams Suit for Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ TARECK WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIPELINERS LOCAL 798 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, MICHELS PIPELINE, INC., and MICHEL'S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. Case 3:24-cv-000003-MEM (M.D. Pa., Jan. 2, 2024) arises from the Defendants' uniform pattern and practice of racial discrimination against Plaintiff and the other Class members, including disparate treatment discrimination, disparate impact discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, and retaliation. The Plaintiff brings his claims individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated present and former Black members of Local 798 who worked at Michel's at any time between the date four years prior to the date of filing of this complaint and the date of judgment, seeking damages and other relief resulting from Defendants' discriminatory practices, which deprived Plaintiff and the other Class members of the benefits of their employment to which they are legally entitled. Pipeliners Local 798, which is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is a member organization of the United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Pollock, Esq. FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE INJURY LAW Pollack Law, LLC 210 E. Street Road, Suite 3A Feasterville, PA 19053 Telephone: (215) 396-9660 Facsimile: (215) 396-9690 E-mail: ron@fightingforpeople.com PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Indiana Public ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF CHICAGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON SKONNARD, and JAMES BUDGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The class of plaintiffs is defined as follows: "All persons who purchased the Class A common stock of Pluralsight from January 16, 2019 through July 31, 2019, inclusive and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are (i) all defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of the defendants; (iii) any of the selling stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (iv) members of the immediate families of any of the selling stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (v) the subsidiaries and affiliates of any defendants or the selling stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (vi) any person or entity who is a partner, executive officer, director or controlling person of any defendants or selling stockholders listed in the Offering Documents (including any of their subsidiaries or affiliates); (vii) any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; and (viii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded party. 2. The Plaintiffs Indiana Public Retirement System and Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago are appointed as Class representatives. 3. The firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is appointed as Class counsel. The parties shall meet and confer on the form and manner of providing notice, and within 60 days of this Memorandum Decision and Order, submit a joint proposal for notice to the Class for the court’s approval. Pluralsight is a software company that sells a cloud-based technology platform offering skills courses, skill and role assessments, learning paths, and business analytic tools. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SidMQ7 at no extra charge.[CC] PLUSHCARE INC: Settles Robbins Auto-Debit Row in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Accolade, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2024 that in September 2023 the company's wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc. paid the settlement in full pursuant to the terms of the court-approved settlement of a purported class action complaint captioned "Robbins v. PlushCare, Inc. et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 8, 2021 against the company's wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc. The parties have tentatively agreed on a settlement and the company has recorded a contingent liability. The complaint, as amended, alleges that certain of PlushCare's subscription payment practices violate California and other state automatic renewal laws and the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, among other claims, arising from allegations that PlushCare failed to provide adequate disclosures to members. The lawsuit seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling, reasonable attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Under the terms of the agreement to purchase PlushCare, the selling shareholders will indemnify Accolade for losses related to this matter, subject to a cap. Accolade, Inc. provides care delivery services based in Washington State. POSTMEDS INC: Moran Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PostMeds, Inc. The case is styled as Meliza Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PostMeds, Inc. doing business as: Truepill, Case No. 3:23-cv-06411-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. PostMeds, Inc., doing business as TruePill -- https://www.truepill.com/ -- provides online pharmacy delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit in re: Prime Healthcare ERISA Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01529-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting the motion for class certification, with the following terms and conditions: (1) The following Rule 23(b)(1) classes are certified: Challenged-Funds and Expense-Monitoring Class: All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan on or after August 18, 2014, to the present, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during that period. Recordkeeping-Fees Class: All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan at any time on or after August 18, 2014, to July 31, 2019, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during that period. (2) Named Plaintiffs Horton and Ornelas are appointed as class representatives for both classes identified above, while Named Plaintiff Cervantes is appointed as class representative for only the second class identified above. (3) James E. Miller, Alec J. Berin, and Mark K. Gyandoh are appointed as class counsel. (4) The Court directs the parties to meet and confer, and to submit an agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise class members of, among other things, the relief sought and their rights to intervene, submit comments, and contact class counsel. The Court certifies the following classes: -- Challenged-Funds and Expense-Monitoring Class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan on or after August 18, 2014 to the present, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during that period." -- Recordkeeping-Fees Class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan at any time on or after August 18, 2014 to July 31, 2019, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during that period." The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan, a tax-deferred, defined contribution retirement plan. They bring a putative class action against Defendants Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. and the Administrative Committee of the Plan, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4b8M3J0 at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME HEALTHCARE: Forcen Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arlene Forcen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. PRIME HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, INC.; PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; PRIME HEALCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and PRIME HEALCARE SERVICES--SHASTA, LLC, Case No. CIVSB2117283 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02626. On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed her "First Amended Class Action Complaint" in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino which added Defendants Prime Healcare Management, Inc. and SRMC ("FAC"). The FAC alleges causes of action for Failure to Provide Meal Periods, or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods, or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; Reimbursement of Business Expenses; Unfair Competition and Unlawful Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to PAGA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kimberly Clarke, Alexander Hagen, on behalf of her minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-06665 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 29, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13231-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Progress Software Corporation -- http://www.progress.com/-- is an American public company that produces software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederic D. Ostrove, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: rostrove@lmblaw.com RAAKA CHOCOLATE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raaka Chocolate, Inc. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Raaka Chocolate, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09532-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Raaka Chocolate -- https://www.raakachocolate.com/ -- is a manufacturing company that offers delicious unroasted dark chocolate made from scratch.[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 RADIUS GLOBAL: Butts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wayne Butts, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-02663 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 29, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12986-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Joseph Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com - and – Daniel Srourian, Esq. DANIEL SROURIAN 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Email: daniel@slfla.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas H. Schaefer, Esq. ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A. 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 837-3250 Fax: (952) 837-3250 Email: tschaefer@erstad.com RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Chesnut, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Case No. 30-2023-01361799-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. on Dec. 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02479. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a putative class of California consumers for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as (3) a claim for unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. Peter K. Bae, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com peterbae@dwt.com REATA PHARMA: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between November 14, 2016 through December 8, 2021 inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RETA) (the "Settlement Class"), including all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Reata common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Reata's 2019 Offering and/or 2020 Offering (the "Offerings Subclass"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $45,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing is scheduled to be held on March 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant III at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street, Sherman, Texas 75090, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated October 30, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Doyle v. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 5566, Portland, OR 97228-5566, 1-877-664-7398. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online, by email, or by mail postmarked no later than April 24, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than March 8, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than March 8, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel, regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Doyle v. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. c/o Epiq P.O. Box 5566 Portland, OR, 97228-5566 1-877-664-7398 www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com info@ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP Daniel Hume, Esq. 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 (212) 371-6600 www.kmllp.com dhume@kmllp.com By Order of the Court URL: www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com, www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/doyle-v-reata-pharmaceuticals RED BALLOON: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Red Balloon Childrenswear, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Red Balloon Childrenswear, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09544 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Red Balloon Childrenswear, LLC -- https://theredballoonshop.com/ -- offers specialty Luxury Fashion for Babies, Kids, & Teens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Deadlines Extended by 30 Days ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buffalo Seafood House LLC, et al., v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order granting requesting an extension to the expert schedule to allow Defendants' expert an additional 30 days to complete its written report; and for a corresponding 30-day adjustment as to the dates for when Plaintiffs must file a class certification motion, for when Defendants must file a response, and for when Plaintiffs must file a reply: A. Defendants' Motion for Relief B. Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Compel C. Defendants' Motion to Compel D. Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wk0jw at no extra charge.[CC] RISE SERVICES: Anthony Wins Class Action Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, v. Rise Services Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class action certification. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rise implemented a temporary hazard pay policy for DSPs working in "hazardous" environments. Retroactive to March 11, 2020, this policy would pay DSPs time and a half for working in environments where there would be direct contact with clients who tested positive for COVID-19. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Deion Anthony as a DSP by Defendant from September 2, 2021, until January 23, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that while employed by Defendant he never received hazard pay, despite being entitled to it. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was denied pay for training he was required to complete off-the-clock. Rise Services is a Utah corporation that provides services to people with development and intellectual disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H9bL23 at no extra charge.[CC] ROADRUNNER TRANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRISELDA JAUREGUI, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Case No. 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting the joint stipulation to continue motion for class certification deadlines: -- Motion for Class Certification Deadline April 5, 2024 is set for: -- Opposition to Motion for Class May 6, 2024 Certification Deadline is set for: -- Reply to Opposition to Motion for June 3, 2024 Class Certification Deadline is set for: -- Hearing on Motion for Class June 17, 2024 Certification Deadline is set for: Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and logistics service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWXygg at no extra charge.[CC] ROYAL SWEET BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Canales Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOLVIA CANALES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL SWEET BAKERY, INC., and any other related entities and MIKHAIL YUSIM, individually, Defendants, Case No. 501337/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 12, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread of hours compensation, as well as damages arising from Wage Notice Violations, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and 12 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee who worked for Defendants from approximately 2013 to August 31, 2023. Plaintiff mainly worked as a baker for Defendants, but was also regularly assigned cleaning duties. He routinely worked in excess of ten hour days, and in excess of 40 hours per week. However, she was not paid at the overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate for the hours over 40 she worked each week, says the suit. Royal Sweet Bakery, Inc produces a wide variety of baked goods, which are distributed nationwide. It has two locations in New York and is involved in manufacturing, importing, and distributing food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Leonor H. Coyle, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brown, et al., v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order that the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' fate and transport expert witnesses is granted as to Dr. James Vernon and is otherwise denied. The plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of the Defendants' experts is granted-in-part and denied-in-part, as described in Sections III.B and III.D. Finally, the Defendants' motions to exclude the plaintiffs' damages experts are denied. The "proposed class consists of residential property owners within defined geographic areas" who are allegedly "impacted by" groundwater contamination related to PFOA emissions from the Saint-Gobain facility. The class includes individuals who obtain their household water from two sources—private wells and municipal water, or theMerrimack Village District Water Works system. The putative class and two subclasses are defined as follows: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties with private wells in the Private Well Property Owners Class Geographic Area or residential properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class)." -- Subclass A: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties with private groundwater wells within the Private Well Class Geographic Area (Private Well Property Owners Property Damage Subclass). Subclass B: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household water by MVDWW (MVDWW Property Owners Property Damage Subclass). St-Gobain produces a wide range of polymer applications, materials, and solutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vIstmo at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Brown ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brown et al, v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The court certifies a liability class with respect to the trespass, negligence, and negligent failure to warn claims, but denies certification as to the nuisance claim. If and when liability is established, the court will proceed to the damages phase of the case. -- Thus, based on the record presently before it, the court concludes that the plaintiffs lack a common or manageable method for allocating damages to individual class members, precluding certification as to damages. -- The court is convinced, however, that several core liability issues can be proven on a class-wide basis, and these common issues predominate over the individualized inquiries pertaining to damages. The proposed class consists of property owners within two defined, contiguous areas surrounding the facility, who derive their water from two allegedly contaminated sources—private groundwater wells or the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) municipal water system. The plaintiffs alternatively propose two subclasses of property owners in the same locations who source their water from the private wells, on one hand, or from the MVDWW system, on the other. The defendants argue that class treatment is improper because the plaintiffs’ claims present myriad individual factual and legal issues, which are not susceptible to class-wide proof. The "proposed class consists of residential property owners within defined geographic areas" who are allegedly "impacted by" groundwater contamination related to PFOA emissions from the Saint-Gobain facility. The class includes individuals who obtain their household water from two sources—private wells and municipal water, or the MVDWW system. The putative class and two subclasses are defined as follows: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties with private wells in the Private Well Property Owners Class Geographic Area or residential properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class). -- Private Well Property Owners Property Damage Subclass A: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties with private groundwater wells within the Private Well Class Geographic Area." -- MVDWW Property Owners Property Damage Subclass B: "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned residential properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household water by MVDWW. The plaintiffs define the MVDWW Class Geographic Area to reflect the MVDWW service map, and they define the Private Well Class Geographic area as follows. In Bedford and Merrimack, the geographic area west of the Merrimack Riverwithin three (3.0) miles of the property boundary of the Saint-Gobain Site; in Litchfield, the Geographic area bounded by the Merrimack River on the west, Cummings Drive on the South, extended east to the Merrimack River and west to the Londonderry Town line, and the Londonderry Town line on the East and the City of Manchester on the North and East, and the geographic area in Manchester bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on the North and East, and the geographic area in Manchester bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on the North and is depicted in Appendix A, Private Well Class Geographic Area Map. St-Gobain produces a wide range of polymer applications, materials, and solutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S2K1kU at no extra charge.[CC] SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Suit Removed to D. Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nathaniel Silva and Phil Rothkugel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SCHMIDT BAKING DISTRIBUTION, LLC and SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., Case No. HHD-CV23-6175772-S was removed from the Superior Court in the State of Connecticut for the County of Hartford, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Dec. 29, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01695. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two causes of action: Unlawful Deductions under Connecticut Wage Law and Connecticut Overtime Violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William J. Anthony, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Phone: 212.583.9600 Facsimile: 212.832.2719 Email: wanthony@littler.com - and – Joshua B. Waxman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202.789.3406 Facsimile: 202.478.2623 Email: jwaxman@littler.com - and – Michael McIntosh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1800 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 500 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Phone: 703.286.3118 Facsimile: 703.991.8016 SELENE FINANCE: Milam Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAMONA MILAM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00317 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2024) seeks redress from Defendant's systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. During the relevant time period, Selene sent borrowers form letters alleging that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that the failure to cure the default may result in acceleration of their loan. However, the false ultimatum contained in the Final Letter sent to Plaintiff contradicts Selene's actual policies regarding acceleration and foreclosure. The Final Letter contains false and misleading threat of acceleration and foreclosure, which are designed intimidate borrowers into making payments to Selene that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure, says the suit. Headquartered in Coppell, TX, Selene Finance is a residential mortgage servicing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com SIKA AG: H & S Ready Mix Sues Over Alleged Price Fixing of CCAs --------------------------------------------------------------- H & S READY MIX, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT- GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00164 (E.D. Pa., January 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices for concrete and cement admixtures and alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. Beginning no later than May 11, 2018, Defendants entered into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global manufacture of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs through price increases and surcharges. This agreement, effectuated at least in part through common trade association membership, resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States and its territories. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover the overcharges it paid to Defendants, says the suit. SIKA AG is a Swiss corporation that manufactures and sells CCAs around the world, including in the United States, directly and through its predecessors, affiliates, and/or subsidiaries, including Sika Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq. Michele S. Burkholder, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com mburkholder@nastlaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Matt Jacobs, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com mjacobs@gustafsongluek.com SMUGGLER JACK'S: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMUGGLER JACK'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00019 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.smugglerjacks.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit of obtaining location and menu information in order to visit a restaurant. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Smuggler Jack's, Inc. owns the website that offers users the ability to peruse the restaurant's menus and obtain location information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com SNAP INC: Court Sets Feb. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) announced the filing of a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to an Amended Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement executed on December 15, 2023 by the parties to the lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Snap Inc. et al., Docket No. 2022-0679-PAF (formerly captioned City of Warwick v. Snap Inc. et al.). The complete Form 8-K filing is available at www.sec.gov or on the Investor Relations section of Snap Inc.'s website. Pursuant to that Amended Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, Snap Inc. is publishing an amended summary notice of pendency and proposed settlement of action. The full text follows below. AMENDED SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION TO: (1) ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF CLASS A, CLASS B OR CLASS C COMMON STOCK OF SNAP INC. AS OF THE DATE OF THE AMENDED STIPULATION ("CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS") AND (2) ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF SNAP INC. AS OF JULY 19, 2022, TOGETHER WITH THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS, TRANSFEREES, AND SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, IN EACH CASE SOLELY IN THEIR CAPACITY AS HOLDERS OR OWNERS OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF SNAP INC. (THE "CLASS"). PLEASE READ THIS AMENDED NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS AMENDED NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF CLASS MEMBERS AND CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS OF SNAP INC. Any capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Amended Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement dated December 15, 2023 (the "Amended Stipulation"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned action (the "Action"), which was brought by a stockholder of Snap Inc. ("Snap" or the "Company") asserting claims on behalf of itself and a Class and/or derivatively on behalf of the Company, is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23.1 and an Order of the Court, that the Action has been preliminarily certified for the purposes of settlement as a non-opt out class action on behalf of the Class, as set forth in the full printed Amended Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Action (the "Amended Long-Form Notice"). The Class is defined in the Amended Stipulation as all record and beneficial holders of shares of Snap Class A common stock that were issued and outstanding as of July 19, 2022, together with their heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest, in each case solely in their capacity as holders or owners of such shares, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that, after arms-length negotiations, Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself, Snap, and the Class, has reached a proposed settlement with Defendants. The Defendants are Snap, Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Kelly Coffey, Joanna Coles, Liz Jenkins, Michael Lynton, Stanley Meresman, Scott Miller, Poppy Thorpe, and Fidel Vargas. This Amended Summary Notice advises Snap stockholders and potential members of the Class of information about the Action and the proposed Settlement. You may obtain a copy of the Amended Long-Form Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at A.B. Data, Ltd. at 1-877-495-0883 or info@snapstockholderlitigation.com. A copy of the Amended Long-Form Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. The Amended Stipulation is on file with the Office of the Register in Chancery for the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against Defendants. If you are a Snap stockholder and/or a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement. A settlement hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 26, 2024 at 3:15 p.m., before the Court at the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 for the Court to: (a) determine whether the provisional class action certification should be made final; (b) determine whether Plaintiff should be finally certified as class representative and Plaintiff's counsel finally certified as class counsel, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (c) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Amended Stipulation, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Snap, the Class, and the Current Stockholders; (d) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Judgment as provided in the Amended Stipulation, finally certifying the Class, dismissing the Action against Defendants with prejudice, and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; and (e) consider Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Fee and Expense Application"). The Court will also hear and consider any objections to the proposed Settlement, the class action determination, and Plaintiff's counsel's Fee and Expense Application. Any objections must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to counsel for the parties such that they are received no later than February 11, 2024, in accordance with the instructions in the Amended Long-Form Notice. The Court has reserved the right to change the date or time of the Settlement Hearing, including consideration of Plaintiff's counsel's Fee and Expense Application, without further notice to Current Stockholders or the Class other than by announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, or notation on the docket in the Action. The Action and Settlement address Plaintiffs' claims (i) that Snap violated Section 242(b)(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law by not obtaining a separate vote of Class A shares on an amendment to its certificate of incorporation (the "Charter Amendment"), and (ii) that Snap's board of directors (the "Board") and its Co-Founders breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Charter Amendment, the Stock Dividend (as defined in the Amended Stipulation), and the related agreements. Defendants deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing, liability, violations of law, or damages arising out of or related to any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged in the Action, and maintain that their conduct was at all times proper, in the best interests of Snap and its stockholders, and in compliance with applicable law. Defendants have nevertheless determined to settle the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense of further litigation, and to permit the operation of Snap without further distraction and diversion of its Board and personnel with respect to the Action. The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Amended Stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated December 15, 2023. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action and the terms of the Settlement, Snap stockholders and members of the Class should review the Amended Long-From Notice that may be obtained from the Settlement Administrator or downloaded from the Settlement website: www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. You may also inspect the pleadings, the Amended Stipulation, the Orders entered by the Court, and other papers filed in the Action at the Office of the Register in Chancery for the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, during regular business hours of each business day. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice and the Releasees (including Defendants and other Defendant Releasees) will be released by Plaintiffs, Defendants, Snap, the members of the Class, and Snap's stockholders (solely with respect to derivative claims), on behalf of themselves and any other person or entity who could assert any of the Released Claims on their behalf, in such capacity only, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this Amended Notice or the proposed Settlement should be directed to Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Amended Long-Form Notice should be made by contacting A.B. Data, Ltd., at 1-877-495-0883 or info@snapstockholderlitigation.com, or you can download a copy of the Amended Long-Form Notice from the Settlement website, www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests for the Amended Long-Form Notice, may be made to following Plaintiff's Counsel: Mark Richardson Labaton Sucharow LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 1-866-640-7254 delawaresettlements@labaton.com Dated: December 19, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SRG GLOBAL: Thomure's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in the lawsuit titled DOROTHY THOMURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC, d/b/a SRG GLOBAL FARMINGTON, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00375-HEA (E.D. Mo.). The putative class action case alleges that the Defendant released hazardous chemicals and metals into the environment and surrounding properties around its facility located in Farmington, Missouri. The Plaintiff claims the release of the chemicals and metals has caused injury to the Plaintiff and the putative members of the class. The Plaintiff has brought claims of negligence, private nuisance, medical monitoring, and trespass against the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings the Motion to Strike to strike the Defendant's affirmative defenses, arguing that the affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled and fail to comply with Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. A court is given liberal discretion under Rule 12(f), however, motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and rarely granted. Judge Autrey notes that the purpose of an affirmative defense is to prevent unfair surprise. The bare assertion of a defense that is not articulated with any rigorous degree of specificity is sufficient, Judge Autrey says, citing Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir. 1997). The Plaintiff has not argued any basis for striking these affirmative defenses other than they fail to include any factual allegations to support them, Judge Autrey notes. Under the "bare assertions" standard, Judge Autrey holds that the Defendant's affirmative defenses are sufficient. Furthermore, Judge Autrey adds, the Plaintiff makes no argument or showing that these affirmative defenses prejudice the Plaintiff in any way. Therefore, the Court finds no basis on which to strike the Defendant's affirmative defenses. Based upon the recent decision in Crutcher v. MultiPlan, Inc., 22 F.4th 756 (8th Cir. 2022), Judge Autrey finds that the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's affirmative defenses is without merit. Accordingly, Judge Autrey denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2yr6ybrpfrom PacerMonitor.com. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Mignott Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA W. MIGNOTT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor L. Ross entered an order granting the Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss" to the extent that motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice this action. Next, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's "Motion to Certify Class" and denies the Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss." On April 23, 2023, the Plaintiff Mignott initiated this putative class action case against the Defendants State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc.; State Bar of Georgia Office of the General Counsel; and William Van Hearnburg, Jr., in his official capacity. The Plaintiff brings one claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. According to Plaintiff, the Defendants "engaged in racial discrimination against [Plaintiff and other] African American attorneys who are members of the State Bar of Georgia" by (i) discriminatorily pursuing fraudulent grievances against African American attorneys; (ii) discriminatorily subjecting them to sham and illegitimate disciplinary proceedings; (iii) subjecting Proposed Class members to discriminatory sanctions and or disbarment from the practice of law; (iv) subjecting Proposed Class members to disparate terms and conditions during the State Bar Disciplinary process, including but not limited to harm to the Proposed Class members' reputation; and (v) subjecting Proposed Class members to unequal grievance and disciplinary proceedings relative to their white peers. State Bar of Georgia is an educational Organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTB85a at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meave v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00438 (N.D. Okla., Filed Oct. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Claire V. Eagan entered an order granting joint motion to extend discovery and related class certification deadlines. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to submit April 18, 2024 expert identification and reports is extended to: -- The Defendant's deadline to submit June 17, 2024 expert identification and reports is extended to: -- Discovery Cutoff is extended to: Aug. 15, 2024 -- Deadline for all motions for class Sept. 12, 2024 certification and any other dispositive motions extended to: -- Response thereto extended to: Oct. 17, 2024 -- Replies due: Nov. 7, 2024 The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract -- Insurance. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies.[CC] STATE FARM: Sept. 12 Extension for Class Cert Bids Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLA E. MEAVE, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00438-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Parties request that the Court grant their second Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Class Certification Related Deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to submit expert April 18, 2024 identification and reports: -- Defendant's deadline to submit expert June 17, 2024 identification and reports: -- Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 15, 2024 -- The deadline for all motions for Sept. 12, 2024 class certification and any other dispositive motions: The opposition to these motions are: Oct. 17, 2024 The replies to these motions are: Nov. 7, 2024 State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United State. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S96myn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Ingle, Esq. Sidney A. Martin II, Esq. BOETTCHER | DEVINNEY | INGLE | WICKER 1721 S. Baltimore Ave Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 728-6500 Facsimile: (539) 664-4129 E-mail: Derek.Ingle@BDIWlaw.com Sid.Martin@BDIWlaw.com - and - Lloyd K. Benedict, Esq. BENEDICT LAW OFFICE 10032 S. Sheridan Rd., Suite O Tulsa, OK 74133 E-mail: lloyd@benedictlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: John S. Gladd, Esq. Galen L. Brittingham, Esq. Trey Purdom, Esq. ATKINSON, BRITTINGHAM, GLADD, FIASCO & EDMONDS 1500 ParkCentre, 525 South Main Street Tulsa, OK 74103-4524 Telephone: (918) 582-8877 Facsimile: (918) 585-8096 E-mail: jgladd@abg-oklaw.com gbrittingham@abg-oklaw.com tpurdom@abg-oklaw.com - and - J. Russell Jackson, Esq. Michael J. Kuhn, Esq. Arin H. Smith, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: rjackson@dowdbennett.com mkuhn@dowdbennett.com asmith@dowdbennett.com STG LOGISTICS: Quinones Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILTON QUINONES, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. STG LOGISTICS, INC., a California corporation; STG CARTAGE, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting preliminary approval of the parties' class action and PAGA representative settlement; -- Approving the form and manner of giving notice to the proposed class of the proposed settlement; -- Appoint CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator; -- Approving the PAGA settlement and $150,000.00 PAGA payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; -- Certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes; and -- Scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed Settlement and the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement award payment. STG Logistics is a provider of port-to-door services and supply chain solutions for cargo owners and logistics providers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpGk15 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org STRATEGIC STAFFING: Norton Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paula Norton, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Strategic Staffing Solutions-S3, L.L.C., a Florida corporation; Cynthia J. Pasky, an individual; and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC-23-610255 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. on Dec. 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06648. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action on behalf of the putative class: failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to provide and maintain accurate payroll records; failure to pay wages when due; PAGA penalties; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eileen R. Ridley, Esq. Jason Y. Wu, Esq. Evan L. Hamling, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104-1520 Phone: 415.434.4484 Facsimile: 415.434.4507 Email: eridley@foley.com jwu@foley.com ehamling@foley.com - and - Kaleb N Berhe, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: kberhe@foley.com SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Hearing in Class Suit to be Held on April 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IN RE: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-VAB NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL ("SYNCHRONY" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF DECEMBER 12, 2023. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION, CURRENT SYNCHRONY STOCKHOLDERS WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, AND FROM PURSUING RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this action is being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 12, 2023 (the "Stipulation"). The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of: * the existence of the above-captioned consolidated derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Court") captioned In re: Synchrony Financial Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-VAB (the "Action"), * the proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants (together, "Parties") reached in the Action (the "Settlement"), * the hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice, * Plaintiffs' Counsel's application to the Court for a Fee and Expense Amount, and * Plaintiffs' Counsel's application to the Court for case Service Awards to the two Plaintiffs. This Notice describes what steps you may take in relation to the Settlement. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the truth or merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed Settlement of the Action and of your rights in connection with the proposed Settlement. Summary On December 12, 2023, Synchrony, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Action, which Stipulation was filed in the Court. The Action was prosecuted derivatively on behalf of Synchrony against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Action with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to adopt and maintain certain corporate governance reforms and procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation (the "Reforms"). In recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon Synchrony as a direct result of the Reforms achieved through the prosecution and Settlement of the Action, and subject to Court approval, the Parties agreed on August 9, 2023 that Synchrony's insurer shall pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of eight hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($885,000.00) (the "Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service awards to be paid to the two Plaintiffs in an amount of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) each (the "Service Awards"), to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount. This notice is a summary only and does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation. For full details of the matters discussed in this summary, please see the full Stipulation and its exhibits posted on the investor relations page of the Company's website, https://investors.synchrony.com, contact Plaintiffs' Counsel as set forth below, or inspect the full Stipulation filed with the Clerk of the Court. What is the Lawsuit About? The Action is brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Synchrony and alleges that, inter alia, beginning January 19, 2018, at least, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing and/or causing the Company to issue false and misleading statements and omissions to the public regarding the pushback Synchrony was receiving from its retail partners based on: (1) adjustments the Company had made to its underwriting practices; and (2) Synchrony's process of making less credit available to certain Company borrowers. Plaintiffs also allege that the Individual Defendants caused Synchrony to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices while certain of them engaged in insider sales of Company stock. The Action alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company experienced reputational and financial harm. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action. Why is there a Settlement of the Action? The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or Plaintiffs. Instead, the Parties agreed to the Settlement to avoid the distraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and because the Parties agree, and the Company determined, that the Reforms that the Company will adopt, implement, and maintain as part of the Settlement provide substantial benefits to Synchrony and its stockholders. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Action. Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Action. Nonetheless, Defendants have concluded that it is desirable for the Action to be fully and finally settled in the matter and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation. The Settlement Hearing, and Your Right to Object to the Settlement On December 21, 2023, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be provided to current Synchrony stockholders ("Current Synchrony Stockholders"). The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on April 1, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Victor A. Bolden at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Courtroom 2 of the Richard C. Lee, United States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Action with prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) determine whether the Court should approve the agreed-to Fee and Expense Amount; (v) determine whether the Court should approve the two Service Awards, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Amount to the extent approved by the Court; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Upon final approval of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss their complaints with prejudice. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's calendar, for any change in the date or time of the Settlement Hearing. Any Current Synchrony Stockholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Amount or Service Awards, may file with the Court a written objection. An objector must, at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing: (1) file with the Clerk of the Court and serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon the below listed counsel a written objection to the Settlement setting forth (i) a written notice of objection with the case name and number (In re: Synchrony Financial Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-VAB (D. Conn.)); (ii) the Person's name, legal address, and telephone number; (iii) notice of whether such Person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing and the reasons such Person desires to appear and be heard, and whether such Person is represented by counsel and if so, contact information for counsel; (iv) competent evidence that such Person held shares of Synchrony common stock as of the date of the Stipulation and continues to hold such stock as of the date the objection is made, including the date(s) such shares were acquired; (v) a statement of objections to any matters before the Court, the grounds therefor, as well as all documents or writings such Person desires the Court to consider; and (vi) the identities of any witnesses such Person plans on calling at the Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their expected testimony. Any objector who does not timely file and serve a notice of intention to appear in accordance with this paragraph shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement and from objecting at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause shown. IF YOU MAKE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, IT MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN MARCH 11, 2024. The Clerk's address is: Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Courtroom 2, Richard C. Lee, U.S. Courthouse 141 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MARCH 11, 2024. Counsel's addresses are: Counsel for Plaintiffs: THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 Counsel for Defendants: CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP Jared Gerber One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2507 An objector may file an objection on his, her, or its own or through an attorney hired at his, her, or its own expense. If an objector hires an attorney to represent him, her, or it for the purposes of making such objection, the attorney must serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) a notice of appearance on the counsel listed above and file such notice with the Court no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. Any Synchrony stockholder who does not timely file and serve a written objection complying with the above terms shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any objection to the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be barred. Any objector who files and serves a timely, written objection in accordance with the instructions above, may appear at the Settlement Hearing either in person or through counsel retained at the objector's expense. Objectors need not attend the Settlement Hearing, however, in order to have their objections considered by the Court. If you are a Current Synchrony Stockholder and do not take steps to appear in this action and object to the proposed Settlement, you will be bound by the Judgment of the Court and will forever be barred from raising an objection to the settlement in the Action, and from pursuing any of the Released Claims. CURRENT SYNCHRONY STOCKHOLDERS AS OF DECEMBER 12, 2023 WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. Interim Stay and Injunction Pending the Court's determination as to final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, and any Current Synchrony Stockholders, derivatively on behalf of Synchrony, are barred and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, instigating, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any Released Claims derivatively against any of the Released Persons in any court or tribunal. Scope of the Notice This Notice is a summary description of the Action, the complaints, the terms of the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, reference is made to them in the Stipulation and its exhibits, copies of which may be reviewed and downloaded at the investor relations page of the Company's website, https://investors.synchrony.com. * * * You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the Settlement. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Levings Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Daryl Levings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Financial, Case No. 23STCV28308 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10830 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Synchrony -- https://www.synchrony.com/ -- is one of the largest issuers of store credit cards in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TELADOC HEALTH: Pattison Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teladoc Health, Inc. The case is styled Adeline Pattison, Dominique Durso, Jean Charter, Liane Tuomala, Michelle Grenon, Teresa Hale, Zeshaan Ahmed, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teladoc Health, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-11305-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Teladoc Health, Inc. -- http://www.teladochealth.com/-- is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company headquartered in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com TENNESSEE: Clark, et al., Severed from Moore Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MOORE, JAMES W. CLARK, JR., DELMAR MACK, and KEVIN FORMAN, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS, FRANK STRADA, GREGORY WILLIAMS, BRET COBBLE, ARAMARK, and JOHN DOE Case No. 1:23-cv-00311-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order severing Plaintiffs Clark, Mack, and Forman from this action. The Court directs the Clerk to open a new civil action for each of these Plaintiffs using a copy of the complaint and exhibits filed in this case. The Court further directs the Clerk to transfer each Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees to their respective civil actions and file a copy of this Order in each newly opened action. This leaves Plaintiff Joshua Moore, who will proceed as the sole Plaintiff in this case. Because it appears that Plaintiff Moore lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee in a lump sum, the Court grants his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Tennessee Department of Correction operates safe and secure prisons and provides effective community supervision in order to enhance public safety. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TW6TFa at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Moore Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MOORE, JAMES W. CLARK, JR., DELMAR MACK, and KEVIN FORMAN, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS, FRANK STRADA, GREGORY WILLIAMS, BRET COBBLE, ARAMARK, and JOHN DOE Case No. 1:23-cv-00311-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of counsel to represent their certified class. But the Court has determined that class certification is improper. Finally, the Plaintiff Moore is ordered to immediately inform the Court and Defendants or their counsel of record of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. Tennessee Department of Correction operates safe and secure prisons and provides effective community supervision in order to enhance public safety. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Etqu8 at no extra charge.[CC] TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that on August 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court granted Tilray's motion for reconsideration and dismissed a second amended complaint with leave to amend one final time. On September 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the company's revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (ABG), announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the court entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins in its financial reports during the class period were false and misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products. On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District court entered an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 12, 2022, the company filed a motion for reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal of this court decision. Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company based in Ontario. TK ELEVATOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Machinists, Taylor Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMARKAL TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. TK ELEVATOR MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02018 (W.D. Tenn., January 10, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid machinist and routinely worked 40 hours or more per week within weekly pay periods. However, the Defendant has had a common practice of inducing, expecting, encouraging, and/or suffering and permitting, Plaintiff and those similarly situated to perform work "off the clock" prior to the beginning of their scheduled shifts without compensating them for such compensable time. In addition, the Defendant also failed to keep timely and accurate payroll time records of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, says the suit. Headquartered in Memphis, TN, TK Elevator Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures elevators, escalators, moving sidewalks and accessible solutions and currently is the fourth largest elevator manufacturer in the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Cowan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Triumph Energy Partners, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00300-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Class Representative file motion for final approval of class action settlement & brief in support. The Court already certified the following Settlement Classes: -- Class I "All non-excluded persons or entities who are or were royalty owners in Oklahoma wells, where Triumph Energy Partners, LLC was the operator (or a working interest owner) who marketed its share of gas production and royalties on such marketed gas was paid to such royalty owners. The claims in this matter relate to royalty payments for gas and its constituents (including, but not limited to, residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, nitrogen, drip condensate, or gas used off the lease premises)." -- Class II "All non-excluded persons or entities who received late payments under the Production Revenue Standards Act from Triumph Energy Partners, LLC (or its designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and whose payments did not include the statutory interest required by the Production Revenue Standards Act." Excluded from Class I and II are: (1) Triumph Energy Partners, LLC and the Released Parties and their respective affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any publicly traded company or its affiliated entity that produces, gathers, processes, or markets gas; and (4) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2). Triumph Energy provides oil and gas exploration and production services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SgDhRA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. The Gobles seek to act as class representatives with regard to Trumbull's practice of depreciating labor from ACV payments and propose the following class for certification: "All Trumbull Insurance Company policyholders (or their lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property located in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin; and (2) for which Trumbull itself accepted coverage and then chose to calculate actual cash value exclusively pursuant to the replacement cost less depreciation methodology and not any other methodology, such as fair market value; and (3) which resulted in an actual cash value payment during the class period from which non-material depreciation was withheld from the policyholder; or which should have resulted in an actual cash value payment but for the withholding of non-material depreciation, causing the loss to drop below the applicable deductible." In this definition, "nonmaterial depreciation" means application of either the "depreciate removal," "depreciate non-material" and/or "depreciate O&P" option settings within Xactimate (TM) software or similar depreciation option settings in competing commercial software programs. The class excludes any claims for which the applicable limits of insurance have been exhausted by initial actual cash value payments. The class also excludes any claims arising under a policy containing Mississippi endorsement HW 01 44 09 19. The class also exclude[s] members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; Trumbull and its affiliates, officers and directors; and Plaintiffs' counsel. For Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin policyholders, the class period only includes policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or after October 26, 2018, through the present. For Maryland, Mississippi, and Utah policyholders, the class period only includes policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or after October 26, 2017, through the present. In addition, the Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause within fourteen days of the opinion and order why Count II of amended complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For a named plaintiff to represent a class effectively, the representative aspects of their claim must take precedence over individualized ones. For the Gobles, this hierarchy is inverted. Therefore, the adequacy prerequisite for class certification is not met. Because the Gobles are not adequate class representatives, the Court need not address the other prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), or whether their proposed class is sufficiently ascertainable. In seeking prospective relief, the Gobles allege that Trumbull continues to depreciate the cost of labor from ACV payments in violation of its standard form policy. However, they fail to explain how they face a significant possibility of future injury as a result of this ongoing conduct The class action claims arise out of dispute over the meaning of "actual cash value" ("ACV") in Trumbull's standard form insurance policy; namely, whether the policy permits depreciation of labor costs from ACV payments. Trumbull provides fire and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjMEK1 at no extra charge.[CC] TVI INC: Hughes Class Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHEA HUGHES, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TVI, INC., a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. (Filed Nov. 28, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California - County of Solano to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 3, 2024. The Eastern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00008 to the proceeding. TVI operates a chain of thrift stores.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in Cushman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CUSHMAN, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00196-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Buescher entered an order granting Union Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Cushman's Complaint fails to allege that Union Pacific discriminated against him because of a disability. The Court also grants Cushman's Motion to Amend Complaint because Cushman has shown good cause and that amendment may not be futile. Cushman has 14 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint. The Court concludes that Cushman has demonstrated the requisite "good cause" to amend his Complaint after the scheduling deadline. The Plaintiff Cushman has sued his former employer defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cushman alleges he is a former member of the now-decertified Harris class that sued Union Pacific for violations under the ADA. Cushman brings two claims under the ADA against Union Pacific alleging disability discrimination due to disparate treatment. Union Pacific moved for judgment on the pleadings. Union Pacific is a Class I freight-hauling railroad that operates 8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west of Chicago and New Orleans. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47AQgCj at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 9 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time. Accordingly, the following schedule shall govern briefing on the motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before January 12, 2024. 2. The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before February 9, 2024. 3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification shall be filed on or before February 23, 2024. United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TMCk4G at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Hearing on Bid to Compel --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HORLIECA AND DARRYL WARNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00278-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs request a hearing before the Court on their First Motion to Compel by Jan. 30, 2024. The case was previously assigned to the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal. Judge Bernal's Civil Trial Scheduling Order indicates that "discovery disputes have been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case." On November 20, 2023, the case was ordered transferred to the Honorable Judge Kenly Kiva Kato. Judge Kato's Standing Order provides that "all discovery matters have been referred to the assigned magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes." The Plaintiffs herein request an Order compelling USAA to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 8 from the Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, served on October 19, 2023, and to produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 73 from Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants, served on October 19, 2023. The Plaintiffs bring this motion to compel USAA to produce the putative class members' contact information as requested by Plaintiffs in their Interrogatory No. 8 and RFP No. 73. The Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of the absent putative class members’ personal information because it is neither necessary nor relevant given the extensive anonymized data already produced to Plaintiffs and because Plaintiffs' purported reasons for needing the information are not only invalid, but they do not outweigh third-party insureds’ privacy rights. United Services is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the military, veterans, and their families. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NOtcsF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Levin, Esq. James E. Hoffmann, Esq. LEVIN & HOFFMANN, LLP 23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 253 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 990-2370 Facsimile: (800) 572-9590 - and - Steven R. Young, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. YOUNG 95 Enterprise Suite 340 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Dezarae D. Lacrue, Esq. Timothy L. Foster, Esq. Brian Hanlin, Esq. Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 The Defendants are represented by: John S. Purcell Douglas E. Hewlett jr. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Telephone: (213) 629-7400 Facsimile: (213) 629-7401 E-mail: john.purcell@afslaw.com douglas.hewlett@afslaw.com - and - Paula M. Ketcham, Esq. Jay Williams, Esq. James D. Cromley, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 E-mail: paula.ketcham@afslaw.com jay.williams@afslaw.com james.cromley@afslaw.com UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit Over TPS Designations --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled CRISTA RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01554-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are individuals, some noncitizen adults and some citizen children with noncitizen parents, who live in the United States legally. The noncitizen individuals have permission to be in the country pursuant to the Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") designations for six countries, specifically: (1) Sudan; (2) Haiti; (3) Nicaragua; (4) El Salvador; (5) Honduras; and (6) Nepal. The Plaintiffs filed suit in 2018 and 2019, challenging the Trump administration's termination of the TPS designations for those six countries. In October 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. The government appealed and prevailed, but, subsequently, in February 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the Plaintiffs' petition for an en banc hearing. Shortly before the en banc hearing, the government announced that it would be rescinding the 2017 and 2018 terminations of the TPS designations for El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. By that time the government had already newly designated Haiti and Sudan for TPS. The government thereafter voluntarily moved to dismiss its appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit granted that relief. Following the appellate proceedings, the Plaintiffs took the position before the Court that the case was still not moot. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The government then filed the pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The government primarily argues that the case should be dismissed based on mootness, whether the Plaintiffs are arguing (1) that the Trump administration's TPS terminations were improper, or (2) that the government has improperly charged TPS holders from Haiti or Sudan a $50 registration fee. In the operative class action amended complaint ("CAC"), the Plaintiffs note that Congress established the TPS program through the Immigration Act of 1990. The TPS statute is codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1254a. Under the program, foreign nationals of designated countries are given lawful immigrant status because they cannot safely return home. Specifically, the Attorney General has the authority to issue a TPS designation based on certain criteria -- e.g., an ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster, such as an earthquake or flood. Before the designation can become effective, the Secretary of Homeland Security ("DHS") must publish a notice in the Federal Register that includes, among other things, a statement of findings, the effective date of the designation, and a tally of eligible foreign nationals. Thereafter, the Secretary engages in a periodic review of TPS designations. In 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration terminated the TPS designations of four countries: (1) Sudan, (2) Haiti, (3) Nicaragua, and (4) El Salvador. The termination was based on a new interpretation of the TPS statute. According to the Plaintiffs, DHS abandoned a long-established practice under which it considered all current conditions -- including intervening events -- in deciding whether to extend or terminate a country's TPS designation. In its place, DHS adopted a new, narrow practice in which DHS considers only whether the original conditions that initially gave rise to the TPS designation persist, and only those ongoing harms directly tied to those original conditions. The Plaintiffs allege that the new interpretation was motivated by intentional race- and national-origin-based animus against individuals from what former President Trump referred to as "shithole countries." i.e., non-white, non-European immigrants. In October 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the decisions to terminate TPS for Sudan, Haiti, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. However, pending appeal, it agreed to issue periodic Federal Register notices automatically extending TPS status and employment authorization for TPS holders from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan for at least nine months at a time. The government later agreed to the same procedure for Nepal and Honduras, after it was announced their TPS designations would also be terminated. The challenge to the TPS terminations for Nepal and Honduras were initially brought in a different case, Bhattarai v. Nielsen, No. C-19-0731 EMC (N.D. Cal.). Bhattarai was subsequently consolidated with this case. In September 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed this Court's decision granting a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs sought rehearing en banc. In January 2021, President Joe Biden took office. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit to stay proceedings on their petition, citing President Biden's stated intention to take swift action on TPS. In June 2021, the parties jointly moved the case to be referred to the Ninth Circuit's mediation program. In August 2021, DHS published a Federal Register notice designating Haiti for TPS for 18 months. The Federal Register notice cites human rights violations and abuses by law enforcement officials and non-state actors; serious security concerns, including violent criminal gangs; a dire economic situation, including a poverty rate of nearly 60%; a weak healthcare system suffering from the lingering impact of the 2010 earthquake and Hurricane Matthew in 2016; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Haiti was subsequently redesignated for TPS. DHS published a Federal Register notice designating Sudan for TPS for 18 months. The Secretary explained that he had determined that an eighteen-month designation is warranted because of the extraordinary and temporary conditions, including ongoing armed conflict and civil unrest, political instability, flooding, droughts, widespread poverty, and deteriorating economic conditions. Sudan was later redesignated for TPS. In October 2022, after settlement negotiations between the parties were not successful, the Ninth Circuit released the appeal from the mediation program. In February 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc. On June 13, 2023, one week before the en banc oral argument in the Ramos appeal, DHS announced in a press release that it was rescinding the Trump administration's terminations of TPS for the remaining four countries at issue -- i.e., El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. DHS also stated that it would be extending the TPS designations for those countries. The next day, the Defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss the Ramos appeal. On June 21, 2023, one day before the en banc oral argument, DHS published Federal Register notices announcing the rescission of the TPS terminations and the extension of the TPS designations. On June 29, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the Defendants' motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. That court did not address whether the Defendants' actions related to the countries at issue had mooted the case. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that, for Haiti and Sudan, there is another problem related to TPS designations. Specifically, in redesignating Haiti and Sudan for TPS, DHS required Haitian and Sudanese TPS holders to file a request for TPS as new applicants, which requires the payment of a $50 fee which does not apply to TPS holders renewing their registrations. Based on, inter alia, these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert the following claims for relief: (1) Violation of equal protection; (2) Violation of due process; (3) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The Defendants violated the APA by making a sudden and unexplained departure from decades of decision-making practices and ordinary procedures; (4) Violation of the APA. The Defendants did not interpret the TPS statute in accordance with the law; (5) Violation of the APA. The parties agree that this claim is now moot; (6) Violation of due process. The parties agree that this claim is now moot; and (7) Violation of due process. The due process rights of U.S. citizen children have been violated. They have an absolute right to live in the United States and they have a fundamental right to live with and be raised by their parents. In the pending motion, the government argues that the Plaintiffs' case is now moot. In the instant case, the government makes both a facial attack and a factual one. The government makes a facial attack to the extent the Plaintiffs are challenging the Trump administration's TPS terminations. The government makes a facial and a factual attack to the extent the Plaintiffs are asserting that the government has failed to refund the $50 registration fee to TPS holders from Haiti and Sudan. While an express repudiation of prior policy may make for an exceptionally clear case for mootness, unequivocal action which implicitly repudiates prior policy may also establish mootness, particularly when all or nearly all the Rosebrock factors are satisfied, Judge Chen opines, citing Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the government has met its burden of showing that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The Plaintiffs' challenge to the TPS terminations is moot. The Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court finds their challenge to the TPS terminations moot, the case still has another live component. The Plaintiffs have alleged that, when DHS issued new TPS designations for Haiti and Sudan (in August 2021 and April 2022), it required TPS holders from those countries to pay a $50 registration fee -- which does not apply to TPS holders renewing their registrations. The government argues that any injury claimed by the Plaintiffs with respect to the $50 registration fee is at most a collateral consequence (the primary injury being the TPS terminations by the Trump administration). The Plaintiffs somewhat disagree, asserting that the injury here could be construed as an ongoing injury, and not just a collateral consequence. Judge Chen notes that how exactly the injury is characterized is not material. The government's position is that: (1) the Plaintiffs themselves have not suffered that injury -- i.e., those Plaintiffs, who are from Haiti or Sudan, did not themselves pay a $50 registration fee even if other Haitian or Sudanese TPS holders did; (2) Even if the Plaintiffs could amend to correct this deficiency (either amending to allege that they suffered this injury or amending to add a new plaintiff who did), the latest amended complaint seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief, and a moot case seeking such relief cannot be revived by a damages claim raised for the first time in briefing challenging mootness; and (3) Even if the Court were inclined to allow a damages claim, there is sovereign immunity. For purposes of this order, the Court need only address the first argument. The Plaintiffs agree that no named Plaintiff has paid a $50 registration fee following the new designations of Haiti and Sudan. That being the case, there is no Plaintiff in this case who has standing to proceed with this claim, Judge Chen points out. For these reasons, the Court grants the government's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims challenging the TPS terminations are moot. Those claims are therefore dismissed. The dismissal is with prejudice as the Plaintiffs have not indicated that they could plead additional facts to overcome this deficiency. As for the Plaintiffs' claim challenging the $50 registration fee, it is also dismissed but based on lack of standing. The Court will give the Plaintiffs sixty (60) days to file an amended complaint to the extent they wish to pursue any claim based on the $50 registration fee. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 28, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2ms9p33xfrom PacerMonitor.com. VEOLIA WATER: Nicholls Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ 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.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification of similarly situated individuals who have been affected by the Defendant's failure to pay the prevailing wage rates required pursuant to the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law. Veolia operates, maintains and manages water and wastewater systems. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48TEjZh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence E. Coles, Esq. PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC 2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 367-7200 E-mail: tcoles@pylerome.com VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- Veradigm Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 5, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2024, that on November 22, 2023, the company and certain of its former officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned "Erwin v. Veradigm Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-16205, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint for the Class Action Lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the company's previously disclosed revenue misstatements resulting from certain internal control failures. An amended complaint was filed on January 5, 2024, adding allegations related to the previously disclosed Nasdaq process and previously announced management changes. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages Veradigm provides physician practices, hospitals, and other healthcare providers with practice management and electronic health record technology. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Gabel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ GERRY GABEL, derivatively on behalf of VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Plaintiff v. HANS VESTBERG, MATTHEW ELLIS, CLARENCE OTIS, JR., SHELLYE L. ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLINI, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOMÉ, GREGORY G. WEAVER, LOWELL C. MCADAM, RICHARD CARRIÓN, FRANCES KEETH, and KATHRYN TESIJA, Defendants, and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00132 (D.N.J., January 9, 2024) alleges claims for, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The shareholder derivative action, filed by Plaintiff Gabel on behalf of one or more shareholders, stems from Verizon's long-standing decision to leave toxic cable wires buried in the ground throughout the country, which allowed these wires to contaminate ground water and pose potential health risks to those exposed to these wires. Plaintiff Gabel asserts that Verizon violates its disclosure obligations and fiduciary duties by concealing such practice from nearby residents as well as from investors. Headquartered in New York, NY, Verizon is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. The company provides wireless, Internet, television, and telephone services throughout the United States. Its stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "VZ." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Erica L. Stone, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com estone@rosenlegal.com VITALS CONSUMER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al., v. VITALS CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the Parties' Second Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadlines: -- Plaintiff's motion for class Jan. 26, 2024 certification to: -- All pretrial class discovery shall be March 27, 2024 completed by: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class April 26, 2024 certification shall be filed by: Vitals Consumer provides healthcare medical information solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41P49v8 at no extra charge.[CC] VMWARE INC: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 15 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LAMARTINA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VMWARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02182-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order adding the following deadlines to the case management schedule. Event Deadline Substantial Completion of Defendants' Jan. 31, 2024 Document Production Defendants to respond to Lead Mar. 15, 2024 Plaintiff's class certification motion Lead Plaintiff's reply in support May 17, 2024 of class certification motion VMware is an American cloud computing and virtualization technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzyLVt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Laurie L. Largent, Esq. Scott H. Saham, Esq. Ashley M. Kelly, Esq. Ting H. Liu, Esq. Stephen Johnson, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com llargent@rgrdlaw.com scotts@rgrdlaw.com ashleyk@rgrdlaw.com tliu@rgrdlaw.com sjohnson@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Maeve L. O'connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. Matthew J. Sorensen, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com mjsorensen@debevoise.com - and - Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Nicholas A. Roethlisberger, Esq. KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415)630-2350 E-mail: abhansali@kblfirm.com nroethlisberger@kblfirm.com WAKE COUNTY, NC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMIA CHAPLIN, KEVIN SPRUILL, ROTESHA MCNEIL, QIANA ROBERTSON, YOUSEF JALLAL, MESSIEJAH BRADLEY, PAULINO CASTELLANOS, ROBERT LEWIS AND ALLEN SIFFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WILLIE R. ROWE, in his capacity as Sheriff of Wake County, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00423-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants request the Court extend the deadline for them to respond to the Class Certification Motion until 30 days after the Court issues its ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, extend by 21 days Defendants' deadline to respond to the Class Certification Motion, through and including January 26, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 23, 2023. Pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs were required to move for class certification within 90 days of filing a complaint. Plaintiffs did not move for class certification within this 90-day deadline, which was August 21, 2023. On October 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to move for class certification. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension and extended Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification until December 15, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on October 27, 2023. The Defendants Brian Estes and The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company have filed responses to the Complaint. The Defendants include BRIAN ESTES, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Lee County, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, as the surety for the Sheriff of Wake County and as surety for the Sheriff of Lee County, TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, RYAN BOYCE, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, BRAD FOWLER, in his official capacity as the ecourts Executive Sponsor and Chief Business Officer of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, BLAIR WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court, SUSIE K. THOMAS, in her official capacity as the Lee County Clerk of Superior Court, JOHN DOE SURETY, as the surety for the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court and the Lee County Clerk of Superior Court, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TYvWr0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Skidmore, Esq. H. Hunter Bruton, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-2536 Facsimile: (704) 378-4000 E-mail: gskidmore@robinsonbradshaw.com hbruton@robinsonbradshaw.com - and - Elizabeth Curran O'Brien, Esq. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Telephone: (919) 716-6800 Facsimile: (919) 716-6755 E-mail: eobrien@ncdoj.gov - and - James R. Morgan, Jr., Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3710 Facsimile: (336) 733-8394 E-mail: Jim.Morgan@wbd-us.com - and - Roger A. Askew, Esq. Robert J. Lane, Esq. WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 856-5500 Facsimile: (919) 856-5504 E-mail: Roger.Askew@wake.gov Robert.Lane@wake.gov WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Stays Clem Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2024, that a suit filed by a putative shareholder in the District Court of Delaware captioned "Clem v. Skinner, et. al," (Case No. 21-CV-406) on March 19, 2021 against certain current and former Walgreens directors and officers has been stayed. Said case sought damages based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and seeking contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of transactions contemplated by a merger agreement between the company and Rite-Aid Corp. Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding the transactions. The case had been stayed since its inception given the pending class action in the . The stay was lifted following the Court's rulings on summary judgment motions in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company based in Illinois. WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2024, that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval of a settlement of a putative class action lawsuit arising out of transactions contemplated by a merger agreement between the company and Rite-Aid Corp. This was granted by the court on October 23, 2023 and set a date of February 7, 2024 for the final settlement approval hearing. On December 11, 2017, purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint alleging that the company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding the transactions. Fact and expert discovery have concluded. The court denied both plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgement and the company's motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2023. Trial is scheduled for January 29, 2024. On August 23, 2023, the company, the other defendants and the lead plaintiffs entered into a binding agreement to settle all claims. The settlement of approximately $193 million provides for the dismissal of the class action with prejudice. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company based in Illinois. WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Devane Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. f/k/a WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the Walmart's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that the ADTPA claims, Count V, are dismissed with prejudice. -- The motion is denied in all other respects. -- Without recounting the entire docket in this case, the Court notes the long journey this case has taken through the federal judiciary and states the following facts relevant to the issues currently before the Court. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TOEpgw at no extra charge.[CC] WATA INC: Knight Seeks to Refile Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion by the plaintiffs for leave to re-file plaintiffs' motion for class certification in compliance with uniform civil practice standards. On December 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs Jacob Knight, Jack Cribbs and Jason Dohse filed their Motion for Class Certification and a Declaration of Janeen Carlberg and Supporting Evidence. The Motion for Class Certification was made pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order which called for the simultaneously filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the same date, December 11, 2023. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification did not comply with Judge Gallagher's Uniform Practice Standards. On December 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order striking Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' counsel is aware of mistakes that were made in the originally filed Motion for Class Certification and desires the opportunity to correct those errors to bring the papers in full compliance with Uniform Practice Standards and Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel has personally reviewed the court ruling and revised the motion and supporting evidence to comply with the rules. Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and encapsulation services for collectible video games. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aJtcUr 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 WATA INC: Knight Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying Classes: 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." 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." 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 Defendants have the class list and have refused to turn the information over to the Plaintiffs in discovery, maintaining that such information would be appropriate in the event of class certification. The Defendants clearly have the residential addresses of members of the class as Wata had to mail games there. Defendants also have e-mail addresses for each member of the class since it was required as part of the account creation and online transaction procedures. As such, should the court grant the motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs request 60 days to meet and confer with Defendants to attempt to reach an agreement regarding a class notice program and submit a motion to approve class notice. The case involves allegations of misconduct by video game grading company Wata, now known as Collectors Universe. 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 saw a surge in demand for services and charged customers based on the speed of turnaround times and based on the value of the game submitted. The company could not manage all the orders it received and was immediately backlogged. Despite being well aware of its inability to meet turnaround times purchased by customers, Wata continued advertising the false turnaround times and accepting orders and payments from customers, resulting in customers having their valuable property held for extended periods. The Plaintiff Knight resides in California and has resided in California his entire life. Knight made his purchase from Wata on June 8, 2020. Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and encapsulation services for collectible video games. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47sHAxI 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 WEBMD LLC: Pretrial Class Discovery in Sweeton Due March 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al., v. WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the second amended scheduling order for class certification as follows: -- All other deadlines and requirements previously set forth remain in effect and unaltered. The Court is not inclined to grant any further extensions relative to the Scheduling Order for Class Certification. -- All pretrial class discovery shall be completed by March 27, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by April 26, 2024 -- The telephone conference scheduled on June 26, 2024 is canceled. WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Mja0R at no extra charge.[CC] WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Levison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending, Inc. The case is styled as Brent Alan Levison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Capital Lending, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-24939-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. West Capital Lending -- https://westcapitallending.com/ -- is a mortgage broker offering several choices of home loans and reverse mortgage options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Salas Due Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO SALAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and AIG WARRANTYGUARD, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01549-AB-kk (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order approving joint stipulation for schedule on class certification: Activity Date Deadline to complete class discovery Sept. 23, 2024 Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for Sept. 30, 2024 class certification Defendant's deadline to file an opposition Dec. 5, 2024 To motion for class certification Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in Jan. 20, 2025 support of motion for class certification Class Certification Motion Hearing Feb. 28, 2025 Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RXAfk4 at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAM VALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Stroude Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- COLETTE STROUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WILLIAM VALE HOTEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00210 (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA and NYCHRL. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The William Vale Hotel owns and operates the website, www.thewilliamvale.com, which serves as an online platform for the hotel to feature its variety of rooms and suites with city and neighborhood views, dining options, and amenities like the VALE Pool and The Turf Club rooftop bar. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christian Fernandez, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., an active Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 23STCV23197 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10435-DSF-JPR. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the "FAC"), which is the operative complaint in this action. The FAC purports to state causes of action for: "Failure to Provide Meal Periods"; "Failure to Provide Paid Rest Periods"; "Failure to Pay Wages"; "Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination/Separation"; "Failure to Timely Pay Vacation Wages at Termination"; "Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements"; "Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses"; "Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act – Bus. & Prof. Code"; and "Penalties Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Steven D. Eheart, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858)597-9600 Facsimile: (858)597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com seheart@fisherphillips.com YOUNG LA TRADING: Hindi Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young LA Trading, Co, LLC. The case is styled as Jamil Hindi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young LA Trading, Co, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-62424-DPG (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. YoungLA -- https://www.youngla.com/ -- is a clothing brand headquartered in the heart of Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZAPPOS.COM LLC doing business as: www.zappos.com, Case No. 23STCV28343 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 29, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10876-WLH-JPR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Zappos.com -- https://www.zappos.com/ -- is an American online shoe and clothing retailer based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: James H. Moon, Esq. Marcy Gray Blattner, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com marcymicale@dwt.com ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Matczak Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- LACY MATCZAK and FELIZITAS COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOLLAR TREE, INC. and FAMILY DOLLAR, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00015-RDB (D. Md., Jan. 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to safeguard the highly sensitive personal identifying information entrusted to them by employees and customers. The compromised information includes full names, dates of birth, and Social Security Number, the Plaintiffs claim. At least as early as Aug. 8, 2023, Zeroed-In became aware of a major breach of its systems, which occurred between August 7, 2023 and August 8, 2023. By August 31, 2023, Zeroed-In had identified that PII had been compromised for around 1,977,486 people. However, neither Dollar Tree nor Zeroed-In provided any notice to Customers until Nov. 27, 2023, when they began to send out written notices. Because of the extraordinary negligence in delaying announcing the data breach and in notifying those directly affected, the Defendants created uncertainty and allowed criminals to commit identity theft and fraud crimes against victims who had not been informed of the breach. The Plaintiffs and class members had to engage in an expensive and time-consuming process to properly protect their identity which caused significant stress, anxiety, and loss of valuable time, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege claims of Negligence, Breach of Implied Contract, and Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff Felizitas Cox is a resident and citizen of Stockton, California and a former employee of Defendant Dollar Tree. She received a notification that her personal information may have been breached on Nov. 28, 2023. Plaintiff Lacy Matczak is a resident and citizen of New Castle, Delaware and a former employee of Defendant Dollar Tree. She received a notification that her personal information may have been breached on Nov.28, 2023. Zeroed-In is a data technology and analysis consulting company that provides analytical services to customers including Dollar Tree.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law ZILLOW GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Barua Extended to March 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIBAKAR BARUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., RICHARD BARTON, ALLEN PARKER, and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order granting stipulated motion to amend scheduling order: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Class Certification/Amendments March. 11, 2024 March 11, 2024 Discovery on Class Certification Issues (Excluding Class Certification Expert Witness Depositions) Completed By Motion for Class Certification May 9, 2024 Mar. 14, 2024 and produce Rule 26(b)(4)(C) material Deadline for Joining Additional May 9, 2024 Mar. 14, 2024 Parties Discovery Motion Cutoff Sept. 26, 2024 Sept. 5, 2024 Oppositions to any Dispositive Jan. 2, 2025 Dec. 19, 2024 or Daubert Motions Replies to any Dispositive or Jan. 24, 2025 Feb. 7, 2025 Daubert Motions Zillow Group is an American tech real-estate marketplace company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tBtyMe 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 ***