/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240408.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 71
Headlines
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Parties Must File Trial Schedule, Court Says
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Partial Final Judgment Granted in Snow Class Suit
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Court OK's Parties' Bid to Seal Documents
AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
AMAZON.COM: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Partly Granted
AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Must File Class Cert Response by April 30
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Debit, Credit Cards' Fees
AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Declaration
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Probes Class Suit Certification
AVALARA INC: Court Dismisses Putative Shareholders' Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Putative Class Action
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due August 16
BOPPY COMPANY: Scricca Bid to Compel Discovery Production Tossed
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Claims
CINCINNATI BELL: Bid to Strike Allegations Denied in Kemen Suit
COLTER ENERGY: Parties Seeks to Extend Zaarour Class Cert Response
CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
COOK CANADA: Agrees to Settle IVC Filter Products Class Action
DAVE'S KILLER: Swartz Considers Sealing Confidential Docs
DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Extension of Time to File Response Briefs
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
EF INSTITUTE: Grabovksy Plaintiffs Must File Reply by April 17
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Motion to Certify False Ads' Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Allergy Medication
FANNIE MAE: Final Judgment Entered in Stock Purchase Deal Lawsuit
FEDERAL HOUSING: Final Judgment Entered in Fairholme Stock Suit
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Bid in Silverstein Due Sept. 19
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Woodhams Partly Granted
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert. Deadline
GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13
GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Lax Cybersecurity Measures
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal
HANDI-FOIL: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
HARVEST CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder's Class Action
HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
HEALTH FIRST: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 21
HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Frechete Class Suit
HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Chiarito Continued to Oct. 31
IKEA NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Products
INMAR BRAND: Holmes Loses Bid for Class Certification
JBS USA: Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint by April 22
JKS HOME: Class Cert. Bids in Kayce Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025
JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Suit Seeks Class Certification
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Seeks to Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 26
LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
LIVEPERSON INC: Ct. Appoints Damri as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
LLOYD AUSTIN: Arzamendi Suit Seeks Class Certification
LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2025
LULIFAMA.COM: Epstein Bid to Dismiss Pop Complaint OK'd
MAN SE: Munich Court Overturns Truck Cartel Class Action Dismissal
MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Child Welfare System
MARK CUBAN: Seeks April 10 Extension to File Response
MONARCH RECOVERY: Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Goldring
MYTHICAL VENTURE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 13
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Suit Seeks $939 Million in Additional Damages
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Approves Nov. 28, 2023 Report & Recommendation
PARKMOBILE LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Lujano Modified to Oct. 7
PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks to Seal Confidential Class Cert Materials
PRO CUSTOM: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Ct. Awards CEF $39K in Atty's Fees
RBS CITIZENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 18
REAL ESTATE ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
REALNETWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Must File Updated Joint Status Report
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Virtual Gambling
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification
SYMETRA LIFE: Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by April 26
T-MOBILE USA: Gets Court OK to Proceed an Appeal in Antitrust Suit
T.L. CANNON: Dees Must File Class Cert Reply by April 24
TD BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
TEVA CANADA: Appeals Court Dismisses Valsartan Recall Class Action
THOMAS GILES: Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice in Oldaker
TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Caper, Tran Suits
TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Sur-Reply
TRICIDA INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Class of Students
TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs
TULANE UNIV: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Opposition Date
TWO JINN: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by April 26
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perissa Suit Due Dec. 6
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in National Suit Gets Final Nod
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order
UPS STORE: Must File Any Reply by April 8
VARSITY BRANDS: Indirect Purchasers Can Add Class Rep in Jones
VISA USA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Merchant Interchange Fees
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Settles False Advertising Suit for $28.5-Mil.
WELLS FARGO: Court Appoints Zimmerman Law as Co-Lead Class Counsel
WOODSTREAM CORP: Maroney Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
*********
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Parties Must File Trial Schedule, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACLYN MOHRBACHER, et al.,
v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00050-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered
an order directing the parties to jointly file by April 18, 2024, a
proposed pretrial and trial schedule based on a trial date in Nov.
2024.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs offer only the individual
experiences of a small number of pregnant inmates. This is enough
to deny certification of any of the proposed classes for failure to
satisfy the elements of Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs have also not
demonstrated that the putative class members seek uniform relief
from a practice applicable to all of them for purposes of Rule
23(b)(2), or that common questions of law or fact predominate over
individuals ones for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3)."
The plaintiffs alleged a broad array of claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of female inmates about the
treatment of women
incarcerated in the Santa Rita Jail operated by defendant Alameda
County Sheriff's Office (ACSO). The claims against Aramark involved
food services and the adequacy of nutrition provided to inmates.
At the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs amended their motion to
certify a class to address the sole remaining defendant, the
California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), which provides jail
medical services under contract with ACSO. The only claims
remaining in the case concern the medical care of pregnant women
inmates.
The main class proposed by plaintiffs, and the only one
specifically defined in the motion, is for "all current and future
females who were pregnant during their incarcerated [sic] in Santa
Rita Jail since January, 2017."
The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs also mention a putative
"damages class" of "pregnant women" and a "sub-class of pregnant
women with high risk pregnancies," both of which are said to be
appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9U1V3e at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Partial Final Judgment Granted in Snow Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting joint stipulated
request for order entering partial final judgment pursuant to Rule
54(b).
On Feb. 21, 2024, the Court entered an order granting summary
judgment for Align on Plaintiffs' claim under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act and related state law claims.
The Court's order on Plaintiffs' Section 2 claim did not affect
Plaintiffs' separate claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
which remains before the Court.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6g5WLD at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Court OK's Parties' Bid to Seal Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS, LLC,
COOKWARE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:21-mc-00491-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Ranjan entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs and Defendants All-Clad
Metalcrafters, LLC and Groupe SEB USA, Inc.'s joint motion to
seal.
The Court said that All-Clad has met its burden to rebut the
presumptive right of access under both the common law and the First
Amendment, and it may redact the information from any public
filings and submit an unredacted version to the Court under seal.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7MKty at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE VACCARO and JENNIFER
CHIU, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff Chiu ask the Court granting their renewed
motion to certify class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of:
"All current and former hourly fulfillment center employees who
worked for the Defendant in New Jersey and who, during at least
one
workweek from two (2) years prior to the original date of the
filing of the Complaint, May 11, 2016, through the present,
worked
at least 40 hours according to the Defendant's timekeeping
system."
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the defined class's claims set forth in Counts I of
the
Second Amended Complaint.
-- appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as class counsel and herself as
class representative.
Amazon.com. offers towing mirrors, air suspension, retainer clips
kits, and wheel chocks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b5dKrd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
AMAZON.COM: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY,
PATRICIA SALAZAR, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a proxy for the LWDA, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01292-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting in part motion
for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement:
1. A hearing on the Final Approval of the settlement shall be
held before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe in Courtroom 8
of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California located at 2500 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor,
Fresno,
California, 93721 on Sept. 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. to
determine: whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and whether said Settlement should
be
finally approved by the Court;
2. The following persons are conditionally certified as Class
Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in
this
matter:
All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in
California between July 22, 2017 and Nov. 7, 2023 who
received a
Signing Bonus and/or On Sign Bonus in the same workweek as
he/she worked overtime, including double-time (the
"Settlement
Class");
3. The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement, which
provides for a Gross Settlement Fund of $3,000,000 for
approximately 3,232 Class Members, appears to be within the
range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately
be
given final approval by this Court;
4. The Court hereby preliminarily approves, in part, Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of
$750,000.00 and costs in an amount up to $30,000.00 to be
paid
out of the Maximum Settlement Amount.
5. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Class
Representative
Enhancement Payment in the total amount of $17,500.00 to be
paid
out of the Gross Settlement Fund;
6. Atticus Class Action Administration is appointed to act as
the
Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Settlement
Agreement;
7. Plaintiffs Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar are
appointed the Class Representatives and the representatives
of
the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only;
8. Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mayall Hurley, P.C. and the Law Offices
of
Mark S. Adams, are appointed Class Counsel; and
9. The settlement of Plaintiffs’ California Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act claim is fair and reasonable, and the
Court
preliminarily approves the Settlement and release of that
claim
as well as the PAGA Allocation in the amount of $100,000,
which
includes payment to the LWDA and to the PAGA Settlement Class
Members.
Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfWQox at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Must File Class Cert Response by April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dahl v. American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584 (D. Ariz.,
Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an
order granting the parties' joint motion to extend briefing
deadlines.
-- The Plaintiff's response to defendant's April 30,
2024
motion to dismiss and motion deny class
certification shall be due no later than:
-- The Defendant's reply in support of its June 14, 2024
motions shall be due no later than:
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
American Bankers provides specialty credit-related insurance
products.[CC]
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Debit, Credit Cards' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports American Express finds itself embroiled in a legal
battle as a proposed class action lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island
federal court, alleges the company of overcharging thousands of US
merchants for credit and debit card fees on consumer transactions.
The lawsuit, initiated by ten retail plaintiffs including a
delicatessen, fine clothier, florist, and furniture store, seeks a
court order to halt American Express policies that allegedly breach
US antitrust law, as reported by Reuters.
At the crux of the dispute are American Express's purported use of
"non-discrimination provisions" to prevent merchants from steering
customers towards payment cards with lower transaction fees, thus
constraining competition, according to the lawsuit. American
Express has yet to respond to requests for comment on the matter.
The merchants' grievances echo similar allegations against Visa and
Mastercard in a consolidated legal action in Brooklyn federal court
regarding payment card fees. Notably, Visa and Mastercard had
abandoned regulations preventing merchants from encouraging the use
of lower-cost payment methods by the end of 2013, as highlighted in
the lawsuit.
Last year, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld a
substantial $5.6 billion settlement involving approximately 12
million retailers against Visa and Mastercard. Despite this,
ongoing litigation against the two companies persists.
The lawsuit singles out American Express, arguing that its rules
exclusively prohibit U.S. merchants from employing discounts,
surcharges, verbal prompting, signage, and other tactics to
incentivize customers to use more economical payment cards.
Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that binding arbitration
clauses between American Express and merchants have impeded efforts
to resolve their claims. Initially, the 5,155 merchants involved in
the lawsuit pursued individual claims through arbitration. However,
American Express purportedly refused to pay a $16 million
arbitration invoice, resulting in the closure of these cases, as
outlined in the lawsuit.
Given American Express's alleged default in the arbitration
process, the plaintiffs assert that the company cannot now prevent
them from pursuing their claims in a U.S. court. The lawsuit marks
another chapter in the ongoing legal saga surrounding payment card
fees and merchant practices, underscoring the complexities of the
financial landscape and the regulatory challenges within it. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Declaration
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al.,
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (AHM), et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), AHM asks the Court to enter an
order that the confidential information described in the Hunter
Supplemental Declaration be maintained under seal.
With respect to the portions of Plaintiffs' memorandum of points
and authorities AHM seeks to deal, the Plaintiffs argue AHM was
required to do something more but their argument is largely
conclusory.
As many courts have, AHM respectfully submits that to the extent
the Court holds the exhibits Plaintiffs seek to unseal merit
sealing, it also find the portions of Plaintiffs' memorandum that
purport to quote from and describe their contents also be sealed.
The Plaintiffs seek to unseal 55 of the total of 128 exhibits they
submitted in support of their motion for class certification, 21 of
which are not even cited by Plaintiffs in their motion for class
certification and therefore not relevant or related to the merits
of their motion.
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJfsev at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir Nassihi, Esq.
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Darlene M. Cho, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
mmallow@shb.com
dcho@shb.com
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Probes Class Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that it's
never a happy development for plaintiffs when a federal appeals
court agrees to review a trial judge's decision to certify an
investor class to pursue securities fraud claims.
I'd argue that these mid-case, or interlocutory appeals, are even
more perilous for shareholders since the U.S. Supreme Court held,
opens new tab in 2021's Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers
Retirement System that trial judges should consider "all probative
evidence" in weighing whether defendants have managed to rebut the
presumption that their alleged fraud impacted the company's share
price.
Look, for instance, at what happened when the Goldman Sachs case
returned to lower courts after the Supreme Court issued its
decision. The trial judge recertified the class for a third time,
but Goldman persuaded the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
grant its third interlocutory appeal to review the decision. The
third time proved the charm for the bank: The appeals court
decertified the class, holding, as I've reported, that there was
too wide a gap between Goldman's general statements about conflict
management and subsequent revelations about conflicts in specific
collateralized debt deals to support shareholders' theory that the
bank's alleged misrepresentations propped up its share price.
Now defense lawyers for Anadarko Petroleum are hoping that the
Supreme Court's Goldman ruling prompts the 5th Circuit to undo the
certification of a class of shareholders alleging that the company
covered up disappointing drilling results in a much-ballyhooed
oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 5th Circuit will hear oral argument next week on Anadarko's
contention, opens new tab that U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge
of Houston improperly certified the class based on expert evidence
first introduced in shareholders' reply brief in support of class
certification.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, which represents Anadarko (now part of
Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N), opens new tab) argued in its brief to
the right-leaning appellate court that under the Goldman Sachs
standard, Eskridge should have allowed the company to submit a
sur-reply brief after shareholders disclosed an expert report on
the price impact of Anadarko's alleged misrepresentation in their
brief responding the company's opposition to class certification.
As is usual in securities fraud class actions, the details of the
case are unique and complex. Shareholder lawyers from Robbins,
Geller, Rudman & Dowd told the 5th Circuit in their brief, opens
new tab that the full trial court record proves that Eskridge
properly denied Anadarko's motion to submit a sur-reply brief, as
well as its motions to exclude the expert report on price impact
and to reconsider class certification.
The judge, according to Robbins Geller, gave Anadarko all of the
leeway it was entitled to, so the appeals court cannot conclude
that he abused his discretion.
But because Anadarko and Cravath pitched, opens new tab the
interlocutory appeal as a chance for the 5th Circuit to solve a
recurring problem in shareholder fraud class actions -- arguing
that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Goldman Sachs decision,
the court should use this case to confirm defendants' right to
respond to new shareholders' evidence -- the securities bar should
be paying attention.
Anadarko counsel Kevin Orsini of Cravath did not respond to my
query. Shareholder lawyer Joe Daley of Robbins Geller declined to
comment.
Shareholders allege that Anadarko's share price fell by about 8% in
May 2017 after the company disclosed a $902 million write-down on
its investment in the Shenandoah oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico
after a so-called appraisal well came up dry. Plaintiffs' lawyers
contend that Anadarko hid warnings from its own engineers and
geoscientists, who had been predicting for years that the field
would not measure up to Anadarko's hype.
Anadarko, meanwhile, maintains that its share price fell on that
day for a reason wholly unrelated to the Shenandoah field.
At around the same time that the company disclosed the $902 million
write-down, Colorado officials announced that Anadarko's gas
operations were responsible for the deadly explosion of a home in
Firestone, Colorado -- and that all oil and gas companies in the
state would be required to conduct additional safety checks. The
Colorado announcement, according to Anadarko, "led to significant
regulatory uncertainty," which, in turn, pushed its share price
lower.
Anadarko did not submit an expert event study of its share price to
refute shareholders' claims in its brief opposing class
certification. It instead cited its expert's analysis of the share
prices of its partners in the Shenandoah project and its Colorado
oil and gas competitors to argue that the Colorado news, not the
Shenandoah write-down, impacted the market for its shares.
In response, Robbins Geller cited an Anadarko-specific event study
by its expert, who refuted the conclusions of the company's
expert.
Anadarko contested the shareholders' event study in a Daubert
motion and also asked for a chance to counter its findings in a
sur-reply brief. Eskridge denied both requests, concluding that the
shareholder study was a legitimate rebuttal to Anadarko's
arguments.
Robbins Geller told the 5th Circuit that Anadarko should not get a
second chance based on its unsuccessful strategy of submitting
event studies of the company's partners and competitors instead of
the company itself.
Anadarko said Eskridge erred grievously in basing his class
certification decision on evidence introduced in a reply brief
without giving the company a fair shot to refute it.
The company is asking the appeals court not only to remand the case
to the trial court with instructions to reconsider class
certification in light of Anadarko's price impact evidence but to
go even farther and hold that the class cannot be certified.
The case will be heard by Judges Carolyn King, James Ho and Kurt
Engelhardt. [GN]
AVALARA INC: Court Dismisses Putative Shareholders' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on March 1, 2024, Judge Marsha J. Pechman of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed with prejudice a putative shareholders' class
action against a software company (the "Company") and its Board of
Directors ("Board"), alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Sohovich v. Avalara, Inc., No. C22-1580 MJP (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1,
2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company and its Board misled
investors to vote to approve its $8.4 billion sale -- priced at
$93.50 per share -- allegedly by deflating its financial
projections and misrepresenting the Company's performance and
outlook in the proxy statement ("Proxy"). The Court found that
plaintiff failed to adequately plead the falsity of any one of the
four misstatements and dismissed it with prejudice.
The Company, a leading provider of cloud-based tax compliance
software, grew at a rapid rate from 2015 through 2021, in large
part due to its ability to acquire other similar companies and,
therefore, expand its client base. According to the complaint, in
approximately April 2022, a decline in stock price allegedly
attracted interest from private equity firms looking to buy the
Company. In response, the Company began a sale process in April
2022 pursuant to which it prepared financial projections that the
Board approved. In August 2022, the Board approved a merger
agreement priced at $93.50 per share. The Proxy circulated to
Company shareholders in advance of the vote on the sale allegedly
contained four misstatements to entice shareholders to vote to
approve the sale. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that the Proxy
(i) validated financial projections that allegedly were
understated, (ii) allegedly misstated that the Company's revenues
fell below "management's expectations" when they aligned with
"public guidance," (iii) allegedly conveyed that weaknesses and
challenges -- namely the loss of a key partner and changing market
conditions -- that the Company and Board had previously downplayed,
beleaguered the Company, and (iv) allegedly misrepresented a
shareholder services firm approval of the sale.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice concluding
that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible Section 14(a) claim and
that additional amendments would be futile. First, the Court found
that plaintiff's allegation that the Company's financial
projections omitted projected revenues from future acquisitions
failed to render those projections objectively false because the
Company had no planned acquisitions at the time and did not
consider such inorganic growth in preparing similar forecasts in
the past. Second, the Court opined that it could at once be true
that the Company's Q2 2022 results fell below "management's
expectations," as stated in the Proxy, and that those results also
were within range of management's "public guidance." Because
plaintiff did not allege that "management's expectations" are
interchangeable with management's "public guidance," the Court
found plaintiff failed to plead that the Proxy's statements about
the Company's Q2 2022 results were objectively false. Third, the
Court found that plaintiff failed to identify any
numerically-specific prior statements that conflicted with the
Proxy's statements about the Company's weaknesses and risks,
including with respect to the loss of one of the Company's key
partners and deteriorating market conditions. Lastly, the Court
held that the Company and Board had not misled shareholders to
believe a particular shareholder services firm recommended without
reservation the Company's sale by cherry picking only the positive
portions of the somewhat critical report in the Schedule 14A filed
with the SEC. The Court found significant that the firm's report in
its entirety -- including the portions thereof criticizing the deal
and qualifying the firm's support as cautionary -- was available
publicly and thus part of the "total mix of information available"
to investors.
The Court also dismissed the Section 20(a) claims because plaintiff
did not adequately allege a single predicate violation of Section
14(a). [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing fo Courthouse News Services, reports
that Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon won dismissal
of a class action by homeowners who claimed the banks are engaged
in a racketeering scheme that uses fraudulent documents to
foreclose on their homes.
U.S. District Judge Jill Otake in Honolulu granted the banks'
request to dismiss the claims with prejudice, denying the eight
names plaintiffs another a chance to amend their lawsuit.
The judge last year had given the plaintiffs, homeowners in Hawaii
and Florida, permission to file an amended complaint because their
initial attempt to articulate their claims had been too confusing
to proceed. However, the judge said, their renewed effort didn't
improve on the original and was again a "lengthy, oft-confusing
pleading that continues to impose unfair burdens on litigants and
judges."
The amended complaint, according to Otake, was replete with
irrelevant facts, argumentative statements that didn't constitute
factual claims and lengthy recitations that often didn't involve
the two defendant banks or even relate to a civil racketeering
claim.
That alone would have been grounds to dismiss the lawsuit, the
judge said. However, Otake continued, the racketeering claim should
also be thrown out because it was based on the banks' foreclosure
proceedings in state courts, and litigation activity by itself
isn't sufficient to support a claim under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
"The court previously considered and decided the first round of
dispositive motions practice on similar grounds, and admonished
plaintiffs about the consequences of failing to allege adequate
factual allegations in an amended complaint," the judge said. "Yet
the crux of the legal deficiency in the complaint -- acts
constituting litigation activity -- was not addressed or rectified
by the first amended complaint."
Attorneys for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on the ruling.
The plaintiffs claimed that Bank of America and the Bank of New
York Mellon deliberately targeted people of color in Hawaii and
Florida for home loans that the bank knew they would never be able
to pay back. Three of the five Hawaii plaintiffs are of Native
Hawaiian descent and the three Florida plaintiffs are women of
color.
They also claimed they had been or were currently being foreclosed
on, some for nearly two decades, as part of the bank's scheme to
use fraudulent documentation to initiate a false foreclosure. [GN]
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Putative Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
mondaq.com reports that on February 23, 2024, Judge Katherine Polk
Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York largely denied a motion to dismiss a putative
class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against a financial institution and certain of its executives.
In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 757385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23,
2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company had issued securities in
excess of what it had registered for with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which allegedly rendered misleading certain of
its statements regarding compliance with securities laws and
internal controls. Id. While the Court held that certain alleged
misrepresentations were adequately pleaded to survive a motion to
dismiss, the Court dismissed claims as to statements made after the
alleged over-issuances were disclosed and rejected plaintiff's
control person liability theory as to certain defendants.
The Court first considered the company's general statements
relating to internal controls before the alleged over-issuances
were revealed, including that the company was "committed to
operating within a strong system of internal control" and had
"frameworks, policies and standards" that enabled the company "to
meet regulators' expectations relating to internal control and
assurance." Id. at *11. The Court rejected defendants' argument
that these statements were too "simple and generic" to be
actionable, explaining that, according to the complaint's
allegations, the company allegedly did not have any control
mechanism in place to prevent the over-issuance of securities and
the supposed omission of this lack of a control system was
adequately alleged to be material. Id. at *12. The Court stressed
that, in its view, the allegations were not merely that the
company's systems underperformed; rather, the allegations were that
no system for tracking the company's securities issuances existed
at all. The Court further held that because it concluded that these
statements were actionable, plaintiff could also pursue claims
challenging the company's Exchange Act compliance certifications.
Id. at *13.
However, the Court rejected plaintiff's challenges to statements
made after the alleged over‑issuances were publicly disclosed.
First, the Court held that the company's statements regarding its
initial assessment of the impact of the alleged over-issuances --
which allegedly turned out to be an underestimate -- were not
actionable. Id. at *14. The Court observed that there were no
allegations that, at the time these statements were made, the
company had discovered information that contradicted its
statements. Id. The Court also determined that these statements
were not adequately alleged to be materially false, given that
these statements, according to the Court, "underscored the
[c]ompany's lack of a system" for tracking the securities at issue
and also expressly disclosed that the assessment reflected the
company's "best estimate" at the time. Id. at *14–15. Second, the
Court held that the company's statement announcing the results of
an investigation by outside counsel -- which allegedly failed to
disclose that the company's board had yet to issue its final report
-- was not actionable. Id. at *15. The Court concluded that the
company did inform investors that the outside counsel report would
be used by the company to determine whether action should be taken
against company executives, and that the alleged omission of other
information was not materially misleading. Id.
In addition, the Court determined that plaintiff adequately
alleged, for the challenged statements made before the alleged
over-issuances were revealed, that defendants acted with scienter
on a theory of recklessness. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
emphasized that, according to the complaint's allegations, the
company allegedly acknowledged in prior correspondence sent to the
SEC that its status as a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer ("WKSI") --
which allowed it to issue securities subject to "more lenient
communications and registration rules and regulations" (id. at *2)
-- was "importan[t]" to the company "in meeting its capital and
funding requirements" and that losing this status would "curtail
important channels of communication to investors," hurt the
company's ability to respond to "current regulatory and market
conditions and uncertainties that are significantly transforming
the landscape for financial institutions like [the company]," and
harm "the speed at which [the company] could strengthen its capital
position if require[d] to do so" by a regulator. Id. at *18. Thus,
the Court concluded that, in its view, defendants were adequately
alleged to be reckless in failing to implement controls regarding
shelf issuances after the company lost its WKSI status. Id. at *18.
The Court further explained that its conclusion in this regard was
supported by the complaint's allegations regarding the supposed
magnitude of the alleged over‑issuances and the allegation that
they were supposedly discovered through a basic inquiry made to the
company's legal department by a low-level employee. Id. at *19.
The Court also held plaintiff had adequately pleaded loss causation
because the emergence of the company's allegedly inadequate
controls was plausibly alleged to have caused the company's stock
price to fall. Id. at *21.
Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff's control person claims
against the company's board chair and against the company's
subsidiary that was allegedly responsible for the alleged
over‑issuances. As for the chair, the Court held that his status
as chair did not "demonstrate actual control over the company and
the incident in question," nor was he adequately alleged to have
been culpable in the alleged over-issuances. Id. at *22. As for the
corporate subsidiary, the Court concluded that plaintiff alleged no
facts suggesting the subsidiary exerted control over its corporate
parent or that it had any control over the statements the Court
held were actionable. Id. [GN]
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due August 16
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Browning v. Bassett
Healthcare Network, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 1,
2023), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order as
follows:
-- Deadline for motions to join parties or May 6, 2024
amend the pleadings, other than
conditional or class certification
motions, is:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 16,
2024
conditional certification under
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 216(b) shall
be made on or before:
-- Counsel is directed to file a status report by: July 17,
2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bassett is an integrated health system.[CC]
BOPPY COMPANY: Scricca Bid to Compel Discovery Production Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Scricca, et al.,
v. The Boppy Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01497-RNC (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Farrish entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery production to their
first set of requests for production to defendant the Boppy
Company.
The parties briefed and argued the question of whether the Court
should compel the production of all written discovery in six other
cases to which Boppy is a party. The Court has concluded that the
plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing the relevance of
all the materials they seek, and that the requests are overbroad as
formulated.
The denial is of course without prejudice to the plaintiffs’
right to serve direct requests for non-privileged information
relevant to the specific claims and defenses asserted in this case,
said the Court.
The case arises out of the tragic death of four-month-old Angelise
Rodriguez. Boppy manufactured and sold an infant product called the
"Newborn Lounger." Baby Angelise died on Nov. 8, 2019, and her
parents contend that she was asphyxiated by the lounger.
Boppy provides comfort products for mother and baby.
A copy of the Court's ruling dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tEbaI8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired The Chemours Company ("Chemours" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CC) common stock between February 10, 2023
and February 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Chemours
investors have until May 20, 2024 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
On February 13, 2024, after the market closed, Chemours disclosed
that it was postponing the release of its financial results and
conference call related to its fourth quarter and full year 2023.
The Company further clarified, stating that it was delaying its
results because Chemours is "evaluating its internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2023 with respect to
maintaining effective controls related to information and
communications," and because the Company's Audit Committee "needs
additional time to complete a related internal review."
On this news, Chemours' stock price fell $3.85, or 12.6%, to close
at $26.64 per share on February 14, 2024, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on February 29, 2024, Chemours announced that its CEO, CFO,
and Controller had been placed on "administrative leave" pending
the completion of an internal review, including reviewing reports
made to the Chemours Ethics Hotline. Additionally, the Company
delayed its earnings report and disclosed that it is "evaluating
one or more potential material weaknesses in its internal control
over financial reporting[.]"
On this news, Chemours' stock price fell $9.05, or 31.5%, to close
at $19.67 on February 29, 2024, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:
(1) certain of the Company's senior executive officers
manipulated Free Cash Flow targets as a means to maximize
additional cash and stock incentive compensation applicable to
executive officers pursuant to the Company's AIPs and LTIPs;
(2) the Company's accounting practices and procedures,
including its internal control over financial reporting, were
deficient; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Chemours securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than May 20, 2024 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Chemours securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
info@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against The Children's Place, Inc. ("The Children's Place" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PLCE). Such investors are advised to contact
Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether The Children's Place and certain
of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud
or other unlawful business practices
You have until April 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired The Children's Place securities during the
Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On February 9, 2024, before the market opened, The Children's Place
announced its preliminary fourth quarter fiscal year 2023 financial
results. Therein, the Company revealed that it now expected fourth
quarter net sales between $454 million and $456 million, falling
short of previously issued guidance. The Company also disclosed
that it expected to incur an adjusted operating loss in the fourth
quarter in range of (9.0%) to (8.0%) of net sales, which reflected
the impact of "lower than expected merchandise margins resulting
from more aggressive promotions in an effort to maximize sales,
higher than anticipated split shipments to meet customer e-commerce
demand, and increased inventory valuation adjustment."
On this news, The Children's Place's share price fell $7.25, or
37%, to close at $12.51 per share on February 9, 2024
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
CINCINNATI BELL: Bid to Strike Allegations Denied in Kemen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN KEMEN, v. CINCINNATI
BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00152-DRC (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order denying the
motion to dismiss and/or strike certain improper allegations from
the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
In short, Cincinnati Bell has failed to show that the allegations
with which it takes issue are necessarily immaterial to this case.
And the cases it cites do not persuade the Court otherwise, the
Court says.
Whether the allegations, if capable of being established by
competent evidence or otherwise proven, end up being relevant to
the matter at hand is a different question, and one the Court does
not answer now. But as things stand, the Court will not strike the
allegations about the job posting, the Indeed reviews, or the
Cincinnati Bell's Better Business Bureau (BBB) complaints, the
Court adds.
The case is about unsolicited telemarketing calls—or as they are
more commonly known, spam calls. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA), by making unwanted telemarketing calls to her cell phone.
The Second Amended Complaint proposes the following "Internal Do
Not Call Class":
All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an
agent acting on behalf of the Defendant) called more than one
time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) for substantially
the
same reason the Defendant called the Plaintiff, including (4)
at
least one call after they requested that Defendant stop
calling.
It also excludes various persons from that definition. And it
notes that "Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class
definitions following appropriate discovery."
Cincinnati Bell provides telecommunications services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqYXVt at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLTER ENERGY: Parties Seeks to Extend Zaarour Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADHAM ZAAROUR,
Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COLTER
ENERGY SERVICES, USA INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00443-GMN-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter and order extending the
Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, filed on March 12, 2024, until April 16,
2024.
1. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, the Defendant states that is the first
stipulation or request for extension of time to file the
Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional
certification.
2. On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his original collective
action complaint and jury demand.
3. On March 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his motion for
conditional certification pursuant to 29. U.S.C. section
216(b)
and issuance of court-authorized notice.
4. The Defendant seeks additional time to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. If the
Defendant is required to respond by the current deadline of
March 25, 2024, Defendant will need to oppose a lengthy
motion
raising complex issues only thirteen days after learning
about
the existence of this lawsuit and before Defendant’s
initial
pleading is due.
Colter is a flowback & production testing equipment and service
provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GG5Dm2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: (702) 320-8400
Facsimile: (702) 320-8401
E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William M. Hogg, 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
whogg@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John T. Keating, Esq.
KEATING LAW GROUP
9130 W. Russell Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (702) 228-6800
E-mail: jkeating@keatinglg.com
- and -
Gillian G. O'Hara, Esq.
Jason Stitt, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
1650 Farnam, The Omaha Building
Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone: (402) 346-6000
E-mail: Gigi.Ohara@KutakRock.com
Jason.Stitt@Kutakrock.com
CONCENTRIX CORP: Helwig Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Helwig, v.
Concentrix Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge David Ruiz entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to
certify
a Rule 23 Class Action, and
-- denying Defendant's motion to strike class allegations.
The Court said that because it finds appropriate to certify a
class, Defendant's motion to strike class allegations is denied.
In summary, the Plaintiff's request to have a class certified is
denied in part and granted in part. Instead, the Court certifies a
more limited class.
The Court's modification is reflected in bold:
Concentrix engages in the provision of technology-infused customer
experience (CX) solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QLwor6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COOK CANADA: Agrees to Settle IVC Filter Products Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that a Canada-wide Settlement Agreement was
recently reached in a class action against Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook
Incorporated, and William Cook Europe APS ("Cook") related to
certain inferior vena cava filter products ("IVC Filter Products")
marketed and sold by Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook Incorporated, and
William Cook Europe APS ("Cook").
IVC filters are devices designed to filter blood clots which may
otherwise travel to the heart and/or lungs. Optionally retrievable
IVC filters are a type of filter that may be removed if medically
advisable to do so after a patient is no longer at risk of a
pulmonary embolism.
The Class Action alleges that Cook marketed and sold IVC Filter
Products without properly warning of the alleged increased risks of
complications and injuries. Cook denies the allegations and all
liability whatsoever, and the Court did not come to a decision as
to who was right.
Proposed Settlement
The proposed Settlement applies to every person who is or was a
resident of Canada who was implanted with a Cook IVC Filter Product
at any time on or before January 8, 2020, which was manufactured,
marketed and/or sold or otherwise placed into the stream of
commerce in Canada by Cook, and their family members. For greater
certainty, the residency requirement for class membership relates
to the time of the placement of the Cook IVC Filter Product.
Primary Class Members must have had a Cook IVC Filter Product
placed in Canada but are not required to reside in Canada at
present. You can no longer opt out of the Class Action.
Under the Settlement, Cook will provide a claims-made settlement of
up to (a) $54,000 CAD for each Qualifying Fracture Claimant, (b)
$81,000 CAD for each Qualifying Death Claimant, and (c) $169,500
CAD for each Qualifying Open Surgery Claimant, with a pro rata
reduction of the amount of each payment to the extent that the
total amount of the claims in categories (a), (b) and (c) above
exceed $4,062,720 CAD. Also, a payment in the amount of $2,708,480
CAD will be made for Class Counsel to pay costs, including
administration costs, notice plan costs, class counsel fees,
interest, applicable taxes, and certain other qualified claims as
provided in the Settlement Agreement. The final value of the
compensation will not be determined until the end of the claim
period.
For complete details regarding the proposed Settlement, including
details on the fees and disbursements Class Counsel are seeking,
please consult the notice available at www.ivcsettlement.ca, in
English and fr.ivcsettlement.ca, in French. Information related to
the proceeding is also accessible at www.ivcsettlement.ca.
Court Approval
The proposed Settlement must be approved by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice before it becomes effective. A hearing to approve
the Settlement will be held on May 17, 2024 at 10:00 AM ET, during
which the Court will consider whether the proposed Settlement, the
proposed method for distributing the Settlement, and Class
Counsel's fees and disbursements are each fair and reasonable and
should be approved. Those interested in attending may visit
www.ivcsettlement.ca to find out how the hearing will be
conducted.
You can object to the proposed Settlement, the method of
distributing the Settlement, or Class Counsel fees and attend the
hearing to present that objection. Objections must be submitted in
writing to Class Counsel on or before May 3, 2024. Class Counsel
will file all objections with the Court. You may also attend the
hearing to make oral submissions. [GN]
DAVE'S KILLER: Swartz Considers Sealing Confidential Docs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SWARTZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. DAVE'S KILLER BREAD, INC. and FLOWERS FOODS,
INC.,Case No. 4:21-cv-10053-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff files an
administrative motion to consider whether material should be
sealed.
Specifically, the Plaintiff said that information derived from
material designated confidential appears at:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification
at
Page 9, line 17
-- Declaration of Hayley Reynolds at:
Exhibit A at 33:3-11 (p. 114 of transcript)
Exhibit C (entire exhibit)
Exhibit D at 11:7-22
The Plaintiff makes this motion to seal portions of Exhibit A and D
to the Reynolds Declaration and the entirety of Exhibit C to the
Reynolds Declaration at the request of Defendants pursuant to Local
Civil Rules 7-11 and 79-5. In accordance with the local rules,
Defendants will identify the specific portions of the documents
that they seek to seal, and which remaining portions can be filed
in a redacted public version.
Dave's offers various of homemade breads.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ncnx8w at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
Patrick Brandon, Esq.
Matthew T. McCrary, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
rajiv@gutridesafier.com
patrick@gutridesafier.com
matt@gutridesafier.com
DFL PIZZA: Nagel Seeks Extension of Time to File Response Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN NAGEL, v. DFL
PIZZA, LLC, JAY FEAVEL, CHARLES S. DOLAN, JOHN DOE CORPS. 1-10 and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the deadlines to file his
responses in opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's individual and class claims under Colorado Law, motion
to deny class certification and/or strike Plaintiff's class
allegations as to the Arbitration Employees, and motion to stay
class discovery by two weeks, up to and including April 8, 2024.
1. The Plaintiff's responses to the Defendants' motions are
presently due to be filed on March 25, 2024.
2. A two-week extension, up to and including April 8, 2024, is
needed due to the demands of ongoing litigation practice.
3. This is the Plaintiff's first request for an extension and
this
extension is not sought for the purpose of delay.
4. The Plaintiff's counsel reasonably believe that a two week
extension will provide them sufficient time to complete and
file
the reply brief.
5. Compliance with D. Colo. Local Rule 7.1(a): Counsel for the
parties have conferred regarding this request for extension
and
the Defendants have expressed no objection thereto.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cILHgI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
- and -
Mark Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314)997-9150 ext. 2
E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com
- and -
David Lichtenstein, Esq.
LIVELIHOOD LAW, LLC
12015 East 46th Avenue, Suite 240
Denver, CO 80239
Telephone: (720) 465-6972
E-mail: drl@livelihoodlaw.com
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and
KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiff and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated
entity, association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C., d/b/a DIAMOND
BRACES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG
DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move
the Court for conditional collective certification and for court
facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
Diamond Braces specializes in orthodontic services, providing
braces and Invisalign treatments to correct dental misalignments.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RK6g5N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
EF INSTITUTE: Grabovksy Plaintiffs Must File Reply by April 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D.
Mass., Filed Sept. 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper
entered an order that the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion
for class certification is to be filed by April 17, 2024.
-- Hearing date of April 24, 2024, remains in place.
-- Opposition to motion for class certification not to exceed 30
pages.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
EF provides educational services.[CC]
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Globe New Wire reports that a shareholder class action has been
filed against Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. f/k/a NewHold
Investment Corp. ("Evolv" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EVLV). The
lawsuit alleges Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
including allegations that:
(1) Evolv materially overstated the efficacy of its products;
(2) the lack of effectiveness of Evolv's products with regard
to detecting knives and guns led to an increased risk of undetected
weapons entering locations such as schools; and
(3) Evolv deceived the general public, its customers, and its
investors regarding the effectiveness of its products.
If you bought Evolv shares between June 28, 2021 and March 13,
2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/evolv/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is May 24, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Motion to Certify False Ads' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled against a group of
plaintiffs, comprising mainly police officers, who appealed a
decision that sought class action certification against leading
figures in the online accommodation booking sector.
The defendants in the case include Expedia Group, Booking Holdings
Inc., Booking.Com B.V., and Trivago. The plaintiffs accused these
companies of engaging in deceptive advertising practices and
violating consumer protection laws.
In their legal challenge, the plaintiffs argued that the
defendants' advertising tactics misled consumers, leading them to
make premature booking decisions, and inflicted economic damage on
the broader marketplace. They did not, however, claim compensatory
damages for individual losses, focusing instead on disgorgement,
nominal damages, and punitive damages as potential remedies.
Echoing the initial judgment, the Superior Court upheld the motion
judge's decision, effectively dismissing the appeal. The court
concurred that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs --
disgorgement, nominal damages, and punitive damages -- do not align
with the provisions of consumer protection statutes applicable to
the case. The court pointed out a critical flaw in the plaintiffs'
arguments -- the absence of a direct link between any harm suffered
due to the defendants' actions and the agreements entered into by
consumers, a connection necessary for invoking remedies under s.
18(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The court also scrutinized the plaintiffs' plea for punitive
damages, underscoring the insufficiency of alleging mere statutory
breaches to warrant such an award. Without evidence of conduct that
is malicious, oppressive, or significantly deviates from accepted
standards of decency, the court found no basis for punitive
damages. Furthermore, the court noted the plaintiffs' failure to
demonstrate any compensatory harm that would justify class action
certification, underscoring the absence of individual losses and
challenging the pursuit of punitive damages as an isolated remedy.
In its decision, the court reinforced the stringent criteria for
class action certification. It limited the scope of remedies
available under consumer protection legislation, particularly in
cases alleging unfair practices by online service providers.
The court also highlighted the judiciary's cautious stance on
awarding disgorgement and punitive damages, emphasizing that such
remedies are reserved for instances of egregious misconduct and
where a clear causal relationship between the defendant's actions
and the plaintiff's harm is evident. Ultimately, the court
dismissed the appeal and clarified the legal landscape for consumer
protection, digital advertising practices, and the prerequisites
for class action lawsuits. [GN]
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Allergy Medication
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Sandler, writing for wvnstv.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed against Family Dollar, LLC, Walgreens Co.,
Dolgencorp, Inc., and Walmart, Inc. for wrongful conduct relating
to the marketing and sale of an allergy medication.
The lawsuit was filed on March 23, 2024 on behalf of the District
of southern West Virginia and was filed by West Virginia attorney
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb of the Webb Law Centre, PLLC. The wrongful
conduct had to do with the marketing, sale, and distribution of
allergy, cold and flu products containing the ingredient
phenylephrine. The products claimed that this ingredient would help
with decongestant issues, which they did not.
This ingredient is in at least 250 different kinds of products for
decongestion. Although these companies knew that this ingredient
was ineffective, they still continued to manufacture and sell the
products with the ingredient in and also marketed them as
effective.
Attorney Charles R. Webb is fighting for all residents in West
Virginia and the United States and the case has been assigned to
Judge John Thomas Copenhaver Jr., Senior Judge of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. [GN]
FANNIE MAE: Final Judgment Entered in Stock Purchase Deal Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE
MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION
LITIGATIONS, Case No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Royce C. Lamberth entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for entry of final judgment.
When the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
it certified the following classes:
1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie
Preferred
Class");
2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie
Preferred
Class"); and
3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the
date of certification, or their successors in interest to the
extent shares are sold after the date of certification and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common
Class").
More than a decade after plaintiffs filed the first complaint in
this case, it is ready for final judgment. In August 2023, a jury
found for plaintiffs and awarded damages. In October, the Court
ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest. But
the Court has refrained from entering a final, appealable judgment
until it has approved plaintiffs’ plan for allocating damages.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 20, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EBTHwc
at no extra charge.[CC]
FEDERAL HOUSING: Final Judgment Entered in Fairholme Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et
al., v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-01053-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final
judgment.
When the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
it certified the following classes:
1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie
Preferred
Class");
2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie
Preferred
Class"); and
3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the
date of certification, or their successors in interest to the
extent shares are sold after the date of certification and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common
Class").
More than a decade after plaintiffs filed the first complaint in
this case, it is ready for final judgment. In August 2023, a jury
found for plaintiffs and awarded damages. In October, the Court
ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest. But
the Court has refrained from entering a final, appealable judgment
until it has approved plaintiffs’ plan for allocating damages.
Federal is U.S. regulatory agency that oversees the secondary
mortgage market and players within it.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 20, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SpuSlo
at no extra charge.[CC]
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Bid in Silverstein Due Sept. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Silverstein, v.
Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order setting deadline
to move for class certification.
The Court's scheduling order omitted setting a deadline for the
Plaintiff to move for class certification. Should the Plaintiff
choose to move for class certification, he must do so not later
than Sept. 19, 2024, said the Court.
Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uoj5jj at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Woodhams Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03990-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken
entered an order as follows:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment;
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel;
-- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to exclude the opinions
of
Joel E. Lesch; and
-- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiff's
offer of proof.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs would have to devote
substantial attention to overcoming their damaging deposition
testimony and addressing concerns regarding thei rcredibility on
material facts, including whether they even purchased Maximum
Strength
Robitussin during the relevant time period.
On behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class, Timothy A.
Woodhams, John Covello, Cynthia Carrillo, Oscar De Leon, Daniel
Paul, Robert Trepper, and Daniel Utterback bring consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims against GlaxoSmithKline for
charging more for "Maximum Strength" Robitussin cough syrup than
for "Regular Strength" Robitussin cough syrup, even though the
former had a lower concentration of active ingredients per bottle
than the latter.
On June 20, 2016, as a result of "Project Accelerate," the
Defendant released a reformulated Maximum Strength Robitussin. In
its reformulation, the Defendant did not change the quantity of
active ingredients per dose but doubled the liquid volume of the
dose to a 20 ml dose, which provided more liquid volume per dose.
In the summer of 2018, Defendant reformulated Regular Strength
Robitussin by similarly leaving the quantity of active ingredients
per dose unchanged, but doubling the liquid volume of the dose from
10 ml to 20 ml.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for purchases of Maximum Strength
Robitussin during the time period between June 20, 2016, when
Maximum
Strength Robitussin was reformulated to a 20 ml dose, and Summer
2018, when Regular Strength Robitussin was also reformulated to a
20 ml dose.
The Defendant sells a variety of cough and congestion medications
under the Robitussin brand.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mBsljF at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek Approval of Class Cert. Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court granting their joint motion
to set briefing schedule for motion for class certification and
pretrial motions:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification and the deadline for all pretrial motions (for
all
Parties) are both set at April 18, 2024, pursuant to the
Court's
Dec. 22, 2023, Amended Scheduling Order.
-- In addition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the
Parties anticipate that other motions will be filed at the
April
18, 2024, deadline, including but not limited to Defendant's
motion for decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective.
-- In particular, counsel for the Parties agreed that opposition
briefs and related papers shall be due on July 19, 2024, and
that
reply briefs and related papers shall be due on Sept. 18,
2024.
-- The Amended Scheduling Order also sets the following pretrial
deadlines:
a) Pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3): June 3, 2024
b) Comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4): June 10, 2024
c) Draft Proposed Pretrial Conference Order: June 17, 2024
d) Lodge Final Pretrial Conference Order: June 24, 2024
e) Final Pretrial Conference: July 1, 2024
-- The Parties jointly move the Court to issue an order setting
the
opposition deadline at July 19, 2023 and the reply deadline at
Sept. 18, 2023, for motions filed at the April 18, 2024
deadline.
The Parties further jointly move for a hearing date to be set
approximately 30 days after the reply deadline.
Government Employees is a private American auto insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BlS4c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
sgordon@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristin Walker-Probst, Esq.
Courtney C. Wenrick, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (657) 266-1065
Facsimile: (714) 557-3347
E-mail: Kristin.Walker-Probst@wbd-us.com
courtney.wenrick@wbd-us.com
GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, VERONICA
BONDOC, GLEN SEGUNDINO, and MARIANNE PONIO, and those similarly
situated, v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and SINCLAIR
SERVICES COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), Hon.
Judge Dustin Pead entered an order granting stipulated motion to
extend class certification briefing deadlines:
Event Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Sept. 13, 2024
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Oct. 11, 2024
motion for class certification:
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Oct. 25, 2024
for class certification
Grand America provides hotel and motel services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=USxXPq at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over Lax Cybersecurity Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that
Greensboro College faces a proposed class action that claims
deficient cybersecurity on the part of the private liberal arts
college resulted in an August 2023 data breach.
The 49-page Greensboro College data breach lawsuit relays that the
personal information of more than 52,000 individuals was
compromised when cybercriminals infiltrated the North Carolina
college's computer systems. According to the defendant's data
breach notice letter, an investigation following the ransomware
attack determined that the unauthorized access occurred between
August 10 and August 21, 2023.
Per the suit, the cyberattack may have exposed individuals' names,
Social Security numbers, student identification numbers, dates of
birth, passport numbers and certain health information.
The data breach case contends that the incident stemmed directly
from Greensboro College's failure to take "basic" measures to
protect the sensitive information, which was allegedly stored
unencrypted in its network.
"This information, while compromised and taken by unauthorized
third parties, remains also in the possession of [Greensboro
College], and without additional safeguards and independent review
and oversight, remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft,"
the complaint charges.
The lawsuit alleges that as a result of Greensboro College's
negligent conduct, data breach victims now face a "present,
immediate, and ongoing" risk of fraud and identity theft they must
now deal with "forever."
The suit also asserts that the college unreasonably delayed
notifying data breach victims until late February 2024, roughly six
months after the incident was purportedly discovered. In addition,
the notice letter "completely downplays and disavows the theft" of
victims' personal data and omits critical facts about the incident,
the case contends.
The plaintiff, a former student at Greensboro College, says she has
"never been fully informed about the scope of the intrusion, the
vulnerabilities exploited, the remediation required or the
vulnerability of [her] data that remains in the possession of the
defendant."
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
private information was accessed or acquired during the data breach
that Greensboro College stated occurred between August 10 and
August 21, 2023. [GN]
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osdoby v. Handi-foil
Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting their permission to file
certain materials associated with Handi-Foil's motion for summary
judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
seal and/or in redacted form:
-- Handi-Foil's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment;
-- Handi-Foil's Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts
in
Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment;
-- The Jan. 18, 2024 Declaration of Michael A. Glick, along with
accompanying exhibits;
-- Plaintiff's Opposition to Handi-Foil's Motion for Summary
Judgment;
-- The Plaintiff's Local Civil Rule 56.1 Counterstatement of
Material
Facts;
-- Handi-Foil's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment;
-- Handi-Foil's Consolidated Response and Reply Regarding its
Local
Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts;
-- The March 21, 2024 Declaration of Michael A. Glick, along with
one
accompanying exhibit;
-- The Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of her Motion for
Class Certification, along with accompanying exhibits;
-- Handi-Foil's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and
-- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of her Motion for Class
Certification.
Handi-foil is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable aluminum
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeGzSh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
261 Westchester Avenue
Tuckahoe, NY 10707
Telephone: (646) 342-2019
E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Glick, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
E-mail: michael.glick@kirkland.com
HANDI-FOIL: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRYL OSDOBY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., Case
No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certifying the action
as a class action on behalf of:
"All persons who purchased Handi-Foil retail products in New
York
State between July 18, 2019, and the date the Class is certified
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and not
for
resale."
The Products include all Handi-Foil aluminum pans, aluminum
containers and aluminum roll foil sold at retail.
Excluded from the Class are current and former officers and
directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families of
the officers and directors of the Defendant, the Defendant's
legal
representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in
which they have or have had a controlling interest.
Also excluded from the Class is the judicial officer to whom this
lawsuit is assigned.
Handi-foil is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable aluminum
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZTgxx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
261 Westchester Avenue
Tuckahoe, NY 10707
Telephone: (646) 342-2019
E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com
HARVEST CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND ALL BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF HARVEST
CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION ("HCAP") COMMON STOCK WHO PURCHASED,
SOLD, OR HELD SUCH STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING THE
DATE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE FORMER BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF HCAP APPROVED THE ACQUISITION OF HCAP BY PORTMAN RIDGE
FINANCE CORPORATION ON DECEMBER 22, 2020, THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE
EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE CLOSING OF THE MERGER ON JUNE 9, 2021, THE
DATE THE MERGER WAS CONSUMMATED, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS,
ADMINISTRATORS, ESTATES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, ASSIGNS, AND
TRANSFEREES.
The purpose of this notice (the "Summary Notice") is to inform you
of: (i) the class action lawsuit captioned In re Harvest Capital
Credit Corporation Stockholder Litigation, pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") with Civil Action
Number 2021-0164-JTL (the "Action"); (ii) the proposed settlement
of this Action (the "Settlement") between Plaintiffs and
Defendants; and (iii) the hearing to be held by the Court in
connection with the proposed Settlement. The hearing will be held
in the Court, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in the
discretion of the Court), on July 2, 2024, at 11:00am (the
"Settlement Hearing") for the purposes of determining, among other
things: (a) 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); (b) whether
Plaintiffs may be finally appointed as representatives for the
Class and Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel finally appointed as counsel
for the Class, and whether Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action;
(c) 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; (d) whether the
Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action
with prejudice as against Defendants and releasing all Released
Plaintiffs' Claims against Defendants and the Released Group; (e)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; and (f)
whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses and any incentive award should be
approved; and (g) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the
application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.1
IF YOU HELD HCAP COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING
DECEMBER 22, 2020, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 9, 2021 (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU
MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF HCAP COMMON
STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency of Stockholder Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear ("Notice"), you
may obtain copies by writing to Harvest Capital Credit Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4620,
Portland, OR 97208-4620, 1-855-604-1813, or on the Internet at
www.rg2claims.com/hcap.html.
Any Class Member who objects to the Stipulation, the Settlement,
the class action determination, the Judgment to be entered in the
Action, Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, or the application for an incentive award ("Objector"),
or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or by
such Class Member's attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present
evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant; provided,
however, that, except for good cause shown or as the Court
otherwise directs, no Objector shall be heard and no papers,
briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any Person shall
be considered by the Court unless, not later than June 18, 2024
(fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing), such
Objector files with the Register in Chancery, Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams
Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
and serves upon counsel (listed below) a written objection that:
(i) identifies the case name and civil action number, "In re
Harvest Capital Credit Corporation Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No.
2021 0164-JTL"; (ii) states the name, address, and telephone number
of the Objector and, if represented by counsel, the name, address,
and telephone number of the Objector's counsel; (iii) is signed by
the Objector; (iv) contains a specific, written statement of the
objection(s) and the specific reason(s) for the objection(s),
including any legal and evidentiary support the Objector wishes to
bring to the Court's attention, and, if the Objector has indicated
that he, she, or it intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing,
the identity of any witnesses the Objector may call to testify and
any exhibits the Objector intends to introduce into evidence at the
hearing; and (v) includes documentation sufficient to prove that
the Objector is a Class Member (i.e., held shares of HCAP common
stock at any time during the period from December 22, 2020, through
and including, June 9, 2021).
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
Michael J. Palestina
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel.: (504) 455-1400
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Tel.: (212) 971-1341
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative Class
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
Matthew E. Fischer
Hercules Plaza, Sixth Floor
1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel.: (302) 984-6000
Attorneys for Defendants JMP Group LLC, Joseph Jolson, and Richard
P. Buckanavage
LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP
Rebecca L. Butcher
919 Market Street, Suite 1800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel.: (302) 467-4400 [GN]
HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANISA COOPER, and all
others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), v.
HEALTH CADDIES INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-80279-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) Granting conditional certification of the above styled Case
as
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA")
for the following Collective:
Misclassified Employee Collective:
All Insurance Sales Agents employed by the Defendant in
Florida
during the previous three (3) years who were misclassified
as
independent contractors and worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek.
(2) Appointing the Plaintiff, JANISA COOPER, as the
Representative
of the Misclassified Employee Collective with authority to
negotiate and appear at mediations on behalf of the
Collective;
(3) Appointing the law firm of USA Employment Lawyers – Jordan
Richards PLLC, and Michael V. Miller, Esq., as lead counsel
for
the class;
(4) Expediting discovery production from the Defendants, within
10
calendar days of the Court's Order granting this Motion, of
a
complete list, electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of
each
and every Insurance Sales Agent listed alphabetically from
"A"
to "Z" – including their last known home address, cellular
telephone number and e-mail addresses, with a separate field
corresponding with each name – who was ever employed as a
Insurance Sales Agent by Defendant within three (3) years of
the date notice is sent;
(5) Permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved
Notice via mail, email and/or text message to all such
persons
about their right to opt-in to this collective action by
filing
a Consent to Join Lawsuit (in the forms attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit D);
(6) Granting the putative class 90 days to submit the Consents
to
Join forms from the date the Consents are initially mailed,
emailed and/or text messaged by the Plaintiffs' counsel;
(7) Awarding such other and further relief as the court deems
just
and proper.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant implemented and enforced a
common and widespread policy of misclassifying all ISAs as
independent contractors in an effort to avoid paying them
statutorily mandated federal overtime wages during the past three
(3) years.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from August of 2023 through
Jan. 24, 2024.
The Defendant operates an insurance sales company that provides
customers with several insurance plan options.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RGkLqz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
HEALTH FIRST: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 21
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA
ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D.
Fla.), the Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1)(A), moves the Court to stay or extend the following class
discovery and certification deadlines under the Amended Case
Management and Scheduling Order:
Current Schedule:
Close of Class Fact Discovery including April 1, 2024
filing of any Motion to Compel Class
Fact Discovery:
Disclosure of Class Expert Reports
Plaintiff: May 15, 2024
Defendant: June 21, 2024
Close of Class Expert discovery including July 30, 2024
filing of Motion to Compel Class Expert
Discovery:
Filing of Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 21, 2024
Filing of Response to Motion for Class Sept. 27, 2024
Certification:
Filing of Reply to Motion for Class Oct. 21, 2024
Certification including any class expert
rebuttal reports:
Due to a cybersecurity event involving the vendor HF contracted
with to provide the data, HF is unable to provide new deadlines at
this point. Nonetheless, HF proposes that it submit a status update
on or before April 16, 2024.
On March 11, 2024, HF filed a Notice of Cybersecurity Event
explaining that it would be unable to meet the April 1, 2024 class
fact discovery deadline as set forth by this Court in the CMSO.
Health First provides medical equipment, health care, and insurance
services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U3yXhT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq.
Richard Alan Arnold, Esq.
Deborah S. Corbishley, Esq.
Christina M. Ceballos-Levy, Esq.
KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-1000
Facsimile: (305) 372-1861
E-mail: ebh@knpa.com
rarnold@knpa.com
dsc@knpa.com
ccl@knpa.com
HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Frechete Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al.,
v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order as
follows:
-- Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is granted and Defendant's motion
for summary judgment is denied as moot.
-- Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The case arises out of unauthorized third-party access to Defendant
Health Recovery Services, Inc.'s computer storage systems. The
Defendant is a mental health and substance abuse nonprofit that
offers a variety of services and treatment options to members of
the community, including, among others, Tiana Frechette and her two
minor children.
Ms. Frechette brought suit against the Defendant, claiming breach
of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and both willful and
negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Health Recovery offers medication assisted treatment to those who
need help with alcohol and drug addiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q8icLQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Chiarito Continued to Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH CHIARITO,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-04662-GW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered
an order as follows:
1. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is
continued from Aug. 1, 2024 to Oct. 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.
2. The deadline to file all briefing regarding the motion for
class
certification is continued from July 15, 2024 to Oct. 14,
2024.
3. The other related dates will be rescheduled at the hearing.
The
parties will file a joint report re proposed dates by noon on
Oct. 29, 2024.
Home Depot sells tools, construction products, appliances, and
services, including fuel and transportation rentals.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jztovU at no extra
charge.[CC]
IKEA NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction,org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Ikea's line of Kasker custom quartz
countertops and Caesarstone's quartz countertops suffer from a
defect that causes them to permanently stain, streak or become
marked up from normal, everyday use.
The 40-page lawsuit says that although defendants Ikea North
America Services, Ikea US Retail and Caesarstone USA have known
since at least 2015 that the countertops are prone to stains,
streaks and marks that cannot be removed using their own care
instructions, the companies have actively concealed the alleged
defect from customers.
The complaint claims the defendants "continually deny" the
existence of the countertop defect when contacted by dissatisfied
customers. Instead, Ikea and Caesarstone provide "excuses for
sub-par performance," stating that the countertops are "intended to
show marks," that the finish makes them harder to clean, or that
the stains are the consumer's fault, the case contends.
What's more, the suit says, the defendants require customers to pay
out of pocket to clean, repair or replace the apparently defective
countertops. According to the lawsuit, Caesarstone says its
warranty does not cover "routine maintenance" such as "removing
stains and water spots" by following the techniques specified in
its care and maintenance guidelines. Similarly, Ikea's warranty
does not extend to "wear and tear such as stains, scratches, water
spots and burns" or "failure to comply with care instructions," the
case relays.
"In sum, [the defendants'] warranty does not cover stains and water
spots caused by daily use because [the defendants] claim that
routine cleaning according to their instructions will remove such
stains and water spots," the complaint says.
The plaintiffs, two California residents, say it wasn't until a
fabricator came to their house to install the Kasker Anthracite
Stone Effect custom countertops they picked out from Ikea that they
learned the product was manufactured by Caesarstone. The case
claims that manifestations of the defect soon appeared on the
plaintiffs' countertops, such as water stains from the bottom of a
drinking glass that do not come out even after being cleaned
according to Caesarstone's care instructions.
When Caesarstone was alerted to the issue, a warranty specialist
for the company said there was "little" that could be done since
the countertops have "a concrete finish which takes more effort to
clean than the normal polish product," the filing shares.
"Prior to this exchange, neither IKEA nor Caesarstone had told [the
plaintiffs] that the countertops they had chosen took more effort
to clean," the suit says. "To date, [the plaintiffs] have not
received a permanent repair to the defect under warranty and their
countertops continue to exhibit the defect."
Per the case, the plaintiffs and other customers would not have
bought the countertops -- or would have paid significantly less for
them -- had they known the products were prone to permanent stains
arising from normal use.
The filing claims Ikea and Caesarstone know the countertops are
defective from the consistent and disproportionate number of
complaints consumers have posted about the issue, yet the companies
"continue to cover up and conceal the true nature of the problem
today."
The lawsuit looks to represent any person or entity in the United
States that purchased Ikea's Kasker custom quartz countertops or
Caesarstone's quartz countertops. [GN]
INMAR BRAND: Holmes Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, v. INMAR
BRAND SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order that:
(1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied.
(2) The Defendant's Request for Oral Argument is denied as
moot.
(3) This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
The Plaintiff Holmes is pursuing claims of violations of the
Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and breach of
contract against Inmar Brand.
The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a rebate program administered
by IBS on behalf of Deutsch, a marketer and distributor of retail
wines and alcohol.
The rebate forms in question were located on "neck tags" hanging
from the bottles of Yellow Tail wine and offered a rebate of
anywhere from $3 to $18 for the purchase of 3-12 bottles of Yellow
Tail wine.
Inmar develops enterprise software.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mujxjL at no extra
charge.[CC]
JBS USA: Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint by April 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EDWARDS, et al., v.
JBS USA HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01789-MSG (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' "Motion for Joinder / Misjoinder of
Party-Class
Certification and Appointment of Counsel" is denied as
procedurally improper.
If Plaintiffs wish to add or remove parties, they must file
an
amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file
an
amended complaint by no later than April 22, 2024.
2. The Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss" is denied without
prejudice.
Following the submission of any amended complaint, the
Defendants may renew their motion.
3. The Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support
of
their Motion to Dismiss" is denied as moot.
JBS is a meat processing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wap4pJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
JKS HOME: Class Cert. Bids in Kayce Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kayce Smith, v. JKS Home
Improvement, LLC., et al. Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial
scheduling order as follows:
(1) The deadlines set in this scheduling order supersede the
deadlines set forth in fed. r. civ. p.26(a)(3) and are firm
and
will not be extended, even by stipulation of the parties,
absent good cause.
(2) Venue motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date of
this Order following the procedures set forth in Local Rule
7.1
(a)(2) and are to be made returnable before the assigned
Magistrate Judge.
(3) Any motion to join any person as a party to this action
shall
be made on or before April 30, 2024.
(4) Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be
made
on or before April 30, 2024.
(5) The parties are directed to file a status report on or
before
June 20, 2024.
(6) Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by
March 13, 2024.
(7) Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by April
18,
2024.
(8) All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or
before
Dec. 31, 2024.
(9) Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before
Jan.
27, 2025.
(10) Conditional Class Certification Motions are to be filed on
or
before Nov. 15, 2024.
JKS is a third generation family owned and operated construction
business.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZZY83 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JRK PROPERTY: Peebles Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDA PEEBLES and JOSHUA
BERGER, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all Others
similarly situated, v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., STEVENS POND
APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, and ONE WEBSTER APARTMENTS PROPERTY
OWNER, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10523-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 and G. L. c. 93A(9)(2).
The Plaintiffs allege that JRK unlawfully retained the security
deposit monies of tenants at all of its properties during the
relevant time period to remedy "reasonable wear and tear" in
violation of G. L. c. 186, sections 15B(4)(iii), (6)(e) and (6)(c).
Further, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the inclusion of the Move
Out Addendum in JRK's leases constitutes an unlawful lease
provision in violation of G. L. c. 186, section 15B(6)(c), the
penalty for which is also JRK's forfeiture of the entirety of the
tenant's security deposit.
To that end, the Plaintiffs are seeking the return of all the
security deposit monies retained by JRK from any tenant for any
reason whatsoever at all JRK properties during the time period.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following main class of
Plaintiffs:
"Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed
by
JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant
time period who paid a security deposit and whose lease
contained the Move Out Addendum."
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs would seek to certify any of the
following sub-classes:
"Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed
by
JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant
time
period who paid a security deposit and who’s lease contained
the
Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security
deposit monies retained by JRK for any reason whatsoever."
"Current and former tenants of any building owned or managed
by
JRK in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the relevant
time
period who paid a security deposit and who's lease contained
the
Move Out Addendum and who had any portion of their security
deposit monies retained by JRK for "carpet cleaning,"
"touch-up
paint" or to remedy other normal wear and tear."
"Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster
during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit
and
who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any
portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for
any
reason whatsoever."
"Current and former tenants of Stevens Pond and One Webster
during the relevant time period who paid a security deposit
and
who's lease contained the Move Out Addendum and who had any
portion of their security deposit monies retained by JRK for
"carpet cleaning," "touch-up paint" or to remedy other normal
wear and tear.
Ms. Peebles and Mr. Berger are former tenants of JRK.
JRK is an owner and/or property manager of six (6) residential
apartment complexes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts comprised
of over 1,000 apartment units,
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lKkm3A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith L. Sachsm, Esq.
Shaun M. Khan, Esq.
DDSK Law LLC
900 Cummings Center, Suite 210-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Telephone: (978) 338-6620
Facsimile: (978) 338-6621
E-mail: ksachs@ddsklaw.com
skhan@ddsklaw.com
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Seeks to Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK ROBERSON, et al.,
v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. (KCSR), Case No.
4:22-cv-00358-RK (W.D. Mo.), KCSR moves the Court for an extension
of time to oppose class certification.
KCSR requests that the deadline to oppose class certification be
extended to April 26, 2024. KCSR has not previously requested any
extension of this deadline. Counsel for KCSR has conferred with
counsel for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion,
says the Defendant.
On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
The current scheduling order does not set an explicit deadline for
KCSR to oppose class certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfDjce at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas R. Chiavetta, Esq.
Donald J. Munro, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-2113
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
E-mail: tchiavetta@jonesday.com
dmunro@jonesday.com
- and -
Shelley I. Ericsson, Esq.
Daniel P. Johnson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
4520 Main St., Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
E-mail: shelley.ericsson@ogletree.com
daniel.johnson@ogletree.com
LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD TUSO, v. LENNAR
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-22264-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Roy Altman entered an order granting without prejudice the
Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint.
If the Plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he must do so
by April 4, 2024, says the Court.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant, asserting
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
According to Mr. Tuso, his cell phone number has been registered on
the national Do Not Call ("DNC") Registry since July 2, 2003. He
adds
that he "uses his cell phone number for personal use only as one
would use a landline telephone number in a home."
Mr. Tuso brings this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) "on behalf of himself and [a] Class of
similarly situated individuals." He seeks certification of the
following class (which he refers to as the "Do Not Call Registry
Class"):
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) Lennar
called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3)
where the person's residential telephone number had been listed
on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days,
(4) for substantially the same reason Defendant called the
Plaintiff."
Lennar is a home construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gzC2xU at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVEPERSON INC: Ct. Appoints Damri as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAM DAMRI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIVEPERSON,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10517-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Paul Engelmayer entered an order appointing Noam Damri lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP lead counsel.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions.
The Court orders the parties, by no later than March 29, 2024 to
file a joint letter proposing a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint and any motion to dismiss.
Because Damri satisfies all of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA") requirements, the Court finds him
presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. The Court therefore
appoints Damri lead plaintiff.
On Dec. 1, 2023, Damri filed this action on behalf of all
individuals who purchased shares of LivePerson between May 10, 2022
and March 16, 2023.
Damri certifies that he purchased 500 shares of LivePerson during
the class period, retained 50 shares through the class period's
end, and lost a total of$375 on these when the share price
dropped.
LivePerson is a technology company that "delivers mobile and online
messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial
Intelligence."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4EWT7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LLOYD AUSTIN: Arzamendi Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY ARZAMENDI, et al., v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00770-P (N.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jcf5R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Scott Lloyd, Esq.
LLOYD, LEMMON, & HALE, PLLC
15 Chester St
Front Royal, VA 22630
Telephone: (540) 823-1110
E-mail: scott@lloydlemmonhale.com
- and -
Jaskanwal S. Braich, Esq.
COX P.L.L.C.
8144 Walnut Hill Ln,
Suite 1090 Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 444-7050
E-mail: jbraich@coxpllc.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ocean S. et al., v. Los
Angeles County et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06921-JAK-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial
deadlines as follows:
-- Last day to add parties / amend pleadings: Sept. 9, 2024
-- Deadline to file motion for class March 10, 2025
certification:
-- Opposition to motion for class May 19, 2025
Certification:
-- Reply to motion for class certification: June 9, 2025
-- Last day to conduct settlement conference or June 24, 2025
Mediation:
-- Last day to file notice of settlement / June 27, 2025
joint report re settlement:
-- Hearing on motion for class certification July 14, 2025
and post mediation status conference:
-- Non-expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 15, 2025
-- Initial expert disclosure for plaintiffs: Oct. 15, 2025
-- Rebuttal expert disclosure for defendants: Oct. 29, 2025
-- Reply expert disclosure for plaintiffs: Nov. 25, 2025
-- Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 9, 2026
-- Last day to file all motions: Feb. 2, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDYGmL at no extra
charge.[CC]
LULIFAMA.COM: Epstein Bid to Dismiss Pop Complaint OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, v. LULIFAMA.COM
LLC, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order:
-- granting Gabrielle Epstein's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, and
-- dismissing with prejudice Counts I, II, and III as to Defendant
Gabrielle Epstein.
The action arises from the allegedly deceptive and misleading
promotion of Luli Fama products by LuliFama.com LLC, My LuliBabe,
LLC, Lourdes Hanimian, and eight influencers.
Luli Fama is a swimwear designer, manufacturer, and reseller that
came to fame with the rise of Instagram.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r9iPKk at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAN SE: Munich Court Overturns Truck Cartel Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnieszka Kulikowska, writing for Trans.info, reports that in a
damages lawsuit against collusive truck manufacturers, the Higher
Regional Court of Munich overturned a verdict handed down some
three years ago. This means that the District Court of Munich must
reopen the largest lawsuit for damages against the truck cartel,
reports the German news agency dpa.
"The legal dispute is not yet ready to be resolved," explained the
Higher National Court.
Purchasers of 70,000 trucks acquired at allegedly inflated prices
are demanding more than half a billion euros in damages from
manufacturers MAN, Daimler, Iveco and Volvo/Renault. At first
instance, the court dismissed the class action as partly
inadmissible and partly unfounded. The Higher National Court
overturned this decision in an appeal process. [GN]
MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Child Welfare System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Blackburn, writing for aptnnews.ca, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by two First Nations women in Manitoba
on behalf of off-reserve survivors of the child welfare system is
heading to court with each of the defendants blaming the other.
Both Canada and Manitoba are asking for the claim filed by Tracy
McKenzie and Amber Fontaine to be dismissed. A certification
hearing is scheduled for March 2025.
The lawsuit, originally filed by McKenzie in 2021, alleges harms
related to her time in care. Fontaine added her name to the case in
2023.
"To be honest, I don't really remember a whole lot about my life
before the system," McKenzie told APTN News. "When I was taken into
care, I was quite young."
The case mirrors others class action lawsuits filed in British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.
It seeks damages for off-reserve First Nations people, Inuit and
Metis going back to 1992 and up to when the lawsuit is either
certified or another date is set by the courts.
"I don't have memories the same way that a lot of people do -- I am
bits and pieces," McKenzie said in an interview. "Living in so many
different places affected my understanding of what a family was. I
didn't really have an idea of what a family was. I had different
people in different places and different situations, explaining to
me and showing me what they thought they should be showing me about
what a family is."
McKenzie, who was born in 1990, is a member of Temagami First
Nation in Ontario. She was born in Winnipeg to a mother who was a
‘60s Scoop survivor. Her grandparents were residential school
survivors.
She was taken from her family at the age of three, and, according
to the statement of claim filed in Winnipeg, lived in 30 placements
that included "safe houses, shelters, group homes, hotels,
emergency shelters and foster homes."
"[There is] damage you experience from living with people who are
just paid to take care of you, who are not necessarily there for
the right reasons," she said. "The lack of self-worth that I have,
the feelings of inadequacy."
APTN didn't speak with Fontaine for this article, but the statement
of claim says she is Ojibway, was born in 1987, and has status
under the Indian Act through family in Sagkeeng First Nation. The
claim says she was born in Pine Falls, Man., and taken into care at
the age of six while living off reserve.
She spent a little more than six months in care, but during that
time she says she "experienced intense anti-Indigenous racism."
"She was forced to attend church with a foster family, and was
provided no opportunity to connect with Ojibway practices or
spiritual teachings, as she had been exposed to when living at home
with her own family," says the claim.
"As a child, she had naturally occurring strands of white hair. She
was very proud of it, as in her Ojibway culture white hair is a
sign of wisdom. When Ms. Fontaine shared this fact with a foster
family, the foster mother sat her down and forcibly plucked the
white hairs from her head, because that worldview was incompatible
with the Christian culture of the foster family."
According to the claim, her foster father called her "blackie"
because of her dark skin.
Off-reserve children
The claim alleges that "Canada and Manitoba have knowingly
underfunded child and family services for Removed Child Class
members in Manitoba. This chronic underfunding, neglect, and
outright avoidance of their constitutional and legal duties to
Indigenous children, youth, and families has prevented child and
family services from providing adequate services and care. As a
result, it has failed generations of Indigenous children and
families who have come into contact with that system."
It further alleges the governments "engaged in a discriminatory
practice" that "prioritized and incentivized the removal of
Indigenous children from their families" and breached their charter
rights.
However, Manitoba puts the blame solely on Canada for the plight of
off-reserve children in the child welfare system.
". . . Colonialism, residential schools, the 60's Scoop, and other
national policies introduced by Canada," says the statement of
defence filed by Manitoba on Dec. 28, 2023, "caused or contributed
to poverty, lower education rates, and conditions of social and
familial functioning on First Nations and among Indigenous peoples
off-reserve."
It denies Manitoba's "management of child welfare" was done "in a
manner to assimilate Indigenous children, or that it has employed
discriminatory practices to destroy Indigenous families or
cultures."
The province added that "Indigenous children who reside
off-reserve, are provided with equivalent opportunities to access
provincial services as non-Indigenous children; in the alternative,
says that the harms alleged by the plaintiffs are not compensable
through this action."
APTN reached out to Premier Wab Kinew's office to comment on the
case. According to a cabinet spokesperson, "the government of
Manitoba is unable to comment on a matter that is currently before
the courts."
Canada, in its statement of defence filed Feb. 29, pointed the
finger right back at Manitoba.
"Manitoba has legislative jurisdiction under section 92 of the
Constitution Act," the claim said. "At all material times,
Manitoba, and not Canada, exercised its jurisdiction through
provincial entities acting pursuant to its child and family
services legislation. For its part, Canada did not exercise
jurisdiction or have control over the child welfare or essential
services at issue and provided no direct funding for the provision
of off-reserve child welfare services. It follows that the
circumstances set out in the Claim do not give rise to any duties
in law or equity as against Canada."
Mohsen Seddiigh, a lawyer involved in the case said he's not
surprised by what Manitoba and Canada filed.
"Canada says it's not my problem and Manitoba says it's not my
problem it's Canada's," he said. "They're planning a bit of a game
with a tennis ball here. Each of them said the action should be
dismissed because it's not their fault -- it's the other ones. I'm
not surprised that governments decide to fight lawsuits, it's a bit
of the old mindset."
Another of McKenzie and Fontaine's lawyers, Harold Cochrane, told
APTN the off-reserve class action is looking for the same results
as a case that was recently settled with the federal government for
$43 billion.
That case started at the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007
and was launched by the Assembly of First Nations and the First
Nations Child and Family Caring Society. The organizations alleged
Canada was underfunding child welfare services on First Nations in
all provinces and Yukon.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case, ruled in
2016 that Canada "willfully and recklessly" discriminated against
First Nations children who lived on reserve and were taken into
care by underfunding the system that was supposed to help them and
ordered compensation.
After years of appeals and negotiations, the federal government
agreed to pay $43 billion -- more than half of which will
compensate thousands of on reserve children and families -- and the
rest will go towards fixing the on-reserve child welfare system.
"That class action [federal] only related to First Nation children
on reserve. It left out the vast majority of Indigenous children
who are in care and those are off-reserve children," said Cochrane.
"So the class action that we're talking about is, for a lack of a
better word, to help fill in that gap. It's meant to address, or
help those children who were left out of that $40 billion
settlement.
"They don't benefit at all from that and their rights are no less
than children living on reserve."
Manitoba isn't the only jurisdiction pushing back against similar
class actions. In British Columbia, the provincial government said
in its statement of defence that "The Plaintiffs have not suffered
any loss or damage that was caused or contributed to by any
negligence, breach of any legal duty, or breach of the Charter, by
or on behalf of the Province."
A hearing for the certification is scheduled for October 2024.
In Quebec, a class action that originated in the Inuit territory of
Nunavik, alleges, among other issues, that Canada and Quebec
prioritized "removing Indigenous children from their homes instead
of providing Indigenous parents with services to care for their
children at home." While the class action was certified by a Quebec
judge, the province is currently challenging that certification in
court.
The governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have yet to
file a statement of defence.
When the class action was launched in Manitoba, the province was
under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. But
with the election of the NDP government in 2023 -- and Canada's
first Anishinaabe premier in Wab Kinew -- there was hope that the
new administration would handle this case in a different way.
For example, Manitoba announced on March 25 it was willing to
settle lawsuits alleging it wrongly took money from children in its
care between 2005 and 2019.
Cochrane, whose law firm was involved in that case as well, said
the province would have saved an estimated $200 million in
penalties and interest had officials negotiated when the lawsuit
was first filed in 2018.
He hopes it doesn't make the same mistake in this case.
"We certainly would appreciate that he [Kinew] along with his other
ministers who are First Nation would bring a different
understanding to that level of government," said Cochrane. "We also
recognize that he's the premier and he's got a job to do and
certainly aren't expecting any special favours.
"However, expecting to deal with the government that might be a
little more understanding and that's our hope . . . a better
understanding of the issues."
Manitoba is asking that the class action be dismissed "with
costs."
There are approximately 10,000 children in Manitoba's child welfare
system, and approximately 90 per cent are First Nation, Inuit or
Metis.
McKenzie, now a mother herself, has been diagnosed with "clinical
depression and post-traumatic stress disorder," said the claim.
"Being a part of this lawsuit is important to me because as I was
growing up, all I wanted, all I really, really wanted, was
belonging," she told APTN. "I wanted connection because that's what
a human being needs." [GN]
MARK CUBAN: Seeks April 10 Extension to File Response
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v.
MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendants asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
for them to file response to April 10, 2024.
The Defendants says that if the deadline is so moved, the
Plaintiffs' reply will be due on Wednesday April 17. This would
mean that class certification briefing would be complete merely
nine days later than the Court's Scheduling Order had
contemplated.
The Plaintiffs first filed this action on Aug. 10, 2022. The case
was stayed for a period of time, and then the Plaintiffs moved to
reopen the case and for leave to file an amended complaint on April
24, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed under seal their Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC added six new named Plaintiffs, and kept
eleven of the original named Plaintiffs, but dropped a previously
named Plaintiff that had been deposed.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 20, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D6mIKi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
Esther E. Galicia, Esq.
Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq.
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A.
Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor
1395 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-9200
Facsimile: (305) 789-9201
E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com
egalicia@fowler-white.com
atifford@fowler-white.com
- and -
Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq.
LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC
334 Minorca Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (850) 825-4334
E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com
- and -
Stephen A. Best, Esq.
Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq.
BROWN RUDNICK LLP
601 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 536-1737
Facsimile: (202) 536-1701
E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com
rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com
MONARCH RECOVERY: Bids for Summary Judgment Tossed in Goldring
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TZVI GOLDRING,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-07893-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Gardephe entered
an order:
-- denying without prejudice the Defendant's motions for summary
judgment, and
-- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motions for summary
judgment and for class certification.
By April 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs will show cause why their Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims should not be
dismissed for failure to plead facts or proffer evidence
demonstrating Article III standing.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated FDCPA by
sending out collection letters that do not advise consumers that
any request for (1) verification of a debt, or (2) the name and
address of the original creditor, must be made in writing.
The Defendant is debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VYs4lg at no extra
charge.[CC]
MYTHICAL VENTURE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN HALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MYTHICAL
VENTURE, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-10324-JFW-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John Walter entered an order granting stipulation to extend
class certification deadline as follows:
Matter Time Date in Modified
original
date/deadline
scheduling
order
Trial (jury) Estimated 8:30 am Dec. 3, 2024
unchanged
length: 3 days
[Jury trial] Hearing 8:00 am Dec. 22, 2024
unchanged
on Motions in Limine;
Hearing on Disputed
Jury instructions
Last day for hearing 1:30 pm Aug. 5, 2024
unchanged
motions
Discovery cut-off July 22, 2024
unchanged
ADR Deadline June 3, 2024
unchanged
Class Certification Deadline Apr. 11, 2024 May 13,
2024
Mythical is an entertainment company, lifestyle brand, and creative
collective founded by comedians Rhett and Link.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2xbHto at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Suit Seeks $939 Million in Additional Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz and Steve Gardner of USA Today report that the NCAA
and its Power 5 conferences could be facing more than $900 million
in additional damages as a result of a class-action lawsuit seeking
academic achievement payments to athletes dating back to the
2019-2020 school year.
The suit -- filed in April 2023 -- followed a ruling upheld by the
Supreme Court in 2021 in the case of former West Virginia football
player Shawne Alston that prevents the NCAA from having limits on
the education-related compensation athletes can receive from their
schools.
The new figure was included in a filing by the NCAA late Wednesday
night in the latest lawsuit involving former Oklahoma State running
back Chuba Hubbard, The association cited an expert for the
plaintiffs, who estimated that college athletes would be owed $313
million for the four calendar years (three academic years) before
the Alston ruling went into effect.
The four-year reach-back from filing date is allowed under federal
antitrust law. Also, if an antitrust case goes to a jury verdict,
damages are tripled. In this instance, that would result in an
award of $939 million.
The NCAA is arguing that the Hubbard case should not be granted
class-action status because the "highly varied and diverse ways in
which . . . schools implemented Alston awards present inherently
individualized issues." It draws a distinction between those and
the class-wide damages that are mostly uniform and can be
determined in a manageable way. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Approves Nov. 28, 2023 Report & Recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy O'Mara, v. NH
State Prison for Men, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00380-SM-AJ
(D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Steven McAuliffe entered an order
approving the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea
K. Johnstone dated November 28, 2023.
The Court said, "Only those issues fairly raised by the objections
to the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district
court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on
appeal."
H is a level two minimum-security facility in Concord, Merrimack
County.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFaB7l at no extra
charge.[CC]
PARKMOBILE LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendant requests a 25-day extension of the
deadline for it to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 21, 2023 revised case instructions,
Counsel for ParkMobile conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs,
and Plaintiffs do not oppose this extension.
1. The Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for class
certification
on Feb. 12, 2024.
2. Pursuant to the Court's Corrected Scheduling Order,
ParkMobile
must file its response to this motion no later than eight
weeks
after it was filed. This makes April 8, 2024 the current
deadline for ParkMobile to respond to the motion.
3. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a schedule may be modified
"for
good cause and with the judge's consent."
4. The Plaintiffs' motion relies in part on the opinions of four
expert witnesses. ParkMobile needs sufficient time to prepare
for and conduct the depositions of these witnesses. Due to
the
number of experts and scheduling limitations, ParkMobile will
not be able to depose the last of the Plaintiffs' experts
until
April 26, 2024. A brief extension to file its response to the
Plaintiffs' motion therefore is warranted.
5. ParkMobile proposes, and the Plaintiffs do not oppose, that
its
deadline to respond to the pending motion class certification
class certification be set for May 3, 2024.
6. The Plaintiffs' reply brief then would be due eight weeks
after
the response is filed – making it due on June 28, 2024
Parkmobile provides mobile parking solutions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EkKbZH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua L. Becker, Esq.
Caroline M. Gieser, Esq.
Timia A. Skelton, Esq.
Alfred J. Saikali, Esq.
Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
Jason K. Ward, Esq.
Justin R. Donoho, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (470) 867-6000
Facsimile: (470) 867-6001
E-mail: jbecker@shb.com
cgieser@shb.com
tskelton@shb.com
asaikali@shb.com
tbwebb@shb.com
jward@shb.com
jdonoho@shb.com
PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Class Cert Filing in Lujano Modified to Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LUJANO as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-00405-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entere an order modifying the Oct. 20, 2023, Order re joint
stipulation to continue case deadlines as follows:
Event Date
Final Pretrial Conference & May 15, 2025
Hearing on Motions in Limine:
Last Date to File Motion for Class Oct. 7, 2024
Certification:
Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Oct. 28, 2024
for Class Certification:
Last Date to File Reply to Motion Nov. 11, 2024
for Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 5, 2024
Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference: Mar. 24, 2025
Piedmont is an American regional airline headquartered at the
Salisbury Regional Airport in Wicomico County, Maryland, near the
city of Salisbury.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9UmAvQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks to Seal Confidential Class Cert Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Plantronics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order considering whether to
seal the following documents that Plaintiffs have designated
"Confidential" pursuant to the protective order entered in this
case:
-- Defendants' opposition to motion for class certification; and
-- Exhibits A and B of the Declaration of Jessica L. Lewis in
Support
of Defendants' Opposition.
Plantronics was an American electronics company producing audio
communications equipment for business and consumers.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UlxtdZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D'Errico, Esq.
William Freeland, Esq.
Alexander McRae Noble, Esq.
Lauren A Ormsbee, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Fl.
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: jonathan.derrico@blbglaw.com
billy.freeland@blbglaw.com
alexander.noble@blbglaw.com
lauren@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and -
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
Karl Phillip Barth, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Joseph Kingerski, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
HAGENS BEMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com
reed@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
karlb@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
joeyk@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
reed@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan S. Muck, Esq.
Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
Sonia Sujanani, Esq.
Christopher W. Johnstone, Esq.
Caleb Lin, Esq.
Noah S. Guiney, Esq.
Mike Romeo, Esq.
Ryan M. Corriveau, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1002
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: susan.muck@wilmerhale.com
kevin.muck@wilmerhale.com
jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com
sonia.sujanani@wilmerhale.com
chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com
caleb.lin@wilmerhale.com
noah.guiney@wilmerhale.com
mike.romeo@wilmerhale.com
ryan.corriveau@wilmerhale.com
PRO CUSTOM: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIEMCZYK v. PRO CUSTOM
SOLAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-07846 (D.N.J., Filed March 5, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order granting the parties'
March 20, 2024, request to extend by one month the deadlines to
file any motion for class certification:
-- The Plaintiffs will serve on Defendant any May 6, 2024
motion for class certification by:
-- The Defendant will serve any opposition on June 28,
2024
Plaintiffs by:
-- The Plaintiff will file the moving, July 30,
2024
opposition, and reply papers with the Court,
and serve a copy of the reply on Defendant:
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment
Pro Custom provides renewable energy services.[CC]
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Ct. Awards CEF $39K in Atty's Fees
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHILD EVANGELISM
FELLOWSHIP OF RHODE ISLAND, INC. (CEF), v. PROVIDENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT and DR. JAVIER MONTAÑEZ, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Providence Public School District, Case No.
1:23-cv-00099-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary McElroy entered
an order granting in part and denying in part CEF's motion for
Attorney's fees and costs.
The Court awards CEF $39,577.18 in attorneys' fees and $3,413.79 in
costs for a total award of $42,990.97.
The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated its civil rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Pursuant to a Consent Order and Judgment, CEF was
declared the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. section 1988.
Providence Public School Department is the administrative force
behind the primary public school district of Providence, Rhode
Island.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndYyVG at no extra
charge.[CC]
RBS CITIZENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 18
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG et al v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23,
2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order as
follows:
-- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file their April 4,
2024
renewed motion to certify class on the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA)
Regular Rate Claim on or before:
-- Citizens shall file its response in opposition April 18,
2024
on or before:
-- Citizens shall file its motion for summary April 18,
2024
judgment on the PMWA Regular Rate Claim
on or before:
-- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file their May 2,
2024
response in opposition on or before:
-- Citizens may file a reply brief in support May 9,
2024
of its motion on or before:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
REAL ESTATE ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Geske, Cook County Record, reports that a class action lawsuit
seeks to expand the nationwide spate of lawsuits accusing real
estate brokerages of alleged anti-competitive behavior, this time
accusing brokerage of allegedly seeking to improperly boost
agents' commissions.
The lawsuit was filed March 20 in Cook County Circuit Court against
Michigan-based Real Estate One, Inc. accusing the company of
alleged anti-competitive behavior.
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Paul T. Geske, William Kingston
and Brendan Duffner, of the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Matthew Hartz,
of Illinois, who allegedly sold a home in Michigan.
According to the complaint, Real Estate One represented sellers or
buyers in more than 18,000 transactions totaling at least $6.1
billion in sales volume in 2022.
The lawsuit levels allegations similar to those already laid out by
the federal Justice Department and in lawsuits against the National
Association of Realtors and other brokerages throughout the
country. Those actions accuse realtors of anti-competitive
practices, particularly including leveraging the use of the
Multiple Listing Services to corner the market on listing and
viewing houses for sale, allegedly resulting in home sellers across
the U.S. unknowingly allegedly paying too much for realtor services
and allegedly receiving substandard services from residential real
estate brokers and members of the NAR.
Those lawsuits have resulted in a judgment worth $1.2 billion
against certain brokerages, and settlements which collectively are
worth more than $600 million, to be paid by the NAR and a
collection of large brokerages.
The same attorneys filed a nearly identical lawsuit against
brokerage Baird & Warner in February.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Real Estate One to pay
three times the plaintiffs' actual damages, plus other damages and
attorney fees. [GN]
REALNETWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against RealNetworks, Inc. ("RealNetworks" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: RNWK). The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, and docketed
under 24-cv- 00297, is on behalf of the former minority
shareholders of RealNetworks against RealNetworks and the former
members of its Board of Directors, including Robert Glaser, the
Company's Founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and largest
shareholder, for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78n(e) and Sec. 78t(a). Plaintiff's claims arise in connection
with the acquisition of the Company (the "Transaction") by Glaser
and Glaser's investment entities Greater Heights LLC and Greater
Heights Acquisition LLC.
If you were an unaffiliated stockholder who held RealNetworks
shares and were cashed out on December 21, 2022, you have until May
3, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646.581.9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
RealNetworks is a technology Company that was instrumental in
creating the streaming media category in the mid-1990s and is
involved in numerous lines of technology related business today. In
recent years, the Company has increasingly focused on developing
artificial intelligence based products and services such as its
Secure Accurate Facial Recognition computer vision platform and its
"Kontxt" natural language processing based message classification
and analysis product.
The Complaint alleges that, the Individual Defendants had the
ability to exercise control over and did control a person or
persons who have each violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act,
by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their
position as controlling persons, the Individual Defendants are
liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act throughout the
Class Period, Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Must File Updated Joint Status Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., et al., v. REGENCE
BLUESHIELD, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Jones entered an order requiring updated joint
status report as follows:
-- Counsel are directed to confer and provide the Court with a
Joint
Status Report by April 3, 2024, setting forth the parties'
proposed schedule for discovery and briefing related to a
motion
for class certification.
-- If the parties are unable to agree on any part of the Joint
Status
Report, they may answer in separate paragraphs. No separate
reports are to be filed.
-- Plaintiff's counsel will be responsible for starting the
communications needed to comply with this Order.
Regence operates as a subsidiary of Cambia Health Solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9Cfoh at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Virtual Gambling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. McGinn, writing for Jones Walker, reports that as casino
gaming attempts to integrate itself further into the mainstream,
operators have increasingly targeted a younger, more diverse player
base than the demographic commonly associated with in-person table
and slot machine wagering. One of the more notable attempts to
expand the base is through the implementation of casino elements
within other games, allowing players to obtain virtual currency and
wager the currency in either an open or closed-loop
environment[1].
As the integration of virtual gambling increases, so have the
variations on the casino gaming and inevitably, the lawsuits. The
most recent lawsuit, a class-action styled as Gentry et al. v
Roblox Corp. et al, focuses on two key gaming aspects of the
"virtual casino," the associated gameplay and underlying
transactions[2].
The complaint leads by describing how Roblox's native virtual
currency, Robux, is purchasable with real-world currency through a
transaction with Roblox, and the virtual currency is then available
on a player's account. The player can then "remove" the Robux from
the main Roblox environment by accessing a third-party website that
"converts" Robux to another currency for its casino games. The
effect of this "conversion" is to transfer the Robux, within
Roblox's environment and on a ledger kept by Roblox, from the
player to the third-party casino operator. The operator then
provides the player virtual currency credits that can only be used
to gamble on the casino operator's website. In effect, while the
Robux never leave the Roblox environment, the value associated with
the Robux is no longer restricted to the closed environment.
Should a player "cash out" on the third-party site, the player can
then reacquire their original amount of purchased Robux, plus or
less the equivalent value of any virtual currency won or lost on
the third-party site, in the Roblox environment. If a player loses
casino credits on the third-party website, the operators keep the
equivalent amount of the player's Robux. Then, in the normal course
of Roblox's operation, either party can convert their Robux to real
world currency in an exchange rate set by Roblox, which allegedly
involves Roblox taking a portion of the transaction principle as a
fee. All transactions involving the transfer of Robux happen within
the Roblox environment, are monitored and recorded by Roblox, and
are not restricted by Roblox despite Roblox arguably being on
notice of the nature of these transactions. Thus, the complaint
alleges, Roblox is complicit to and profits from an illegal
gambling operation.
Precedent for these types of cases has varied significantly across
courts. Generally, the more restrictive the virtual environment is
regarding the liquidity and fluidity of the virtual currency, the
more favorable the outcome has been for the game operator.
Additionally, clear restrictions on the use and conversion of
virtual currency in the game's terms of service, combined with
efforts to enforce such terms[3], have also proven to be persuasive
to courts in demonstrating that a game or app was not an illegal
gambling device.
However, given the general lack of geofencing features on these
types of games and their widespread availability and use on the
internet, operators should ensure a comprehensive review of all
state and federal gaming prohibitions to ensure the compatibility
of their product with the jurisdictions in which the game is either
offered or accessible.
[1] Virtual gambling in open and closed-loop environments and
associated case law is discussed in an article written by Jones
Walker partner Marc Dunbar and Special Counsel Daniel McGinn,
published in the Summer 2023 IMGL Magazine, available here.
[2] The complaint also focuses on the large population of minors
that play Roblox, and the named Plaintiffs sue individually and as
next friends of minors.
[3] Roblox includes such terms, but the complaint alleges that the
company does not enforce the terms and in complacent in the
gambling operation.
Roblox knows its Robux are being used to place bets in illegal
virtual casinos, directly facilitates this transfer within the
Roblox ecosystem, then imposes a fee on the ill-gotten gains
accrued by the Gambling Website Defendants when they seek to
convert Robux to cash. [GN]
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN,
v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY),
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff ask the Court for an order certifying the following
proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other
class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate):
All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time from Oct.
1,
2015 to the date Russell was removed as the Plan's
investment
manager.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as the class
representative and the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
Russell Trust operates as an investment advisor.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lsKAc8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
- and –
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Ben Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that the Middle District of Tennessee recently
denied a motion for class certification for a group of dental
providers in a suit against SmileDirectClub ("SmileDirect"). Ciccio
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00845, 2024 WL 559235 (M.D.
Tenn. Feb. 12, 2024).
The plaintiffs in Ciccio consist of two groups:
(1) dental care providers who objected to SmileDirect's
marketing practices; and
(2) consumers who were allegedly harmed by relying on
SmileDirect for dental care. 2024 WL 559235, at *1.
The plaintiffs alleged claims for false advertising, consumer
protection violations, and fraud. Id. In June 2023, the dental care
providers moved for certification of a nationwide provider class
and two Florida and New York provider subclasses. Id. at *4.
Under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs suing for false advertising must
show direct economic or reputational harm caused by the defendant's
advertising deception. Id. at *6 (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v.
Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 133 (2014)). The
district court determined that while there were common issues among
the group of dental providers, it was too difficult to connect a
single misleading statement by SmileDirect to an actual economic
injury suffered by the dental provider class. Id. *7. (The district
court's order did not address the consumer class.)
The dental providers relied on a survey in an effort to connect
SmileDirect's advertising statement to their alleged economic
injuries. Id. The survey was of a group of individuals accessing a
replica of SmileDirect's website who were then asked to imagine
coming across the website while researching treatment options. Id.
at *8. The district court found the survey inadequate because it
instructed the participants to follow a specific link directing
them to focus solely either on the language challenged in the
lawsuit or on a non-misleading alternative. Id. at *8-9. This
prevented the participants from exploring the website freely and
providing an unbiased response, because the survey "relied on an
artificially created situation that was plainly designed to induce
the survey respondents to place particular weight on the statement
or omission at issue." Id. at *9. The district court reasoned that
the survey's setup could not accurately gauge the actual rate of
patient diversion or persuasion because "the allegedly misleading
statements by SmileDirect would be only a handful of the
potentially numerous messages that the plaintiffs received while
'shopping.'" Id.
The plaintiffs also proffered an expert damages report, which
relied on the problematic survey to prove their injury and
allocation of damages. Id. at *9. The district court found that the
damages expert report was unreliable because it (1) failed to
bridge the gap between the survey results and the dental providers'
damages; (2) failed to account for the individual variations
between different dental practices and patient populations
allegedly affected by SmileDirect's statements; and (3) could not
estimate how many customers were actually exposed to SmileDirect's
statements. Id. at *9-10.
The district court acknowledged that "[a]bsolute precision may be
impossible when thousands of claims are involved . . . and some
degree of statistical approximation is acceptable in false
advertising damages models." Id. at *10. But it nonetheless found
that there is "a point at which approximation eclipses the truth so
fully that the numbers produced cannot serve the purpose they were
intended to serve." Id. The district court concluded that the
plaintiffs' damages expert failed to produce a model that
sufficiently allocated injury or damages to advance a class-wide
resolution. Id.
Analyzing Rule 23(a), the district court explained it had "no
confidence that any one plaintiff could be considered to have a
'typical' claim." Id. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence
that the plaintiffs could adequately represent the other class
members. Id. As a result, the dental care providers failed to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) and Rule 23(a)(4). Id.
Turning to Rule 23(b), the district court found that the variations
between dental providers prevented the plaintiffs from satisfying
Rule 23(b)(3) because those variations would create individual
issues that predominated over shared issues. Id. The plaintiffs
also failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because money damages were
central to the case. Id. at *11.
The plaintiffs asked the district court to certify the class in the
alternative under Rule 23(c)(4), which would limit certification
"to issues for which shared questions predominate, while leaving
aspects of the class members' cases in which unshared issues
predominate to be decided separately." Id. at *11. The court denied
Plaintiffs' request to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class because
the plaintiffs' inability to prove a class-wide injury extended not
only to damages but also to the liability determination itself.
Id.
Takeaways: The decision in Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC
demonstrates that a proposed false advertising class must take
seriously the requirement that injury and damages for each class
member must be directly linked to the defendant's allegedly false
advertising. [GN]
SYMETRA LIFE: Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by April 26
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order modifying
scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline to file the Defendant's motion for March 28,
2024
summary judgment:
-- Deadline to file Plaintiff's opposition to April 22,
2024
motion to exclude expert opinion:
-- Deadline to file Plaintiff's Reply in April 22,
2024
support of class certification motion
and any objection to Defendant's experts:
-- Rebuttal reports from the Plaintiff's April 22,
2024
Expert witnesses under FRCP 2(a)(2) for
Use in support of class certification:
-- Deadline to file Defendant's reply brief April 26,
2024
in support of class certification:
Symetra is an American family of companies providing retirement
plans, employee benefits, annuities and life insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rZzu1r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
David A. Hickey, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
lange@stuevesiegel.com
hickey@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
SCHIRGER FEIERABEND, LLC
4520 Main Street, Ste. 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura Geist, Esq.
Yuhan Chi, Esq.
Joshua Anderson, Esq.
Xiaolin Chen, Esq.
Naiara Toker, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAHER LLP
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com
ychi@willkie.com
jdanderson@willkie.com
schen2@willkie.com
ntoker@willkie.com
- and -
Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com
T-MOBILE USA: Gets Court OK to Proceed an Appeal in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Baldock, writing for Total Telecom, reports that Illinois
U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin has ruled that T-Mobile can
proceed with an appeal of a class action lawsuit that could cost
the company billions of dollars in compensation.
The class action lawsuit, which is being brought by seven
subscribers of AT&T or Verizon, argues that the merger of Sprint
and T-Mobile reduced competition in the wireless market to such an
extent that it forced AT&T and Verizon to increase their prices.
This, they say, saw tens to hundreds of millions of consumers
paying more for their wireless services than they would have
otherwise.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation as well as other
remedies, which could even include the reversal of the Sprint --
T-Mobile merger entirely.
Back in November, courts declined to dismiss the lawsuit at
T-Mobile's request, saying that AT&T and Verizon's price increases
could "plausibly" be linked to the merger.
T-Mobile immediately signalled their intention to appeal the
decision, saying that the case's "expansive conception of antitrust
standing is unprecedented".
The plaintiffs' lawyers, on the other hand, argued that a length
appeal process would delay potential compensation and could make
dissolving the merger more difficult. They subsequently argued that
the case should be put before a jury before an appeal was
presented.
Now, Judge Durkin has confirmed that T-Mobile will be allowed to
proceed with their appeal, with the operator arguing the
plaintiffs' have not sufficiently alleged antitrust standing.
Antitrust lawyers will be watching the proceedings of the case
closely. Federal antitrust law allows consumers to bring private
challenges against mergers and acquisitions, but cases arguing that
a company's M&A activity had negatively affected a rival's
customers are very rare.
If the case is ultimately allowed to proceed, it could
significantly expand the scope of future antitrust proceedings.
[GN]
T.L. CANNON: Dees Must File Class Cert Reply by April 24
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dees, et al., v. T.L.
Cannon Corp. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01537 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec.
10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order
granting an extension of time regarding motion to certify class and
for leave to file first amended complaint:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file opposition April 3,
2024
to class certification and/or any cross-motion
for summary judgment by:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in April 24,
2024
support of class certification motion, and
opposition to any cross-motion for summary
judgment by:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
T.L. Cannon owns and operates restaurant.[CC]
TD BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC
d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:22-cv-00958-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the Parties' Settlement;
(2) certifying the Settlement Classes;
(3) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their
counsel as Class Counsel;
(4) approving the Notice Program; and
(5) scheduling the final approval hearing.
TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of
the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5SrHj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
GOLOMB LEGAL P.C.
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street, 16th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
TEVA CANADA: Appeals Court Dismisses Valsartan Recall Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fric, Robert Carsona and Lauren Harper, writing for Osler,
reports that the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision
in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited, affirming the denial of
certification and dismissal of a proposed class action arising from
the 2018 and 2019 recall of pharmaceutical products containing
valsartan.
Background
The plaintiffs sought certification of an action seeking damages
for the alleged increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in
the future as a result of exposure to impurities detected in
certain products containing valsartan. Notably, however, the
proposed class action did not seek compensation for consumers who
have been or may be diagnosed with cancer.
The plaintiffs also sought damages for costs of medical services
and monitoring, refunds for the drugs consumed, and costs for the
drugs thrown away after the drugs were recalled.
The claim also sought damages for psychological injury due to the
shock of the recall.
Court of Appeal affirms denial of certification
The Court of Appeal confirmed there is no liability for negligence
"in the air" and no right to be free from the prospect of damage,
concluding that "under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act,
1992, there can be no viable cause of action in negligence without
actual damage." The Court found that, in this case, the claimed
bodily injuries had not materialized and may never materialize.
On psychological injury, the Court of Appeal found that the
plaintiffs failed to plead the material facts needed to support
damages recoverable in tort. The Court stated that "the right to
protection against psychiatric illness is limited and does not
extend to an illness which would be suffered only by an unusually
vulnerable person." In addition, the Court of Appeal found it was
apparent that the assessment of psychological damages in this case
would require proof of the harm suffered by the individual class
members because the claims are "inherently individual in nature and
idiosyncratic".
The Court of Appeal found the certification judge did not err in
dismissing and declining to certify the plaintiffs' remaining
claims, including for pure economic loss.
Although the Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal by finding the
certification judge did not err in dismissing the action under the
s. 5(1)(a) cause of action criterion, the Court also confirmed that
the certification judge correctly applied the "some basis in fact"
principles for the common issues criterion under s. 5(1)(c), and
committed no error in finding that the plaintiffs had failed to
satisfy the common issues criterion. [GN]
THOMAS GILES: Federal Claims Dismissed with Prejudice in Oldaker
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANIRA YESENIA OLDAKER et.
al., v. THOMAS P. GILES, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00224-WLS (M.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands entered an order that the ICDC
Defendants' motions are granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and
denied-as-moot-in-part:
As a result, all federal claims against Defendant LaSalle
Southeast, LLC; Defendant Warden David Paulk; all individual Irwin
County
Detention Center Defendants in their official capacities; and
Defendants Cheryl Slacks, Coretta Battle, Taura Amber Hughes,
Latoshia Coney, Janet Vaughn, and Marteka George in their
individual capacities are dismissed-with-prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' state law claims against those Defendants are
dismissed-without-prejudice because the court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
The Plaintiffs allege five federal claims against Irwin County
Detention Center (ICDC) Defendants, and seven state-law claims
against the ICDC Defendants.
Plaintiff Oldaker is a woman who was held in ICDC from Jan. 1,
2020, until Dec. 30, 2020. When she arrived at ICDC, she
experienced symptoms related to a 2014 hysterectomy, which had
previously been treated with an estrogen patch.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lSAveW at no extra
charge.[CC]
TMC THE METALS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Caper, Tran Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
TMC The Metals Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2024, the Company continues to
defend itself from the consolidated Caper, Tran class suit in the
Eastern District of New York.
On October 28, 2021, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain executives in federal district
court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Caper v. TMC
The Metals Company Inc. F/K/A Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition
Corp., Gerard Barron and Scott Leonard.
The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose information about our operations and prospects during the
period from March 4, 2021 to October 5, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, a second complaint containing substantially
the same allegations was filed, captioned Tran v. TMC the Metals
Company, Inc. These cases have been consolidated.
On March 6, 2022, a lead plaintiff was selected.
An amended complaint was filed on May 12, 2022, reflecting
substantially similar allegations, with the Plaintiff seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the alleged wrongdoings.
The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and filed and
served the plaintiff a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2022 and
intends to defend against this lawsuit.
On July 12, 2023, an oral hearing on the motion to dismiss was
held.
The parties are currently awaiting a ruling.
TMC the metals company Inc. is a deep-sea minerals exploration
company focused on the collection and processing of polymetallic
nodules found on the seafloor in international waters of the
Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean), located
approximately 1,300 nautical miles southwest of San Diego,
California.
TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS,
III, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing of portions
of Trans Union's sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification that contain or reflect Confidential.
Trans Union submits that the portions of the Sur-Reply
necessitating sealing meet the requirements of the Protective Order
for being filed with the Court under seal because (1) the public
disclosure of the procedures reflected in the Sur-Reply would
undermine the
efficacy of the confidential procedures, and (2) the procedures
constitute trade secrets
The Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union violated Section 1681e(b) of
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and related California
statutes, by including bankruptcy information in the Plaintiff's
credit report that he alleges was inaccurate.
The parties have agreed, pursuant to the Protective Order, that the
materials designated by Trans Union as Confidential Information
should remain under seal. Further, the Court has found sealing
warranted for information and documents reflecting the same Trans
Union policies and procedures.
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5R8c5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael O'Neil, Esq.
Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
Kristen DeGrande, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-1000
E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
ahartmann@reedsmith.com
kdegrande@reedsmith.com
- and -
Joshua M. Peles, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: jpeles@reedsmith.com
TRICIDA INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on March 11, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to
dismiss a putative securities class action brought against a
biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and its CEO. Pardi et
al., v. Tricida, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal. Mar.
11, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
likelihood that the Company's new drug would receive accelerated
FDA approval. The Company filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and was voluntarily
dismissed, and the CEO moved to dismiss.
Plaintiff alleges that: In May 2018, the Company completed its
Phase 3 clinical trials for a new drug intended to slow the
progression of chronic kidney disease. On June 5, 2018, the Company
announced that Phase 3 trials were conducted at 47 sites in the
United States and Europe and its CEO allegedly stated that the
study met "both its primary and secondary endpoints in a
statistically significant manner." In late August 2019, the Company
submitted its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA under the
FDA's Accelerated Approval Program. In a May 7, 2020 earnings call,
the CEO allegedly stated that an upcoming meeting with the FDA was
canceled "due in part to the logistical challenges posed by
COVID-19." Beginning in May 2020, the Company allegedly began to
receive indications from the FDA that there were issues with its
NDA, and in early May, executives of the Company met with FDA
representatives, who purportedly shared concerns regarding "the
magnitude and durability" of the effect of the drug and "the
applicability of data" from the Phase 3 trials "to the U.S.
population." Plaintiff further alleged that: on July 15, 2020, the
Company disclosed that it was notified by the FDA of deficiencies
that precluded labeling and post-marketing of the drug; on August
24, 2020, the Company disclosed that it had received a response
letter from the FDA explaining that the drug's Phase 3 trial was
inadequate on its own to demonstrate the drug's efficacy; on
October 29, 2020, the Company further disclosed that the FDA was
unlikely to rely on the Company's data and would require additional
evidence of the drug's efficacy; and on February 25, 2021, the
Company disclosed that the FDA denied the appeal of its application
denial.
Plaintiff, on behalf of the Company's investors, filed suit in
January 2021. In March 2023, the Company filed a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and was
voluntarily dismissed from the action, leaving the Company's CEO as
the only remaining defendant. The CEO moved to dismiss, arguing
that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege any false or
misleading statement of a material fact and that plaintiff failed
to adequately plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of
scienter.
The Court first considered and rejected plaintiff's argument that
certain opinion statements were actionable. For example, plaintiff
alleged that the CEO's statement that the Phase 3 trial "met both
its primary and secondary endpoints in a highly statistically
significant manner" was misleading because the CEO "failed to
disclose that the FDA had repeatedly indicated its disagreement
that [the trial's] endpoint was substantial enough to demonstrate
the trial's clinical effectiveness." Plaintiff also claimed that
the "optimistic statements about the NDA were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose significant issues and feedback
communicated by the FDA." The Court held that such statements were
inactionable opinions, because "they inherently reflect[ed] the
speaker's assessment of and judgment about the underlying
circumstances" and that plaintiff failed "to plausibly allege that
[the CEO] did not hold the optimistic beliefs he professed, or that
these beliefs [were] objectively untrue." Moreover, the Court
agreed with the CEO that "there is no general requirement under the
securities laws for a company to engage in a rolling,
communication-by-communication disclosure of every detail arising
from the back-and-forth dialogue with the FDA throughout its
complex review and approval process, or to adopt the FDA's position
as correct and share it with the public when discussing its
product."
The Court did find, however, that plaintiff sufficiently alleged
that defendants' statement that the FDA Advisory Committee meeting
with the Company was canceled due to COVID-19 logistics "was false
or misleading given that the FDA never cited COVID-19 logistics as
the reason for the cancellation," and because plaintiff directly
alleged that the meeting was canceled because of "the FDA's
concerns that there were too many problems with the NDA to even
warrant convening an Advisory Committee," citing documents
detailing communications from the FDA to the Company in which the
FDA identified "significant issues" with the Phase 3 trial. The
Court found that there was a "substantial likelihood that the
disclosure of the [allegedly] omitted fact . . . would have been
viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered
the total mix of information available." The Court, however, found
that certain other alleged omissions regarding the likelihood of
achieving FDA approval were not sufficiently alleged to be
misleading as plaintiff did not explain how those alleged omissions
"affected the 'total mix' of information available to a reasonable
investor" or why the disclosures defendants did make gave
reasonable investors a "misleading impression of the actual state
of affairs."
Turning to scienter, the Court held that plaintiff plausibly
alleged scienter with respect to the CEO's statement that the FDA
Advisory Committee meeting was canceled in part due to "the
logistical challenges posed by COVID-19," finding that plaintiff
plausibly alleged the CEO "intentionally or recklessly
misrepresented the true reasons" for the cancellation of the
meeting. However, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that
allegations that the CEO "attended meetings at which the FDA
specifically cautioned [the Company] against relying on patient
data from Eastern European countries" were sufficient to allege
scienter, stating that the CEO's "literally true characterization
of the trial location as ‘Europe'" did not amount to "an extreme
departure from the standards of ordinary care." The Court further
noted that, in any event, the Company "specifically directed the
market to information disclosing the location of the trials," which
further cut against any inference of scienter in connection with
those statements.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiff adequately pled a
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claim as to the alleged statement
that FDA Advisory Committee meeting was canceled "due in part to
the logistical challenges posed by COVID-19," but granted the
motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, as to all other claims,
due to the failure to adequately plead falsity and scienter. [GN]
TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Class of Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN
ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly
situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A
THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order certifying two classes of persons defined as:
-- Tuition Class:
All enrolled undergraduate and graduate students during the
Spring
2020 semester who paid tuition, or who were credited as having
paid, but had their classes and educational services moved to
online only learning, excluding students at Tulane's School of
Professional Advancement, Masters of Jurisprudence in Labor &
Employment Law, graduate students at Tulane's School of Social
Work, and Center for Applied Environmental Public Health
(CAEPH)
Students;
-- Fee Class:
All enrolled students during the Spring 2020 semester at Tulane
University, who paid the Mandatory Fees, or who were credited
as
having paid, but had the related services, facilities, and
campus
access restricted or eliminated, excluding students at Tulane's
School of Professional Advancement, Masters of Jurisprudence in
Labor & Employment Law, graduate students at Tulane's School of
Social Work, and Center for Applied Environmental Public Health
(CAEPH) students (the "Fee Class").
On Sept. 14, 2020, Ms. Jones filed this class action alleging that
Tulane breached its contractual obligation to provide students with
in person, on campus educational services, or in the alternative
was unjustly enriched by its failure to provide such services while
retaining the full pre-paid cost of the promised in person
education.
On Sept. 15, 2020, the Plaintiff John Ellis filed a separate action
styled John Ellis v. Tulane University, as a class action making
substantially similar allegations.
On Dec. 11, 2020, the two above cases were consolidated pursuant to
the parties' motion. ECF 50.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6cWu7N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
cohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and-
Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
Carencro, LA 70520-0358
Telephone: (337) 371-0375
E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com
- and-
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
529 14th St. NW Suite 914
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
TULANE EDUCATIONAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN
ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly
situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A
THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their motion to consider whether
materials marked "Confidential" and/or "Highly Confidential" by
Tulane should be sealed.
The motion will specifically refer to Exhibits AI, AJ, AR, AS, AT,
AU, AW, AX, and AY to their Motion for Class Certification, filed
concurrently with the present Motion, as well as those portions of
the
Memorandum of Law which quote or otherwise reveal the contents of
material subject to the Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BtE61Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
David A. Szwak, Esq.
BODENHEIMER, JONES & SZWAK, LLC
16 Travis Street, Ste. 800
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, LA 71101
Telephone: (318) 424-1400
Facsimile: (221) 6555
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
cohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
Carencro, LA 70520-0358
Telephone: (337) 371-0375
E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
529 14th St. NW Suite 914
Washington, DC 20045
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
TULANE UNIV: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Opposition Date
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA JONES and JOHN
ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly
situated, v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A
THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02505-DJP-MBN (E.D. La.), the Parties move the Court
for an order modifying the case management deadlines:
Current
Proposed
Deadline
Deadline
Class Certification Opposition Due: Apr. 16, 2024 Apr. 22,
2024
Class Certification Reply Due: Apr. 30, 2024 Apr. 30,
2024
Class Certification Submission Date: May 1, 2024 May 1,
2024
Summary Judgment Opposition Due: Mar. 26, 2024 Apr. 16,
2024
Summary Judgment Reply Due: Apr. 2, 2024 Apr. 30,
2024
Summary Judgment Submission Date: Apr. 3, 2024 May 1,
2024
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbOmNa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM
2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and –
David A. Szwak, Esq.
BODENHEIMER, JONES & SZWAK, LLC
416 Travis Street, Ste. 800
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, LA 71101
Telephone: (318) 424-1400
Facsimile: 221-6555
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Garner, Esq.
Martha Y. Curtis, Esq.
Joshua S. Force, Esq.
Stuart D. Kottle, Esq.
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN &
HILBERT, LLC
909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 299-2100
Facsimile: (504) 299-2300
E-mail: jgarner@shergarner.com
mcurtis@shergarner.com
jforce@shergarner.com
skottle@shergarner.com
- and -
M. Scott Barnard, Esq.
Brennan H. Meier, Esq.
Jessica Mannon, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
2300 N. Field Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 969-2800
Facsimile: (214) 969-4343
E-mail: sbarnard@akingump.com
bhmeier@akingump.com
jmannon@akingump.com
TWO JINN: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by April 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TWO JINN, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, Case No.
3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an
order re: briefing schedule for motion to certify class
Event Current
Stipulated
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Apr. 5, 2024 Apr. 26,
2024
Oppositions to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class:
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify
class.
On March 1, 2024, the Defendants filed their oppositions to the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
Two Jinn provides consulting services. The Company offers bail
bond, payment options, and other legal services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jCswAA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
J. Aaron Lawson, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
alawson@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
K.C. Jaski, Esq.
Katelyn L. Kang, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com
kjaski@cooley.com
kkang@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
- and -
David Kaminski, Esq.
Martin Schannong, Esq.
Michael P. Lavigne, Esq.
CARLSON & MESSER LLP
5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 242-2200
Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
lavignem@cmtlaw.com
lavignem@cmtlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perissa Suit Due Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBEL PERISSA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v UNITED STATES POLO
ASSOCIATION, and USPA PROPERTIES INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 1:23-cv-10650-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick
entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than 30 days
after
entry of this order.
-- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than 90 days
after
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is decided.
-- The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
Southern District of New York.
-- Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by
April 12, 2024.
-- Interrogatories shall be served by April 12, 2024, subject to
follow up interrogatories before the close of fact discovery.
-- Depositions shall be completed by 90 days after Plaintiff's
Motion
for Class Certification is decided.
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by
Dec.
6, 2024; any Opposition shall be filed by Jan. 17, 2025; and
Reply
shall be filed by February 28, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzQMF3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in National Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and ALLIANCE FOR
JUSTICE, for themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745-PLF (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Paul Friedman entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of class settlement and for attorney's
fees, costs, and service awards.
The Court said that the Plaintiffs and the United States have
reached an historic settlement agreement in this case that
reimburses PACER users for $100 million of the fees they paid
within a period of over eight years. The Agreement reimburses many
small-scale PACER users for all of the fees they paid during this
period. And it reimburses large-scale users substantially, and in
proportion to what they paid. The Court finds the Agreement to be
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
A. The Settlement Class and Fund
The settlement class includes all persons or entities who
paid
PACER fees in the period beginning six years before the Named
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint (April 22, 2010)
and
ending on the date the judiciary stopped using PACER fees to
fund prohibited expenses (May 31, 2018) – with the
exception of
those who opted out, of federal agencies, and of Class
Counsel.
This class includes at least several hundred thousand
members.
The settlement common fund totals $125 million. From this
fund,
at least 80%, or $100 million, is to be distributed to class
members. Up to 20%, or $25 million, is to be used for
attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and service awards for the class
representatives. As to the attorney's fees and service
awards,
the Agreement specifies that "the Court will ultimately
determine whether the amounts requested are reasonable.". The
Agreement further specifies that service awards cannot exceed
$10,000 per class representative.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Je0Cva at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MORINVILLE and
GILBERT P. HYATT, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01779-CKK (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order granting a three-week extension of the
Defendant's deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
According to the Court's Oct. 12, 2023, minute order, the
Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is currently due on April 19, 2024, and the
Plaintiffs' reply is due on May 20, 2024.
The Defendant requests that the Court extend Defendant's deadline
to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by three
weeks—to May 10, 2024. The Defendant conferred with the
Plaintiffs' counsel about this request, and the Plaintiffs
consent.
The Defendant also requests, with the consent of the Plaintiffs,
that the Plaintiffs' deadline for their reply be extended by the
same length of time—to June 10, 2024.
United States Patent is responsible for granting U.S. patents and
registering U.S. trademarks.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VLinXh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Gerardi, Esq.
Laurel H. Lum, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
1100 L St. NW, Room 12212
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 305-8177
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: laurel.h.lum@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY
ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and KEATE WRIGHT and ERIC
SHORT, individually, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01015-PAB-KAS
(D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider its March
13, 2024, Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court reassess the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification with the correct understanding that
the identity and contact information of the remaining 13 potential
class members are unknown, their due process rights would be
affected if class certification were denied, and the ability for
putative class members to initiate individuals actions on all of
their unpaid wages will elapse in mere weeks from today's date, not
months.
Universal Logistics is a full -service logistics company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozrIhC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria E. Guzman, Esq.
THE WILHITE LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden St.
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 839-1650 ext. 1090
Facsimile: (303) 832-7102
E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com
vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com
UPS STORE: Must File Any Reply by April 8
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCLAREN v. THE UPS STORE,
INC. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-14424-RK-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Kirsch entered an order on the remaining filings deadlines
as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File April 1, 2024
any Opposition:
-- Defendants' Deadline to File April 8, 2024
any Reply:
-- Motion Return Date: April 15, 2024
UPS Store is a franchisor of retail shipping, postal, printing and
business service centers.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWxE3b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
127 Maple Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 747-3003
Facsimile: (732) 747-9004
E-mail: jmplacitella@cprlaw.com
VARSITY BRANDS: Indirect Purchasers Can Add Class Rep in Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA JONES and
CHRISTINA LORENZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
entered an order:
-- granting Indirect Purchasers' motion to add class
representative,
-- denying the Defendants' motion for sanctions, and
-- denying Indirect Purchasers' cross-motion for sanctions.
The Defendants have not shown that Indirect Purchasers' conduct is
sanctionable under Rule 11. Indirect Purchasers' standing arguments
have an adequate basis in law and fact. Further, Indirect
Purchasers have sought to remedy any flaw in their pleadings by
seeking to add an
additional class representative, which the Court is permitting. As
a result, the Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied, the Court
says.
Indirect Purchasers were on notice that there was a potential
standing issue long before the class certification stage. Although
the Court did not find this conduct to be sanctionable, neither
does it find Defendants' Motion for Sanctions to be frivolous.
Therefore, the Cross-Motion for Sanctions is also denied.
Varsity is a host of competitive cheerleading camps and
competitions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hlOtQA at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA USA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Merchant Interchange Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Siegel Bernard, writing for nytimes.com, reports that Visa and
Mastercard have agreed to cap the so-called swipe fees they charge
to merchants that accept their credit cards, as part of a
class-action settlement that could save merchants an estimated $30
billion over five years -- the latest development in a nearly
20-year legal battle.
Each time a customer uses one of its credit cards, Visa or
Mastercard collects a swipe fee -- also called an interchange fee
-- for processing the transaction, which it shares with banks
issuing the cards. The merchants pass those fees along to
customers, a practice that effectively inflates prices (and may
motivate discounts given to customers paying with cash).
The settlement, which is subject to court approval, can be traced
back to a 2005 lawsuit by merchants arguing that they paid
excessive fees to accept Visa and Mastercard credit cards.
As more consumer spending has shifted to credit cards over the
years, processing fees have also risen. To accept Visa and
Mastercard, U.S. merchants paid $101 billion in total fees in 2023,
including $72 billion in interchange fees, according to the Nilson
Report, which tracks the payments industry. The fees also generate
profits for big banks that issue the cards, and indirectly pay for
credit card rewards programs, which aren't expected to be affected
by the settlement deal.
In addition to putting a ceiling on the swipe fees -- an average of
2.26 percent of the transaction, according to Nilson -- Visa and
Mastercard agreed to roll back the posted swipe fee of every
merchant by at least 0.04 percentage points for at least three
years. For five years, the companies will not raise the fees above
the posted rates at the end of last year. Systemwide, the average
fee must be at least 0.07 percentage points below the current
average rate, a calculation that an independent auditor will
verify.
Merchants will also be permitted to adjust their prices based on
the costs associated with accepting different cards, while letting
customers know why some cards -- typically business cards and those
with more rewards and perks -- cost more than others.
"This settlement achieves our goal of eliminating anticompetitive
restraints and providing immediate and meaningful savings to all
U.S. merchants, small and large," Robert Eisler, co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
But not all merchants, particularly smaller ones, are as optimistic
about the proposed changes. Temporary fee reductions fall short of
what's needed and underscore why Congress needs to pass legislation
to promote a more competitive marketplace, said the Merchants
Payments Coalition, a trade group representing retailers,
supermarkets, convenience stores, gas stations and online
merchants.
"The settlement does nothing to actually bring competitive market
forces to swipe fees or change the behavior of a cartel that
centrally fixes rates and bars competition," said Christopher
Jones, a member of the coalition's executive committee and senior
vice president of government relations at the National Grocers
Association. "Instead, it tries to provide token, temporary relief
and then allows the card companies to raise rates yet again."
Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois who has long
fought to keep interchange fees in check, introduced bipartisan
legislation in June that would require big banks issuing credit
cards to enable the cards to be processed on at least one other
network besides Visa or Mastercard, in an effort to create more
options for merchants beyond the two industry heavyweights.
Doug Kantor, general counsel at the National Association of
Convenience Stores, said the settlement provisions that would allow
merchants to charge more for credit cards that carried higher fees
will be complicated to carry out and pitted the merchants against
their customers.
"Even if they do use them, it makes the merchants the tax collector
for the charges -- and it makes merchants the bad guy in the eyes
of the consumer, when it's really the credit card companies that
are squeezing everyone when it comes to big fees," Mr. Kantor
added.
Neither Visa nor Mastercard admitted to any wrongdoing.
In a statement, Mastercard's chief legal officer and general
counsel, Rob Beard, said the agreement "brings closure to a
longstanding dispute by delivering substantial certainty and value
to business owners, including flexibility in how they manage
acceptance of card programs."
Separately, Kim Lawrence, Visa's president, North America, said the
company had "reached a settlement with meaningful concessions that
address true pain points small businesses have identified." [GN]
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Settles False Advertising Suit for $28.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Valbrun, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that Walden
University, a for-profit online university, has settled a
class-action lawsuit that accused the institution of targeting
women and Black students with false advertising. The university has
agreed to pay a $28.5 million settlement, according to U.S. News
and World Report.
The university, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, reportedly
misled prospective students about the length of time it would take
to complete doctorate degrees in business administration and
collected millions of dollars in extra tuition payments and fees as
a result, according to the lawsuit. It alleged that Walden
purposely prolonged academic projects required for the degrees.
Walden officials said in a written statement that it agreed to the
settlement "in pursuit of the best interests of all parties
involved," U.S. News reported.
"Students alleged that Walden masked deception as diversity by
targeting their DBA degrees at Black and female students who were
hoping to advance their careers," Aaron Ament, president of the
National Student Legal Defense Network, told U.S. News. The
organization filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Maryland
along with civil rights law firm Relman Colfax.
Inside Higher Ed reported in 2023 that Walden topped the list of
institutions where graduate students owed more collectively than
what they borrowed to pay for college. According to an analysis of
students' debt and earnings, Walden's graduate students who took
out loans in 2013--14 and 2014--15 owed $289 million more in loans
five years after entering repayment, the article said. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Court Appoints Zimmerman Law as Co-Lead Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA GONZALES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:24-cv-01223-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g) to appoint Zimmerman Law Offices,
P.C. and DannLaw Firm as interim co-lead class counsel.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMw2k2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
THE DANNLAW FIRM
26100 Towne Center Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
aadams@dannlaw.com
WOODSTREAM CORP: Maroney Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maroney, et al. v.
Woodstream Corporation, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time
for the deadline on Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class
certification from April 11, 2024, to June 25, 2024.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a
deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification by April
11, 2024.
The Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on
Defendant on Oct. 23, 2023.
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Defendant served its responses and objections
to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Parties filed a Stipulated Order Regarding
the Protocol for Producing Documents and Electronically Stored
Information.
Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife
caring and control products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bhQRk5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7127
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***