/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 32 Headlines 4E BRANDS NA: Farooq Uses Over Contaminated Hand Sanitizer 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Tosses Haitayan Bid for Class Certification 79-11 COATZINGO: Huanetl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages A&L HOME: Clark, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives ACTAVIS PLC: TPPs Class Certification Partly OK'd in Namenda Case ADVENTIST HEALTH: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 26 AILY FOOT: Court OK's Conditional Collective Action Certification ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of McVeigh Class Status Bid ALLIANCE ONE: Court Strikes Class Status Bid Filing Deadline ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeal in CCERF Putative Class Suit Pending ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending AMAZON.COM INC: Files Suit Against OAG Amid COVID-19 Class Action AMERICAN EAGLE: Bowes Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Ruling AMERICAN SECURITY: Forrester Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective AMERITALIA LLC: Status of Pending Bid for Conditional Cert. Sought ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Miners Still Await Silicosis Settlement Payout BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly BEACH PIZZA: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Terminated BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Moore Files Suit in N.D. New York BLUEBIRD BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 13 Deadline BMW FINANCIAL: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought BOOHOO GROUP: Fighting Proposed $100MM Class Action Lawsuit BRISTOL-MYERS: Grant of Class Certification in Celgene Suit Pending BRISTOL-MYERS: HIV Fixed-Dose Products Related Suit Underway BUONGIORNO BAGELS: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanzetta Suit Claims CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Suit Removed from Cal. State Court to E.D. Cal. CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Due Date Extended to April 2 CARL M. FREEMAN: Williams Seeks Damages, Public Offering Statement CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Dismissed as Defendant in Ealy-Simon Suit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for En Banc Rehearing in Ong Suit Denied CHSLD HERRON: Family Launches Class Action Against Care Home Owners CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. COUNTERPATH CORP: Golenkov Balks at Proposed $25.7M Sale to Alianza DASCOR CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Plumbers' Unpaid OT Wages DEACON 10: Class of Security Guard Gets Conditional Certification DEMOULAS SUPER: Cohen Sues Over False Coffee Advertised Servings DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Insurance Class Action for $9.5 Million DYCK-O NEAL: Rana Suit Removed to C.D. California EAGLE LATH: Faces Sanchez-Cruz Labor Suit in Calif. State Court EDWARD D. JONES: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. EPCON COMMUNITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stanley Claims ESTIA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $11.7 Million F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd FIRST STUDENT: Court Won't Allow Extension of Class Status Filing FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Class Action FISHER-PRICE: Certification of Classes Sought in Baby Sleeper Case FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes FISHER-PRICE: Drover-Mundy, et al. Seek to Certify Classes FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes FISHER-PRICE: Flores Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Gamino Says FORD MOTOR: Simmons, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes FUSION CONNECT: May 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 4 GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Economic-Loss Suit Must be Filed in April GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Kelly Claims GETWELLNETWORK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied as Moot GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Faces Garcia Employment Suit in Cal. State Court GOOGLE LLC: Shepherd Consumer Class Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y. GRAND CANYON: Miller Seeks to Certify Class of University Students GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Coleman BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois GULFPORT ENERGY: Court Appoints Joseph Rotunno as Lead Plaintiff HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Bredberg Suit Says HAXTON MASONRY: Jimenez Collective Actions Get Conditional Status HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Breast Imaging Errors HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Bid to Amend Boynton Beach Suit Denied HFM INC: Brigati Class Action Junked without Prejudice HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HOBBYLINC.COM: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HUSKY ENERGY: Class Cert. Schedule in Bruzek Tort Suit Stricken IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 22 INJURY FINANCING: Puckett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia INTERNET HOBBIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Block & Leviton Reminds of April 2 Deadline ITG INC: Mauthe Has Until July 23 to File Class Certification Bid JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Status Set for April 27 JEFFERSON COUNTY: Floyd & Nicholson Seek to Certify Class KING CATERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gonzales Suit Claims KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages LALA HEALTHCARE: Limon Seeks Vocational Nurses' Unpaid Overtime LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Has Until Nov. 13 to File Class Cert. Bid LINK FUND: Law Firm Leigh Day to Launch Investment Class Action MARS INC: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages Over Child Slavery MATTEL INC: Barton Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MATTEL INC: Black Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MATTEL INC: Nabong Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MATTEL INC: Shaffer Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MDL 2979: Consolidation of Four Actions in N.D. Texas Tossed METRODATA SERVICES: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed in Wentworth MG FREESITES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Child Sex Trafficking MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Hailey Class Action MOONSHADOWS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Opening Brief To be Filed by March 31 NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing NEW YORK CITY: Rosenfeld Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK NEW YORK TIMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW ZEALAND: Settles Kiwifruit Growers' Lawsuit Over Psa Disease NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania NU CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Murillo Says NYP HOLDINGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OMNIMAX INT'L: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 6 PAPA JOHN'S: Briefing Date for Class Status Bid Set for July 1 PEARL RIVER: Underpays Production Workers, Perez Suit Claims PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice PEOPLECONNECT INC: Misappropriates Photos in Website, Loendorf Says PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing PINECREST BAKERY: Andres Gamboa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PRECISION 2000: Employee Collective Wins Conditional Certification PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 7 Hearing Set on $21MM Class Settlement PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York PROGRESSIVE CORP: Bid for Class Status Must Be Filed by August 25 PURITAN'S PRIDE: May 7 Hearing on Revised Class Cert. Sought QUICKEN LOANS: Hearing on Class Status Denial Bid Set for March 4 QVC INC: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay CSRs' OT Wages REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Certification Bid by June 11 RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Due August 12 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Siruk Sues Over GME Stock Trading Control SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Says SAUSALITO, CA: Homeless Union Files Civil Rights Suit SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Guilbeau Claims SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Guilbeau Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime SEPTEM COMA INC: Brady Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts SHAWMUT WOODWORKING: Bonett FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Tossed SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Albright Class Action SIERRA WES: Flores Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages SKANSKA KOCH: Court Dismisses Cortese et al. Suit with Prejudice SKANSKA KOCH: Court Tosses Cortese Class Action with Prejudice SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DualSense Drift SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Faces Falls Suit in Central Dist. of California SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Marquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Pierce Seeks to Certify Settlement Class STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Malone Employment Suit in California SUMMER WWK: Film Crew Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SUNRISE DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bano Suit Alleges SUNRISE SENIOR: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Status Response SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unethical Sales Practices TEMPO RESTAURANT: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Skimming TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing TEVA PHARMA: Watson Pharmaceuticals Settles with BCBSM TOP FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Says TOYOTA MOTOR: 4-Runners Frame Rot Class Action Pending TRU TOP: Wolchko "Robocalling" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class TWIN AMERICA: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Mirabel Suit TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Related Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit in Oklahoma Underway TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Pork Price-Fixing Ongoing TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Buyers' Lawsuit for $221.5 Million ULTRA SHINE: Car Wash Attendants Get Collective Class Status UNITED FOOD: Nagel Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 8th Circuit UNITED INSURANCE: Seeks Feb. 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply UNITED STATES: Kluge Third Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Boley Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class VAIL RESORTS: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Oct. 20, 2022 VITAMIN SHOPPE: Ferrari Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Has Until March 21 to File Class Status Bid WALGREEN BOOTS: Gray Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois WEST TOWN: Somerville Suit Wins Class Certification WESTCO CHEMICALS: Diaz ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action WHIRLPOOL: Top-Load Washing Machine Model Suits Ongoing ********* 4E BRANDS NA: Farooq Uses Over Contaminated Hand Sanitizer ---------------------------------------------------------- Danish Farooq, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00663 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2021), seeks restitution and injunctive relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation and for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law. 4e Brands manufactures and sells hand sanitizers throughout the United States and represents on its packaging that the products' active ingredient is 70% Ethyl Alcohol. On or about June 23, 2020, Plaintiff purchased two bottles of Blumen Hand Sanitizer at Costco Wholesale. On July 8, 2020, the FDA added 4e Brands' products to the list of hand sanitizer products that were contaminated with toxic methanol. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: yana@kazlg.com alan@kazlg.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Tosses Haitayan Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGE HAITAYAN, et al., v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07454-DSF-AS (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to demonstrate class certification is appropriate under the Borello test. The Court, therefore, denies certification for their Labor Code claim. Additionally, in light of the individualized issues needed to show franchisees are not exempt executives for purposes of the Wage Order, Plaintiffs have not shown common issues will predominate, and class treatment is therefore not warranted. Their request for certification is denied." On October 12, 2017, four 7-Eleven franchisees brought this putative class action alleging that 7-Eleven improperly classified them as independent contractors (Haitayan I). On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On March 14, 2018, the Honorable John F. Walter granted 7-Eleven's motion for judgment on the pleadings with prejudice, finding that 7-Eleven is not the Plaintiffs' employer. Judge Walter then denied the motion for class certification as moot. The Plaintiffs appealed. The named plaintiffs in Haitayan I also filed a new lawsuit (later amended to seek relief on behalf of a putative class) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05465-DSF (ASx) (Haitayan II), On October 10, 2018, this Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and corrective notice. Haitayan II. The Plaintiffs again appealed. 7-Eleven is the world's largest franchisor of retail convenience stores, with more than 7,800 stores operating in the United States. The Plaintiffs each own at least one 7-Eleven franchise. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with 7-Eleven that governs the franchise relationship. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OCrVsM at no extra charge.[CC] 79-11 COATZINGO: Huanetl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIRIAM HUANETL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 79-11 COATZINGO RESTAURANT INC., and RUFINO ZAPATA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00766 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2021) brings this complaint alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress from on or around June 14, 2012 until on or around February 9, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the Defendants, she was only compensated at a fixed hourly rate per week regardless of the number of hours she worked each week. Despite frequently working shifts that spanned more than 10 hours per day, and regularly working more than 40 hours a per week, the Defendant did not pay her "spread of hours pay" of one additional hour at the minimum wage rate as well as overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to provide her with any notice at the time of hire, or at any time thereafter containing her rates of pay and the designated payday and other information, and failed to provide her with wage statement with each wage payment. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful policies, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have been damaged and are entitled to recover from the Defendants all overtime wages due, along with all reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, the suit says. Coatzingo Restaurant Inc. operates a restaurant that serves Mexican cuisine. Rufino Zapata is a person in control of Coatzingo who exercised significant control over its operations and its employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola Ciliotta, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Ave., Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 460-0047 Fax: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com A&L HOME: Clark, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE CLARK, et al. for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. A&L HOME CARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. Conditionally certifying their proposed FLSA collectives defined as: -- FLSA Travel Time Collective "All current and former hourly paid employees of the Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and [the date Defendants changed their travel policy to include hourly payment for travel time], worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and were required to travel between clients' homes;" -- FLSA Shift Differential Collective "All current and former hourly paid employees of Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and the present, worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and received shift differential pay;" and -- FLSA Minimum Wage Collective "All current and former hourly paid employees of the Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and [the date Defendants changed their travel policy to include hourly payment for travel time], were required to travel between clients' homes using their own vehicle;" 2. Implementing a procedure whereby a Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e- mail), and a Court-approved Reminder Notice is sent (via e-mail and text message) to their proposed FLSA collectives; and 3. Requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all putative collective members by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, dates of employment, and position(s) held, of all putative collective members who meet any one or more of the above collective definitions proposed by the Plaintiffs. This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), filed as a Collective and Class Action. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, filed on January 13, 2021, asserts that Defendants violated the FLSA and the OMFWSA by failing to pay their home health aides for time spent traveling between clients' homes during their shift in a single workday; failing to include shift differential pay in home health aides' regular rates of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime; and failing to reasonably reimburse home health aides for the use of their own vehicle to travel between client homes. The Plaintiffs are all former home health aides employed by Defendants. The Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis throughout their employment with the Defendants, and each Named Plaintiff was paid at or slightly above the applicable Ohio minimum wage. In addition, each Named Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek throughout their employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to properly pay Named Plaintiffs overtime compensation at the correct premium rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek throughout their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendants are in the business of providing home healthcare services to clients in the southern Ohio region. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M6Zjad at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, Ohio 43207 Telephone: (614) 610-4134 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com ACTAVIS PLC: TPPs Class Certification Partly OK'd in Namenda Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, captioned as Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Actavis, PLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge C.J. McMahon entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class of third-party payors ("TPPs") that reimbursed insureds for Namenda and its generic equivalents in several states between June 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. The Court certifies the following class with respect to SBA's pay-for-delay theory of liability only: "All Third-Party Payors who indirectly purchased, and/or paid, and/or provided reimbursement for, some or all of the purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets, their AB-rated generic equivalents, and/or Namenda XR capsules, other than for resale in Alabama, Arizona, California, D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island (for purchases after July 15, 2013), South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, for consumption by themselves, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, from June 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017." Judge McMahon said, "Although SBA has not included the pro forma class exclusion of all judges and the chambers staff of those judges assigned to work on this case in their amended class definition, I will exclude them. Thus: Excluded from the proposed Class are: (a) Defendants and Defendants' parents, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) fully-insured health care plans (i.e., health plans that purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of the insureds' prescription drug benefits on behalf of the Plan's members and beneficiaries); (c) all federal or state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns or municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; (d) Pharmacy Benefit Managers ("PBMs"); and (e) all judges presiding in this case, their chambers staff, and any members of their immediate families, and all counsel of record." Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund (SBA) commenced this antitrust lawsuit on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated indirect purchasers of the brand and generic versions of Namenda -- a drug used to treat Alzheimer's disease. Actavis is a global pharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing, manufacturing and marketing branded pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and biologic products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3boQWiN at no extra charge.[CC] ADVENTIST HEALTH: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holmes v. Adventist Health System Sunbelt, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-01153 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a scheduling order that: 1. The class discovery deadline is extended to March 26, 2021; 2. The deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is extended to April 26, 2021; and 3. The deadline for Defendant's Response to the Motion for Class Certification is extended to May 26, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. AdventHealth is a faith-based, non-profit health care system headquartered in Altamonte Springs, Florida, that operates facilities within nine states across the United States.[CC] AILY FOOT: Court OK's Conditional Collective Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YONG BIAO JI v. AILY FOOT RELAX STATION, INC. d/b/a Foot Relax Spa Station; LINDA FOOT RELAX SPA STATION, INC. d/b/a Foot Relax Spa Station; XIANG MAN ZHANG a/k/a Ailing Zhang; and KE XUE ZHENG, Case No. 7:19-cv-11881-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order: 1. granting the motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims; -- To the extent defendants' amended answer includes motions for relief, all such motions are denied; 2. deferring the ruling on plaintiff's motion for sanctions; -- By no later than February 22, 2021, defense counsel shall show cause by letter, not to exceed three pages in length, and in accordance with the above instructions, why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel; and 3. granting the motion for conditional collective action certification; -- The Court will separately sign and docket the proposed class notice; -- Discovery shall proceed as set forth in the Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, dated November 24, 2020; -- The Court will hold a case management conference on March 22, 2021, at 2:45 p.m., by telephone conference, as previously scheduled; and -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions. Plaintiff Yong Biao Ji brings this putative class and collective action against the defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dkX4vd at no extra charge.[CC] ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of McVeigh Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS McVEIGH, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00087-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Jerusha T. Adams entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. Judge Adams said, "On or before February 23, 2021, the Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. The Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice." A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8jBBe at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIANCE ONE: Court Strikes Class Status Bid Filing Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Hau v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00150 (W.D. Wisc), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that the upcoming deadline for filing a motion to certify class is struck, and will be rescheduled if necessary after the court determines whether the plaintiff has standing, and if so, decides the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Judge Conley said, "In light of recent, Seventh Circuit cases finding lack of standing for pursuing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims like that at issue in this case, see Kwasniewski v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-701-WMC, 2021 WL 248442 (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 25, 2021), the court directs plaintiff to submit a brief on or before February 22, 2021, explaining why she has standing to pursue this action in light of these recent cases." The suit alleges violation of the FDCPA involving consumer credit. Alliance One Receivables provides financial services. The Company offers collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[CC] ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeal in CCERF Putative Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Plaintiff's responsive appellate brief is due to be filed on or before March 3, 2021. On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund (CCERF), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of its November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. On November 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or the New York Complaint. The New York Complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to its November 14, 2017 public stock offering. The New York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the results of our APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019. On November 2, 2020, the Court entered a Decision and Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a notice of appeal of that decision on November 12, 2020, and filed their opening appellate brief on January 4, 2021. Plaintiff's responsive appellate brief is due to be filed on or before March 3, 2021. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion seeking leave to file a further amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt, is still pending. On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November 20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint, or the Complaint. In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also named as defendants certain of the company's other executive officers, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20, 2017 and September 12, 2018 and sought to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO. The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on July 31, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. Pursuant to a prior Order of the Court, on June 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a further amended complaint. Alnylam said, "We opposed the motion which was fully briefed on June 22, 2020, and remains pending with the Court." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AMAZON.COM INC: Files Suit Against OAG Amid COVID-19 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Ajay, writing for Jurist, reports that Amazon has filed a lawsuit against the Office of the New York Attorney General (OAG) for allegedly unlawfully attempting to subject it to state oversight of activities concerning its COVID-19 response and the termination of its activist employee Christian Smalls. In March, Amazon fired Smalls for repeatedly violating "social distancing requirements and an order to quarantine and stay off Amazon property" after coming into contact with a person who tested positive for the virus. According to Smalls, upon learning of its employees testing positive, Amazon failed to issue directives to quarantine workers; he organized several protests and demonstrations in this regard. In light of this, Attorney General Letitia James called upon the National Labor Relations Board to launch an investigation into the incident. The OAG issued a statement: It is disgraceful that Amazon would terminate an employee who bravely stood up to protect himself and his colleagues. At the height of a global pandemic, On Feb. 14, Chris Smalls and his colleagues publicly protested the lack of precautions that Amazon was taking to protect them from COVID-19. Chris Smalls was fired. In New York, the right to organize is codified into law, and any retaliatory action by management related thereto is strictly prohibited. At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling and are deeply concerned about their safety, this action was also immoral and inhumane. The Office of the Attorney General is considering all legal options, and I am calling on the National Labor Relations Board to investigate this incident. In November, Smalls filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of African American and Latino workers, alleging that Amazon did not follow basic precautions and endangered the health, safety and survival of its workers and facilities. Amazon is asserting in its lawsuit that it has taken "extraordinary, industry-leading measures" to protect its employees from COVID-19, and claims that the AG's office lacked "legal authority to regulate workplace safety responses to COVID-19 or claims of retaliation against workers who protest working conditions." [GN] AMERICAN EAGLE: Bowes Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE BOWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AEO MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-09004-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order: 1. staying case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and 2. directing the parties to submit a joint letter no later than 14 days after the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. The Court said, "The Supreme Court's decision in Facebook will resolve the current circuit split regarding what type of device qualifies as an Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Specifically, the Supreme Court will determine whether the definition of an ATDS encompasses any device that can store and automatically dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a "random or sequential number generator." The answer to that question is "pivotal" to the claims presented in this case and may substantially resolve, or at the very least "shape the progress" of, this case. Moreover, staying this case pending the Supreme Court's ruling will conserve judicial resources. The Court rejects Plaintiff's suggestion that the Court permit discovery to proceed on two supposedly narrow issues but stay "all other proceedings" in the case." American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., also known as American Eagle, is an American lifestyle, clothing, and accessories retailer headquartered at SouthSide Works in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qshCpr at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN SECURITY: Forrester Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA FORRESTER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN SECURITY AND PROTECTION SERVICE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00204-TBR (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. conditionally certify this collective action for unpaid wages, including overtime wages, under Section 16(b) of the FLSA; 2. approving the court-supervised Notice and Consent to Join forms to the Putative Class members; 3. directing the Defendants to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs (Potential Opt-Ins) within 14 days of the entry of the order by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of: "all current and former hourly security employees employed by the Defendants who at any time from December 22, 2017 to the present worked 40 hours or more in a workweek and relieved a preceding shift and/or was relieved by a subsequent shift;" For each such person, the Defendants should include the person's name, job title(s), work locations, last known address, telephone number(s), e-mail address(es), and dates of employment (Roster); 4. directing the Defendants to provide a Declaration certifying that the produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and 5. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZtZaRj at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com AMERITALIA LLC: Status of Pending Bid for Conditional Cert. Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY MARTINEZ, et al., v. AMERITALIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00410 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs file a motion inquiring into the status of the pending motion for conditional certification as it is the Plaintiffs' position that the relief sought is unopposed by the Defendants. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Kimberly Martinez and Desiderio Sarmiento filed a Motion for Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C. 216(b) Court-Supervised Notice and Conditional Certification. The Motion pursuant to the Court's Initial Case Management Order, Defendants had 28 days, or until November 12, 2020, to respond to the Plaintiffs'. The Defendants failed to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion. Local Rule 7.01(c) provides: "Motions to Ascertain Status of Case. At any time, an attorney for any party or any pro se party may file a written motion inquiring as to the status of the case or to pending motions, and may include in said motion a statement of reasons why an expedited disposition of the case or motion is necessary or desirable." Pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(a)(3): "If a timely response is not filed, the motion shall be deemed unopposed except for motions to reconsider for which no response shall be permitted unless ordered by the Court." Ameritalia operates a casual pizza and pasta restaurant with a small grocery selling imported foodstuffs and prepared meals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k2pXxu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina H. Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 851-1776 Facsimile: (615) 859-7033 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lucas E.W. Jerkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA OFFUTT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2323 21st Avenue South, Suite 306 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 802-8912 Facsimile: (615) 334-8259 ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Miners Still Await Silicosis Settlement Payout ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theto Mahlakoana, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that former miners with silicosis -- who spent their adult lives digging for gold in South Africa's mines -- still have not been paid more than two years after a High Court-approved settlement between miners and companies in an historic class action. More than two years ago, the country celebrated the settlement agreement after the landmark class-action suit against nine gold mining companies, forcing them to compensate miners suffering from the insidious respiratory disease. Drawn to Johannesburg and other gold mining towns in South Africa in search of employment in the 1960s and 1970s, many of these former miners have since retreated to their homes in remote villages locally and elsewhere in southern Africa, while others have succumbed to the lung disease. The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group represented AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony, Sibanye-Stillwater, African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti and Gold Fields against the claimants, which reached the historic settlement after almost five years of negotiations. Now, Eyewitness News has learned that the affected miners, facing the inevitability of death, are losing hope of ever receiving justice. The disease usually affects people in jobs where they breathe in dust that contains silica - a tiny crystal found in sand, rock or mineral ores such as quartz. It causes scarring in the lungs, a painful cough, and shortness of breath. Its symptoms show much later than when a person is first exposed to it. Mzawubalekwa Diya hails from the Eastern Cape. He told Eyewitness News in these past two weeks that as an intended compensation receiver, he was no longer concerned about his needs. He explained that the silicosis ravaged his body and he knew the end was near. But he would find peace if, by the time he is buried, there was something to show for his suffering. "What the Trust people have done so far is that they came to the villages and said we must go to a meeting in town. They took our documents and pictures and said we will be paid. We have been waiting ever since," he said. The Tshiamiso Trust is a byproduct of the 2012 class action lawsuit against 30 gold mining companies for failing to take adequate safety measures to protect miners from exposure to the dangerous silica dust. The Trust said it did not call meetings with former mine workers as yet, adding they were concerned there was fraudulent activity in some areas. "There has been a lot of fraudulent activity out there, with people are trying to get money from these sick and poor mineworkers telling them that they can claim on their behalf. We have been on a very big fraud campaign since last year trying to get the message out that please realise no one can claim on your behalf," said the Trust's CEO, Daniel Kotton. After the parties reached an agreement in May 2018, a settlement was approved by the Johannesburg High Court in July 2019. The Trust, formally constituted in February 2020, started setting up operating systems last year. But more than a year after the settlement was reached, no one can say when the first miners will get the little that is due to them. Balakisi Bangumuzi, also from the Eastern Cape, is one of many miners who were not aware at the time of their retrenchments from mines that they had contracted the illness - only to fall ill once they returned home. He worked on the gold belt in Randfontein from the 1970s till 1999 and said he verified that his name was among the hundreds of thousands of former mineworkers eligible for payment. However, with the Tshiamiso Trust yet to issue payments from the R5 billion agreement, which can amount to up to R500,000 per claimant in exceptional circumstances, he wondered if he would live to see the day his family's fortunes turned. "It's hard to put our children through school or do anything, really. We can't even afford to go to the doctor to have the silicosis and other medical conditions we now suffer from . . . [seen to]." Mining activists, including civil society organisation Justice For Miners, have slammed the slow pace of the rollout of compensation payments to former mineworkers who suffer from silicosis, saying this is sending them to their deaths early. Justice For Miners chair Bishop Jo Seoka told Eyewitness News: "The mandate is very clear. The judgment said the harm that has been done cannot be reversed and the trustees must ensure that the settlement is effected to help those who are meant to be assisted with it." Experts, meanwhile, described attempts to understand the depths of the silicosis crisis in the country as amounting to unscrambling a complex entanglement. This was not only because there was very little communication from relevant government and non-governmental institutions but because the victims of the disease were also out of sight. The activists described to Eyewitness News not only debilitating health conditions that hit ex-mineworkers but also dire living conditions as many were unable to take up any form of work due to their weakened health. Ziyanda Manjati has been working with the families of ex-mineworkers since the early 2000s at the onset of preparations for the historic class-action lawsuit that sought to hold mining companies accountable for the suffering endured by their former employees, as a result of silicosis. She says she has seen it all. "Most of these families don't have money to go to the medical doctors. Yes, we do understand that silicosis is incurable but there are ways, at least medical treatment, that they can use because most of them who are suffering from silicosis are also suffering from TB. In order to prevent those instances, the claimants - if they were consulting medical doctors now and then - at least they will be able to get the correct medication to make the illness better and avoid suffering from TB." Her plea is for the Tshiamiso Trust to do its work, saying that the Trust should be proactive in the tracking and tracing of the beneficiaries so that the gap of criminals posing as middlemen can be eliminated. "Payments can be faster than they are already trying to do. Its almost two years after the trust was formulated. What they do each and every time is that they say the Trust did, says this . . . We feel that the judgment that was done in the High Court is not what Tshiamiso is doing on the ground." Janet Kahn has lived in Welkom most of her adult life. There she and her husband, who is a doctor in the mines, have also witnessed how the illness ravages healthy bodies of workers who had no idea that signing up for jobs to put food on their families' tables would ultimately cost them their lives. She spent many years working to ease their pain - helping with compensation applications and educating them about the incurable disease that had riddled their lungs. "It's a progressive disease. The families watch their loved ones progressively getting weaker and sicker and battling more and more to breathe. It has material implications because they are no longer earning a salary. If they come from non-South African countries - there is no real security in terms of security pension," she said. Kotton explained to Eyewitness News last week that it would be rolling out payments to the former mineworkers in the coming months - adding that it had to ensure that extensive systems were in place to ensure the process was carried out as per the Trust's deed, which has specific stipulations on how the process can be carried out. "There is a big misunderstanding that ‘I have now submitted my claim and why am I not being paid' but it's a step-by-step process and we need to have all those sets of big infrastructure in place for us to process the claims," he said. The Trust will be paying out a maximum of R250,000 to the ex-miners, while those with the most severe cases of silicosis can be paid up to R500,000. [GN] BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the putative antitrust class action suit related to IV solutions sales have not taken an appeal from the district court's decision dismissing the case. In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on November 9, 2018. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARREN DUNCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; AND TENKOZ INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00158 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by impairing competition in the retail sales market for seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides ("Crop Inputs"), and by excluding electronic platforms from competing in that market, the Defendants have artificially raised the prices paid by farmers for Crop Inputs, and ultimately the prices paid by consumers for farm products, including corn and grain. Allegedly, the Defendants' conduct in boycotting and preventing electronic platforms from competing in the retail sales market for Crop Inputs lacks any procompetitive justification. Moreover, the harm to competition and the resulting antitrust injury, suffered by both farmers and other consumers of Crop Inputs, more than offsets any procompetitive justifications the Defendants may offer, the suit adds. Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides, traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Leigh M. Perica, Esq. Connor P. Lemire, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 North Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com lmp@mccunewright.com cpl@mccunewright.com -and- Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com BEACH PIZZA: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Small v. Beach Pizza, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis entered an order granting unopposed motion to withdraw plaintiff's motion and terminating plaintiff's motion to extend class certification deadline and allow class discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Beach Pizza was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[CC] BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Moore Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company. The case is styled as Robyn Moore, Gabrielle Stuve, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00183-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is a baby food company that is owned by the Swiss branded consumer-goods firm Hero Grou.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONAL PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton on Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (917) 983-9321 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com BLUEBIRD BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 13 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BLUE Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-form?prid=12878&wire=1 SWI Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=12878&wire=1 OTGLY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12878&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE) BLUE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 11, 2020 - November 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-form?prid=12878&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, bluebird bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI) SWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 18, 2018 - December 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=12878&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SolarWinds Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY) OTGLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12878&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CD Projekt S.A. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://www.zlk.com [GN] BMW FINANCIAL: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAWLINGS, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Case No. : 2:20-cv-02289-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Parties pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), jointly agree and ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the FLSA collective action and providing notice to the putative class. The Parties agree to conditional certification of the following collective pursuant to the FLSA: "All nonexempt associates at BMW Financial Services' office in Hilliard, Ohio during the period of June 29, 2017 to present, who were required to boot up their computers, log into Citrix and have the toolbar open prior to the scheduled start of their shifts and who worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks." The Parties further agree that granting conditional certification moots previously filed motions by the Parties. The Parties will jointly submit a proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms to be authorized by the Court no later than February 19, 2021. If the Parties cannot agree on the contents of the Notice Packet, they will submit their respective positions on the disputed issues on February 19, 2021. BMW Financial provides financial services. The Company offers leasing, retail, and wholesale financing services, as well as offers credit card solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M7yhQ1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: 614-573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Marc J. Kessler, Esq. HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP 65 E. State St., Ste. 1400 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 233-5168 Facsimile: (614) 221-5909 E-mail: mkessler@hahnlaw.com - and - Steven E. Seasly, Esq. Ann E. Knuth, Esq. 200 Public Sq., Ste. 2800 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 274-2234 Facsimile: (216) 241-2824 E-mail: sseasly@hahnlaw.com aknuth@hahnlaw.com BOOHOO GROUP: Fighting Proposed $100MM Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Bayliss Wong, writing for Forbes, reports that fashion is not what it used to be. Rewind only five or six years ago, when we had just passed the peak of the fast fashion explosion. Boohoo had recently gone public, snapping up eCommerce upstarts Pretty Little Thing and Nasty Gal, adding gasoline to their online growth. Established fashion giants were turning their Fashion Week venues into stage shows, with Chanel displaying its latest collection in a giant airline terminal and Tommy Hilfiger building an entire indoor mini-beach, complete with boardwalk. Now, this whole model is under intense scrutiny. The whole industry is under a review of conscience, with consumers opening their eyes to the sustainability problem. Last year, Boohoo was battling allegations of modern slavery and now fighting a proposed $100 million class action lawsuit. The fashion industry itself has resolved to change its operational mode, with the declaration of Rewiring Fashion and updating industry practices to suit today's digital age. Finally, throw in a global pandemic and a switch to remote working, and even the context for wearing fashion has changed. With no social contact or special occasions, many of us haven't worn anything that buttons up at the waist for some time, let alone make decisive fashion choices when it comes to buying and wearing "an outfit." So what does this mean for the future of fashion? The pandemic has highlighted the reliance of certain industries on face-to-face contact and social occasions. Whilst the more obvious affected industries lie within leisure and hospitality, fashion is still far from unaffected. Even more interesting, the challenge that fashion faces is a combination of two contrasting consumer sentiments. Wear it once -- but also -- buy less. Clothing utilization is on the decrease across the globe. According to the Ellen McArthur Foundation, the average number of times a garment is worn has decreased by 36% compared to 15 years ago and even more so in high-income countries. In a world where we see each other more online than face-to-face, an emerging 'wear it once' culture is being bolstered by the rise of style-conscious social media users. Pre-pandemic, stories were rife of Instagram influencers buying items once for an outfit photo, before returning them again. Take aside the growing pressures of keeping your social media "fresh," it is the months of limited contact that have led us to acknowledge that most of the items in our closet have barely been worn. Whilst trying to break from the monotony of a Zoom-friendly top with sweatpants below, many consumers are also lacking an 'occasion' to dress up. At the same time, people also want to buy less. We know consumer spending has been hit due to Covid-19 but, even pre-pandemic, buying patterns were also moving towards extending the life cycle of clothing. According to Lyst, searches including sustainability related keywords increased 75% year on year. In response, industry giants like H&M have responded with conscious collections, in-store recycling points and even the launch of COS Resell marketplace. However, although these are great initiatives, all of these still encourage a linear model of consumption and a continued purchase in some form. Is it possible to own more outfits, without creating more? One of the fashion disruptors aiming to solve that question is By Rotation, a social fashion rental app where users can rent their own luxury clothes and accessories to other fashion lovers. With a combination of reduced store access and increasing sustainability awareness among consumers, the pandemic has actually increased business for the company, which was founded in 2019 by Eshita Kabra. By Rotation ticks a wealth of boxes for conscious consumers, satisfying both the 'wear it once' phenomenon, whilst also giving users a chance to reduce their impact on fashion production, spend less AND earn their own money whilst doing it. "We've created a social network for people to monetize and share their style and wardrobes with each other," says Kabra. "Our community has thoroughly enjoyed staying connected with us through our marketing channels and they've also become far more conscious about sustainable and circular fashion. We've seen a rise in user acquisition and listings growth on a shoestring marketing budget." With big social engagements and weddings currently on pause, one may wonder if there is a business case for rental outside of occasion-wear but with British consumers spending nearly £800 million on single-use wedding outfits alone, both the cost and conscious element should not be underplayed. At By Rotation, it's evident there is still a market for outfits, not limited to weddings. "Given the range of contemporary and designer labels listed by users on the app, many rentals have actually been occurring for smaller occasions such as dinners, birthdays, interviews or even a walk in the park!" says Kabra. The social nature of the app adds an extra level of service to the user experience, with individuals often able to respond to tailored requests, such as sending items on the same day. The online dynamic between users also improves discovery for "rotators," who often follow and rent from the same person multiple times -- essentially a perfect style and size match. The convenience and personalization elements make a clear case for digital retail and it's no coincidence that digital-first players were trading 35% higher, on average, than they did in December 2019, with locked-down customers turning to digital devices to shop. It's not just the services that are shifting toward digital Renting and sharing clothes is one idea, but what if the clothes don't exist in real-life at all? Don't worry, I'm not talking about an Emperor's New Clothes situation but actually the concept of digital fashion. Digital fashion is essentially virtual clothing using 3D software to build a true-to-life garment that can be visualized and simulated to look and move like real clothing. Whilst you can't physically wear it -- it currently leans more towards the category of digital art -- there appears to be a genuine market for it. In 2019, Forbes reported The Fabricant's sale of the "Iridescence" dress, which sold for $9,500. The idea of digital fashion has been around for some time, albeit not at these prices. Notorious for spawning innovation, the gaming industry has been unknowingly seeding virtual fashion demand for a while. From the basics of picking your hair color & style of the infamous Nintendo Wii Mii's right through to Apple Memoji's and customizing villagers in Animal Crossing. This has not gone unnoticed in the fashion industry, with an upward trend of fashion brands using gaming and e-sports to market their products through in-game items, skins and wider brand partnerships. Back in 2019, Louis Vuitton partnered with the long-running multiplayer game League of Legends, which included both a physical clothing capsule collection as well as in-game designer skins. A year later, Valentino, Marc Jacobs and Anna Sui all released in-game outfits in Animal Crossing, whilst Givenchy Beauty and Gillette provided in-game beauty customizations. After the success of these early steps into digital fashion, a natural evolution would be to expand the end customer to a wider audience and thus DressX, the first international digital fashion multi-brand retailer, went live in 2020. Founded by Daria Shapovalova and Natalia Modenova, the LA-based brand highlights today's changing purpose of fashion in our lives. With 60 designers on board and more than 700 items available on the platform, DressX have served thousands of orders, all whilst still only in beta. Similar to By Rotation, it provides a solution to both the 'wear it once' culture and the intention to buy less. Customers purchase a digital item and receive a custom image of them wearing it. By purchasing digital fashion, consumers can finally be seen in high-end looks that they otherwise may not have access to, let alone afford. The world of couture fashion normally revolves around a super elite club of less than 5,000 people. DressX gives both 3D designers and traditional fashion brands a platform to sell and distribute digital clothing, whether it's existing digital assets or giving physical designs a new digital life and a new revenue opportunity. The design and production processes can take anything from a couple of days to several months depending on the initial idea, designer experience, and the complexity of the items. Not dissimilar to the construction of a designer couture gown, except with far less waste, energy and air miles. No water is used for the creation or usage of digital fashion, and production of a digital garment, on average, leaves 97% less CO2 footprint compared to the production of a physical garment. The rise of the conscious consumer is certainly something fueling the orders. Modenova says: "For the clients who care about our planet and are striving to decrease the level of pollution created due to overproduction, shopping digital fashion can become a great way to reduce their negative environmental footprint, without giving up the thrill of buying new clothes." When it comes to the final product, the digital design method also removes the constraints of both cost and physics. "The possibilities digital fashion brings for creative expression are endless," says Shapovalova. "Allowing fashion designers to create without any boundaries makes this realm very appealing. Digital fashion is an opportunity to give a second life to clothes which are absolutely unsuited for being worn in our daily lives. While such items could be seen as too bright or expensive for our daily lives in the real world, we can look at the clothes in a completely different way in the digital space." Digital fashion is essentially designed to dress our digital selves - which given the pandemic, are now more prominent than ever. It's no surprise that the majority of DressX customers come from Instagram and other content platforms, like TikTok and Twitter. "We can definitely say that the pandemic made more people grow their online presence and thus made them more prone to using digital fashion for content creation." says Modenova. "We see more social media influencers getting into the topic of digital fashion. Some of them always used traditional fashion for content creation and decided to make a switch to digital with us, while others are coming from a purely digital perspective aiming to secure a niche as digitally-native influencers." The idea of digital-first influencers is certainly not implausible, given that social media has also enabled the the rise of virtual influencers like Miquela Sousa -- a.k.a. Lil Miquela -- Shudu and Noonoouri who have millions of followers between them, and command big paychecks from brands. (Yes, Lil Miquela is not a real person and earned almost $12 million last year.) If the industry can digitize human beings, there's no question that the clothing can't also be digitized but if it's just an image, does this mean this product is only for influencers? Modenova makes a clear differentiation about our online and our offline selves, having already become "the avatars of ourselves" across social media channels, digital messaging and streaming services. This is not just limited to content creators, it's ultimately anyone who's used a face filter and shared the photos. The global augmented reality market was valued at $12 billion in 2020, with consumers expected to spend over $6 billion on this industry that is still far from achieving its full potential. DressX believe that anyone who shares content regularly, anyone with an online brand whether personal, or professional, can become future customers. "We already see more specific cohorts emerging," says Shapovalova. "Digital clothing is especially useful for micro influencers of all kinds -- from language coaches to financial advisors, active travelers, tech people -- they all see the value in digital assets. Micro influencers share content in their social media at least once a week and for each 'public appearance' like this they would need new clothes that could be easily replaced with digital clothes." Gone are the days of wearing a beautiful, expensive and impractical item for an occasion. An outfit that is picture-perfect until the sun goes down, or the wind picks up. Shapovalova also identifies an opportunity for selfie-loving travelers and party-goers. "Instead of packing outfits for every special occasion, they can now travel with the most comfortable and practical basics, make pictures in the most incredible place and still elevate their photos with fashionable digital clothes." Will no-ownership ever become mainstream? DressX are certainly seeing traction -- so much so that they're planning to launch a subscription model shortly, with users making multiple purchases for their digital wardrobe. Pricing is a key obstacle that will be critical to tempt users away from a life-time of physical, unethical fashion -- both for digital purchases and circular sharing. With competitive price points, the concept of a rotating wardrobe can be an every-day occurrence. "It's essential to make our community as socioeconomically inclusive as possible," says Kabra. "There's a reason fast fashion has been able to engage and include people of all backgrounds, and I believe low price points have been vital to their strategy. With By Rotation, we want people to realize and embrace the fact that it's far better to share a higher quality fashion item from someone within our community, as opposed to buying a fast fashion knockoff and/or an item that they will not wear more than 10 times." The digital shift is here to stay but, like traditional retailers, there will be post-pandemic behaviors for these disruptors to address. Consumers may not feel the same about sharing clothes, as they do about sharing hotel towels -- when they are, in reality, the same. The biggest challenge for DressX is that there is no playbook and no rules for digital fashion. "Being one of the pioneers of the digital fashion movement we have to explore the field from scratch. At the same time, this is also the most exciting challenge. To create something completely new, which never existed before, but only lived in our imagination." [GN] BRISTOL-MYERS: Grant of Class Certification in Celgene Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the grant of class certification is pending. Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene Contingent Value Rights and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia. The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims. In December 2020, the defendants sought leave to appeal the Court's class certification decision. No trial date has been scheduled. In April 2020, certain Schwab management investment companies on behalf of certain Schwab funds filed an individual action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action against the same remaining defendants in that action. In July 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in full. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BRISTOL-MYERS: HIV Fixed-Dose Products Related Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to its agreements to develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV, including Atripla and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws. The company (BMS) and two other manufacturers of HIV medications are defendants in related lawsuits pending in the Northern District of California. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' agreements to develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV, including Atripla and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws. The currently pending actions, asserted on behalf of indirect purchasers, were initiated in 2019 in the Northern District of California and in 2020 in the Southern District of Florida. The Florida matter was transferred to the Northern District of California. In July 2020, the Court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss, including dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs' claims as to an overarching conspiracy and plaintiffs' theories based on the alleged payment of royalties after patent expiration. Other claims, however, remain. A trial on the indirect purchasers' claims is scheduled for August 2022. In September and October 2020, two purported class actions have also been filed asserting similar claims on behalf of direct purchasers. Defendants' motions to dismiss and compel arbitration in those matters are scheduled to be heard in February 2021. A trial on the direct purchasers' claims has not been scheduled. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BUONGIORNO BAGELS: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanzetta Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- EMILIANA LANZETTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUONGIORNO BAGELS AND CAFE INC., and GINO LEONE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00797 (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2021) brings this collective action complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress from November 2, 2017 until October 2, 2019. The complaint alleges the Defendants of tip pooling by taking tips and/or gratuities received by him and other food service workers from the Defendants' customers and unlawfully shared it to non-tipped employees, such as the managers and non-service staff. As a result of the Defendants' alleged illegal tip scheme, the Plaintiff and other food service workers were paid less than the mandated minimum wages. In addition, the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff overtime hours worked at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, as well as spread of hours premium pursuant to the NYLL when her workdays lasted 10 or more hours, added the suit. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant failed to provide her with a written notice of her rate of pay and failed to keep proper payroll records as required under the NYLL. Buongiorno Bagels and Cafe Inc. operates as a restaurant. Gino Leone is the owner and operator who exercises control over the restaurant's day-to-day operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 344-9022 Fax: (212) 344-0301 CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Suit Removed from Cal. State Court to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned ass JULIO MAYEN, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-102532, was removed rom the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Feb. 3, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00145-AWI-JLT to the proceeding. Cal Central is located in Shafter, California and is part of the farm support services industry.[BN] Attorneys for Cal Central Harvesting, Inc., are: Thomas E. Campagne, Esq. CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE Airport Office Center 1685 North Helm Avenue Fresno, CA 93727 Telephone: (559) 255-1637 Facsimile: (559) 252-9617 E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Marden, writing for yourcentralvalley.com, reports that the Fresno State lacrosse team began its season on Feb. 14 with a 20-12 loss at UC Davis. The bigger story is the fact that several players are currently suing the university. Five of them are named in a sex discrimination class action lawsuit that was filed on Feb. 12. And what they want is simple: to prevent the sport from being eliminated, and to be treated equally with other varsity teams while the case proceeds. "It is truly sad and disappointing that we have to sue Fresno State to make it comply with Title IX, treat women equally and preserve our team," said co-captain Megan Walaitis in a news release from Bailey & Glasser, LLP. "But we have to stand up for our rights and fight. Fresno State actively recruited us. We love being here and playing. But it's trying to eliminate our team, already treating us like we're not a varsity team and discriminating against women throughout its intercollegiate athletic program." Fresno State announced back in October that lacrosse, men's tennis and wrestling were all being eliminated. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Due Date Extended to April 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, et al., v. CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mezille entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to extend the class- certification deadline. Judge Mezille said, "The plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is now April 2, 2021. The plaintiffs provide good cause for extending the class-certification deadline. The plaintiffs began this action on November 12, 2020. Campus Advantage appeared in this case on December 7, 2020. Shortly after Campus Advantage appeared, the plaintiffs served their first discovery request, which Campus Advantage responded to in late January 2021. Without addressing the merits of what appears to be a possible discovery dispute between the parties, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have diligently pursued this case yet seek additional information to file their motion for class certification. Keeping the plaintiffs to the current class-certification deadline on February 10, 2021, would be inappropriate, particularly as the new Local Rules do not impose the mandatory 90-day deadline." Campus Advantage operates as a real estate investment management firm. The Company provides student housing management, development, acquisition, and consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvRo3U at no extra charge.[CC] CARL M. FREEMAN: Williams Seeks Damages, Public Offering Statement ------------------------------------------------------------------ David H. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carl M. Freeman Communities LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2021-0072 (Del. Ch., January 27, 2021), seeks a mandatory permanent injunction directing Carl M. Freeman Communities, the developer of Bayside, to provide all buyers of units in Bayside with a public offering statement as described in the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and substantial monetary damages and other relief for all homeowners who bought properties in Bayside since 2009. According to the complaint, Carl M. Freeman Communities has not complied with the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act by not providing to the Plaintiff the required public offering statement in violation of Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act. Bayside development consists of single-family homes and multi-family units where Williams is the owner of a Bayside property located in 22104 Seaport Square, Selbyville, Delaware. He purchased his home and property in Bayside on August 29, 2018. Williams claims that Carl M. Freeman Communities continues to allow the sale of new properties in Bayside without providing buyers with the required public offering statement. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Valihura, Jr., Esq. MORTON, VALIHURA & ZERBATO, LLC 3704 Kennett Pike, Suite 200 Greenville, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 426-1313 Fax: (302) 426-1300 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Dismissed as Defendant in Ealy-Simon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE EALY-SIMON and KRISTIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00521 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order that: 1. In accordance with the Stipulation, Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC is substituted as the Defendant for Defendant Change Healthcare Operations, LLC. 2. The class certification previously granted is amended to read: "all similarly situated current and former Patient Services Representatives (PSRs) and similar job titles who work or have worked for Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC at any of its call center facilities at any time during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint through judgment." 3. The Defendant Change Healthcare Operations, LLC is hereby dismissed as Defendant to this action, with leave for the Plaintiffs to later move to add Defendant Change Healthcare Operations, LLC after discovery. 4. The Court approves the opt-in notice and consent to join form. 5. The Court approves the text message notice. 6. The Court approves the other stipulations by the Defendant and the Plaintiffs contained in the Joint Notice: Defendant will provide Plaintiffs' counsel the names, personal email addresses (if available), and postal addresses of potential plaintiffs within 30 days of this Order. If Defendant cannot locate a potential plaintiff’s postal address or personal email address, the Defendant will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel the phone number of the potential plaintiff, if available. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ppJxEZ at no extra charge.[CC] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for En Banc Rehearing in Ong Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in the putative class action suit initiated by Susie Ong has denied the plaintiffs' motion for an en banc rehearing. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against us, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. On March 22, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on October 1, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for an en banc rehearing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CHSLD HERRON: Family Launches Class Action Against Care Home Owners ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Rukavina, writing for CBC News, reports that the presiding coroner at the public inquiry into Quebec's long-term care homes was set deliver a decision on Feb. 16 as to whether the inquiry should proceed as planned. The owners of CHSLD Herron in Montreal's West Island filed a motion Monday to have the inquiry delayed until prosecutors decide whether to lay criminal charges against them. The inquiry was to begin Feb. 15, but the day was taken up with arguments for and against the motion. The lawyer for the owners argued that if the inquiry goes ahead as planned, it would be unfair to her clients, given that Quebec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPC) hasn't made a decision on whether to file criminal charges against them. "The surrounding media attention to be paid during the present public inquiry is likely to create a risk that possible juries will be influenced by the testimony heard during the inquiry," Nadine Touma, the lawyer representing Samantha Choweiri and Andrei Stanica of Groupe Katasa, told the inquiry at the Montreal courthouse. Touma asked the inquiry be delayed until a decision is made. If the request to delay the hearing is refused, Touma asked that the subpoenas for her clients be rescinded or that a publication ban be placed on the proceedings. Families argue against publication ban Lawyers representing families of those who died argued that delaying the inquiry or imposing a publication ban was unnecessary and would make it difficult for their clients to follow along. "Many families don't have the luxury of spending the full 11 days to listen to the virtual meeting, and many of them do not speak or understand French," Patrick Menard, a lawyer representing four of the families, told reporters outside the courtroom. "So the reporting of these proceedings will be a key part of these families getting answers," Menard said. Lawyers for several media outlets including the CBC also argued against the idea of a publication ban, stressing the public interest and the importance of transparency. A lawyer for the DCPC told the inquiry it was hard to say when a decision on charges could be made, but argued the inquiry could proceed without prejudicing a possible criminal trial. After hearing the arguments, the presiding coroner, Gehane Kamel, said she needed time to consider her options, and that she would have a decision at 9 a.m. Tuesday. "This is a decision that has extremely important issues for families and the population," Kamel told the hearing. "I prefer to make a decision that will be informed and well reflected upon," she added. In an opening statement earlier on Feb. 15, Kamel said the inquiry would look at how 47 people died at Herron as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic intensified. Kamel described the conditions in which the people died as "indecent" and "inhumane." The inquiry can be watched live on Microsoft Teams. Staff shortages meant many residents were left undernourished, neglected and stranded in soiled beds. Their families, barred from the home because of public health restrictions, received little or no information about what was going on inside. As part of the inquiry, Kamel will come up with recommendations aimed at preventing such tragedies in future. One family has launched a class-action lawsuit against Herron's owners. It has yet to be approved by the courts. [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Thornton Law Firm on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased CLOV stock or other securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021 or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger, may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover The complaint alleges that Clover Health and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the Department of Justice for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were not driven by its purported "best-in-class" technology but rather misleading marketing practices that targeted the elderly; and (4) a significant portion of Clover's sales derived from an undisclosed relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales. Interested Clover investors have until April 6, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover [GN] CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PHILIP SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNC OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-00023-NDF (D. Wyo., February 12, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver from November 2018 until July 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was compensated by the Defendant on an hourly basis and was paid the same rate for all hours he worked despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a week. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay him proper overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, added the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and/or penalty damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation, pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law, and other relief a may be necessary and appropriate. CNC Oilfield Services, LLC offers oilfield support operations, including transportation of fluids and materials to and from drill sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustin T. Lujan, Esq. LUJAN LAW OFFICE 1601 Capitol Ave., Ste. 310 #A559 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Tel: (970) 999-4225 E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com - and – Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff SELANE PRODUCTS, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Selane Products, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-07834-MCS-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's refusal to cover the Plaintiff's loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit seeks damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the Defendant's contractual breaches, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief: confirming that the Plaintiff's losses are covered, prohibiting the Defendant from denying coverage for losses, and requiring the Defendant to publicly correct misstatements it made and its corporate affiliates regarding the availability of insurance coverage for losses attributable to SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and associated actions and orders of civil authorities. The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the District Court's Order dated February 8, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and Judgment dated February 10, 2021, dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Selane Products, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 21-55123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 16, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Selane Products, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire is due on February 23, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 15, 2021; -- Transcript is due on April 13, 2021; -- Appellant Selane Products, Inc. opening brief is due on May 24, 2021; -- Appellee Continental Casualty Company answering brief is due on June 24, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SELANE PRODUCTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jay L. T. Breakstone, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 466-6500 E-mail: jbreakstone@yourlawyer.com - and - Shaun Hamilton Crosner, Esq. Kirk Pasich, Esq. PASICH LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 313-7860 E-mail: scrosner@pasichllp.com - and - Michael Stephen Gehrt, Esq. PASICH LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690 Manhatten Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 313-7855 E-mail: mgehrt@pasichllp.com Defendant-Appellee CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY is represented by: Geoffrey David Godwin, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 E-mail: david.godwin@squirepb.com COUNTERPATH CORP: Golenkov Balks at Proposed $25.7M Sale to Alianza ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GOLENKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COUNTERPATH CORPORATION, TERENCE MATTHEWS, OWEN MATTHEWS, CHRIS COOPER, BRUCE JOYCE, LARRY TIMLICK, and STEVEN BRUK, Case No. A-21-828751-B (D. Nev., Feb. 2, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and and on behalf of other public shareholders of CounterPath Corporation against the CounterPath Board of Directors together with the Company for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection with Alianza, Inc.'s proposed acquisition of CounterPath. On December 7, 2020, CounterPath and Alianza announced that they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Alianza, through its various subsidiaries, will acquire all the outstanding shares of CounterPath in an all-cash deal (the "Proposed Merger"). Each CounterPath shareholder will receive $3.49 in cash per share for each share of CounterPath common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"), implying an approximate market value of $25.7 million. According to the complaint, the Merger Agreement appears to be the result of a conflicted sales process intended to benefit certain CounterPath insiders, whose end goal was a sale of CounterPath to Alianza. Aliana and CounterPath "were familiar with each other," as the parties entered into a Master Service Agreement on April 11, 2018, pursuant to which Alianza supplied CounterPath with communication services, and, on July 7, 2020, during the purported sales process that resulted in the Proposed Merger, the parties entered into a commercial arrangement, under which Alianza purchased a 36-month software subscription and certain related professional services from CounterPath. On January 22, 2021, in order to convince CounterPath shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, CounterPath filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement (the "Proxy"). The Proxy provides materially misleading information and omits material information regarding the process that culminated in the Proposed Merger and the financial forecasts prepared by the Company's management, the suit says. Unsurprisingly, in light of these material omissions, the Merger Consideration allegedly undervalues CounterPath, given its capitalization on recent trends and strong growth prospects. The $3.49 share price represents a discount from the Company's 52-week high of $5.55 per share and its share price of $5.44 as recently as July 20, 2020, the day the Company announced its financial results for 4Q 2020 and FY 2020. The results for 4Q 2020 reported 42% growth in revenue, a 79% increase in billings, and 25% growth in subscription, support, and maintenance revenue (i.e., recurring revenue) in 4Q 2020, as compared to 4Q 2019. When this growth is combined with CounterPath's 85% reported gross margins, $3.49 per share represents inadequate compensation for CounterPath's shareholders. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to unreasonable deal-protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that all but foreclose potential bidders from submitting a superior offer to acquire CounterPath, including a provision that requires CounterPath to pay Alianza a total termination fee of 1.5 million if the CounterPath Board terminates the Merger Agreement to accept a superior proposal. The special meeting of CounterPath shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is currently scheduled to be held on February 22, 2021. It is imperative that the material information omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith, and fair dealing. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a shareholder of CounterPath. CounterPath CounterPath designs, develops, and sells software and services that enable enterprises and telecommunication service providers to deliver Unified Communications ("UC") services, including voice, video, messaging and collaboration functionality, over their Internet Protocol, or IP, based networks. CounterPath common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker symbol "CPAH". The Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Mark Albright, Esq. Jorge L. Alvarez, Esq. ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4 Las Vegas, NE 89106 Telephone: (702) 384-7111 Facsimile: (702) 384-0605 E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com jalvarez@albrightstoddad.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 DASCOR CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Plumbers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DASCOR CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-80325 (S.D. Fla., February 12, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt plumber/plumber's helper from 2017 until November 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the Defendant, he and other similarly situated plumbers were required by the Defendant to work more than 40 hours a week and to work on call for emergency and after-hours plumbing calls. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they worked by failing to include those overtime hours they worked as compensable time and directing them to exclude from their time sheets, and by automatically deducting time for a meal break, regardless of whether or not the break was taken, the Plaintiff adds. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and other plumbers were deprived of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Dascor Corporation provides plumbing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com DEACON 10: Class of Security Guard Gets Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTWANE CLEMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DEACON 10, LLC d/b/a PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Case No. 1:19-cv-02549-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification; 2. conditionally certifying the following class: "all former and current security guards that were/are paid on an hourly basis and employed by Deacon 10, LLC d/b/a Premier Protective Services at any time between October 30, 2016, and the present." 3. directing the parties to meet and confer, through counsel, regarding the content and form of the Plaintiff's proposed notice to be given to the putative class members and to submit, within 10 days of the date of this Order, a joint proposed judicial notice apprising potential plaintiffs of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to opt-in as parties to this litigation. The Court said, "After considering the relevant case law, the pleadings, and the parties' arguments, the court finds that Plaintiff's position is well-taken. Indeed, the Plaintiff has provided ten declarations, which identify the same policy and practice -- namely, the Defendant's failure to pay its security guards for all hours worked. Moreover, the Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint coupled with the statements in the above-mentioned declarations, specifically aver that Plaintiff is similarly situated to the putative class because the class is comprised of security guards who performed the same or substantially similar job duties. Lastly, the court rejects the Defendant's argument that the class period should be limited to two-years. Consequently, the court finds that for purposes of the Notice, the class period is limited to three years prior to the date the Complaint was filed, which is October 30, 2016. Accordingly, because the court finds that the Plaintiff has made the requisite 'modest factual showing' required at this initial stage, conditional class certification is appropriate." The Plaintiff commenced this purported collective and class action on October 30, 2019, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the FLSA, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had a policy and practice of "not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours they worked and overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendant offers armed, unarmed guards and private-duty police for security needs. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bm87S9 at no extra charge.[CC] DEMOULAS SUPER: Cohen Sues Over False Coffee Advertised Servings ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. DEMOULAS SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10177-IT (D. Mass, Feb. 2, 2021) is a class action suit against against Demoulas for falsely advertising, marketing, and selling certain coffees marketed under the Market Basket brand. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased Market Basket House Blend Medium Roast Ground Coffee (House Blend) and Market Basket House Blend Medium Roast Decaffeinated Coffee (House Blend Decaf). The front of the package prominently described the coffee as "House Blend, Ground Coffee and "House Blend, Decaf Ground Coffee and indicates only that it was a medium roast able to make 79 and 76 cups, respectively, leaving the Plaintiff and fellow consumers to reasonably believe that the coffee contained enough ground coffee to provide 79 and 76 cups. In truth, however, the Products do not have the quantity of servings in the container sold to the consumers and Plaintiff, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that the Products are advertised, marketed, and sold as containing an amount of coffee grounds capable of brewing, respectively, 79 and 76 six fluid ounce cups of coffee, or servings, when in fact the contents of the Products are not capable of brewing anywhere close to 79 and 76 servings. The Products are comprised of ground coffee, provided to consumers for the purpose of brewing cups of coffee. Plaintiff Cohen is currently, and has been throughout the Class Period, a resident of Weymouth, Massachusetts. During the Class Period, Cohen purchased both the House Blend and House Blend Decaf based on the representation and reasonable belief that the Products contained enough quantity to make the advertised servings. Contrary to the representation on its label, however, the Coffee did not contain enough servings, but rather, was able to produce 49% of its advertised servings. Had Cohen known that the Products' labels were materially inaccurate, and that the Products were not capable of brewing its advertised servings, he would not have purchased the products, the suit contends. Demoulas Super Markets Inc. Is a chain of supermarkets broadly specializing in the sale of food and beverages. The Defendant has over 80 supermarkets located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine in the United States, with headquarters located in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. While it has added a variety of food and beverage products to its portfolio, Demoulas has maintained a significant position in the manufacture and sale of coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Longo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. LONGO 177 Huntington Avenue, 17th Fl., Suite 5 Boston, MA 02115 Telephone: (617) 863-7550 E-mail: jtlongo@jtlongolaw.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Michael L. Aaronson, Esq. AARONSON LAW FIRM 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, TX 79912 Telephone: (915) 533-0110 Facsimile: (915) 533-7227 E-mail: mikeaaronson@gmail.com - and - Joel Oster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN 1281 N. Ocean Dr. Apt. 198 Singer Island, FL 33404 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 Facsimile: (561) 688-0630 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Insurance Class Action for $9.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presse Canadienne reports that Desjardins clients can recover all premiums collected for loan, life and disability insurance that were automatically included in the repayment of their student loans. The bank and Option consommateurs reached an agreement of $9.5 million in compensation to end a class-action lawsuit. The consumers' rights organization took Desjardins to court for having imposed an insurance plan on students who began paying their loans, without informing them of this in the six months following the end of their studies. "It's important to ensure consent of people affected before making them pay for an insurance plan," said Sylvie De Bellefeuille, lawyer for Option consommateurs. The deal must be approved by the court on May 13. If it receives the green light, affected people who paid insurance premiums between Aug. 2, 2014, and March 31, 2021, would be compensated 100 per cent of what they paid. De Bellefeuille said for most clients, no action will be necessary to be reimbursed. "It's hard to get a better settlement." Desjardins clients will get the compensation directly into their accounts, while former clients will get a cheque in the mail. To qualify, clients must have taken out a student loan guaranteed by the Quebec government from a Desjardins bank, have received a default repayment agreement, which took effect after Aug. 2, 2014, and whose terms were not modified before the first payment. The insurance premium has to have been automatically added by Desjardins and the client must not have made a claim under the insurance plan. The settlement does not automatically cancel the insurance plan, De Bellefeuille added. In 2017, Desjardins Securite Financière reached an agreement with the Autorite des marches financiers, Quebec's financial regulator, to pay a $1-million fine for this practice. There was no agreement for compensation to clients until now. For details on the settlement, go to option-consommateurs.org. [GN] DYCK-O NEAL: Rana Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Talwinder Rana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated or entities v. Dyck-O Neal, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 30-02021-01177692-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court, State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 17, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00323-JLS-DFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Dyck O'Neal Inc. -- https://dyckoneal.com/ -- operates as a debt collection law firm. The Company focuses on consumer complaints to law firms for debt harassment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake J Lindemann, Esq. Donna Rebecca Dishbak, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC 433 North Camden Drive 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 279-5269 Fax: (310) 300-0267 Email: blake@lawbl.com The Defendants are represented by: David J. Kaminski, Esq. Martin Schannong, Esq. CARLSON AND MESSER LLP 5901 West Century Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 242-2200 Fax: (310) 242-2222 Email: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com schannongm@cmtlaw.com EAGLE LATH: Faces Sanchez-Cruz Labor Suit in Calif. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Lath & Plaster, Inc. The case is captioned as Manuel Sanchez-Cruz vs. Eagle Lath & Plaster, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00293739-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 2, 2021). The case arises from employment-related issues. Eagle Lath is located in North Highlands, California. The organization primarily operates in the Commercial and Office Building Contractors business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com EDWARD D. JONES: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward D Jones And Co LP. The case is styled as Tanya Harris, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edward D Jones And Co LP D/B/A Edward Jones, Case No. 16-2021-CA-000963-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Feb. 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., simplified as Edward Jones -- https://www.edwardjones.com/ -- is a financial services firm headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gentile Angelica Marie, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132-2411 EPCON COMMUNITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stanley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPCON COMMUNITIES, LLC; and ROMANELLI AND HUGHES BUILDING COMPANY, Defendants, Case: 2:21-cv-00597-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Epcon Communities, LLC offering construction of single-story living communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES LLC 1470 Apple Hill Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2715 E-mail: Brian@GilesFirm.com -and- Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ESTIA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $11.7 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that Estia Health will pay $11.7 million to settle a shareholder class action over what the company told investors while having difficulty with an acquisition. After the share market closed on Feb. 15, Estia said it agreed to settle the 2019 class action, which alleged executives did not properly inform the market between August 2015 and October 2016. At the time, shareholders were assured the company was "on track" despite troubles integrating Kennedy Health Care, which Estia bought in late 2015. Shares soared to $7.33 after Estia upgraded its FY16 guidance following the purchase of Kennedy. However Estia then gave a poor FY17 outlook, and downgraded guidance, which sent the share price down by more than 45 per cent. The company will not admit liability as part of the settlement. Estia will report the $11.7 million settlement contribution as an expense in its first-half accounts. Estia said the remainder of the settlement, $37.75 million, was insured. The Federal Court must approve the settlement. Shares closed higher by 3.57 per cent to $2.03. [GN] F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Curphey v. F&S Management I LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05904-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification; -- The Court grants conditional certification for weekly salary No. 1 Managers and No. 2 Assistant Managers at the 12 locations: Avondale, Peoria Avenue, Mesa, 51 st Avenue, Greenway, 19th Avenue, Arizona Avenue, Ray Road, Bell Road, Thunderbird, Baseline, and Kyrene Road; 2. approving the Plaintiff's Notice and Consent forms; and 3. directing the parties to submit a proposed case management schedule within 21 days of the date of this Order. The Court said, "The Plaintiff meets the requirements for the 2 initial stage of class certification with his assertion that Defendants had a policy and practice of deducting pay for partial-day absences. From the substantial allegations before the Court, it is reasonable to infer that Ehab, Hisham, and the Defendant entities utilized the complained of practice throughout all twelve locations and that employees are "victims of a single decision, policy, or plan." The Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify the following classes of individuals: "all current and former individuals employed as No. 1 Managers and/or No. 2 Assistant Managers (or in other positions with similar job titles or job duties), who were paid a weekly rate of pay, and who worked for any of Defendants’ Francis & Sons Car Wash location three years before the Complaint was filed up to the present." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified him and other No. 1 Managers and No. 2 Assistant Managers as overtime exempt under the Fair Labor Standard's act (FLSA's) executive exemption. More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the exemption standard by following a "policy and practice of deducting his pay for partial-day absences." Thus, although he was paid a weekly salary, he claims Defendants failed to follow the salary basis test under 29 C.F.R. section 541.602, he adds. The Plaintiff Kevin Curphey worked first as a No. 2 Assistant Manager and later as a No. 1 Manager at several Francis & Sons Car Wash locations in Arizona. The Defendant entities each own one or more of the 12 car washes located across the Phoenix metro area. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37saK3A at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST STUDENT: Court Won't Allow Extension of Class Status Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge entered an order unlikely to grant further extension absent exigent circumstances on joint stipulation to extend time to file class certification motion and continue class certification briefing. The Court sets a telephonic case management conference for April 2, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. A case management statement following the instructions in the Court's April 24, 2020 order. The Parties enter a stipulation respectfully seeking an order to further continue the deadlines for the class certification briefing schedule as follows: Current New Deadline Deadline Motion for Class February 18, 2021 May 20, 2021 Certification: Opposition to April 15, 2021 July 22, 2021 Motion for Class Certification: Reply to May 12, 2021 August 26, 2021 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: on April 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that the Defendants failed to: (1) provide legally required meal breaks and (2) rest breaks; (3) pay all hourly wages; (4) indemnify; (5) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) timely pay final wages at the time of separation. First Student Management is a professional education consultancy company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3blDFYB at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff Barbara Galvan are: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com nolan@setarehlaw.com Attorneys for the Plaintiff Cynthia Provencio are: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone (310) 432-0000 Facsimile (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendants First Student Management, LLC, Firstgroup America, Inc. and First Transit, Inc., are: David J. Dow, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: ddow@littler.com FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN BERNARDEZ AND TAWANNA PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of a class Plaintiffs of persons similarly situated, v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC D/B/A MEDASSIST, Case No. 3:17-cv-00613-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Filing of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, For Equitable Tolling, and To Sever and Consolidate Missouri Opt-in Plaintiffs' Claims is granted in part, denied in part. The Clerk is directed to file on the docket Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to the Plaintiff's Motion; 2. For the identified opt-in plaintiffs, the Court will toll the statute of limitations from June 19, 2018 until September 12, 2019; 3. The Defendant's Motion to Strike Five Opt-In Plaintiffs Outside the Conditionally Certified Collective is granted in part, denied in part; 4. The Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is denied; 5. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Opt-in Plaintiffs for Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests is granted; and 6. Opt-in plaintiffs Nancy Palma, Tammy Virgin, Deanna Marroquin, Loretta Arguello, Rollace Burton, Gail Greene, Emily Holland, Jamie Marquez, Melissa Monroe, Bridget Morris, Jada Nicholson, Veronica Robinson, and Temisha Tyree are dismissed without prejudice and stricken from this case. The Court said, "The Defendant has not established that the Plaintiffs acted in bad faith, and there have not been repeated failures to cure deficiencies by previous amendments. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs may amend their complaint." In October 2017, Plaintiffs Alan Bernardez and Tawanna Pittman sued Defendant Firstsource Solutions, seeking relief for alleged violations of Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. Three months later, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional class certification of a nationwide collective of "all current and former Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by the Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist at any time during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action through the date on which conditional certification is granted." On September 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part and conditionally certified a collective of: "all current and former Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist in the Durham, North Carolina and Birmingham, Alabama regions at any time from October 4, 2014 through present." In November 2019, Defendant moved to amend its answer to assert an additional defense related to arbitration agreements signed by some opt-in plaintiffs. In March 2020, this Court granted the Defendant's motion to amend to its answer. A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3udPPvh at no extra charge.[CC] FISHER-PRICE: Certification of Classes Sought in Baby Sleeper Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class;" "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bfQWBR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (WD.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class;" "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37gBqo7at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com FISHER-PRICE: Drover-Mundy, et al. Seek to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy, et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class;" "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NBEpAg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00295 (N.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class" (each a "Statewide Class" and, collectively, the "Statewide Classes"); "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The suit involves contract product liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jTu8vD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com FISHER-PRICE: Flores Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Flores v. Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01073 (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class" (each a "Statewide Class" and, collectively, the "Statewide Classes"); "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2N6ffdw no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Gamino Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLO HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00198-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff after knowledge that her personal identifying information has been tracked, collected, and shared by the Defendant to dozens of third parties for targeted advertising and other commercial exploitation, in direct violation of California state laws and without limiting what these companies could do with the users' information. The third parties include Google, LLC; Google's separate marketing service, Fabric (Fabric); Facebook, Inc., through its Facebook Analytics tool ("Facebook"); marketing firm AppsFlyer, Inc. ("AppsFlyer") and analytics firm Flurry, Inc. The Plaintiff contends that personal information was provided to the third parties despite the Defendant promising users that it would keep their health data private. The collection and sharing of her private health data presents an egregious invasion of her privacy. Furthermore, the transfer of data by the Defendant to third parties harmed her by diminishing the value of her personal information and the privacy violation caused when the extracted data is used to target and profile her with unwanted and/or harmful content, the Plaintiff says. Defendant Flo has developed, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed, the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, a mobile application ("app") powered by artificial intelligence that functions as an ovulation calendar, period tracker, and pregnancy guide ("Flo App"). Millions of women use the Flo App, giving Defendant private details of their menstruation and gynecological health in hopes it will aid in ovulation and aid in pregnancy and childbirth. The Flo App is available for download for free in online stores, including Google's "Play Store" and Apple's "App Store." Flo App users also have the option of purchasing subscription plans for a monthly fee. The Flo App is one of the most popular health and fitness apps available to consumers. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the Defendant's unlawful practices and sequester its unlawfully obtained information, an award of reasonable damages for the violations, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com FORD MOTOR: Simmons, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE SIMMONS, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 9:18-cv-81558-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the following Classes: -- Unfair or Deceptive Design Defect Class "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year 2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;" -- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Ineffective Repair) "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year 2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;" -- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Perforation) "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year 2013-2015 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2015 Ford Expedition, or model year 2013-2015 Ford Explorer from a Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;" -- Unjust Enrichment Class "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year 2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a Ford dealership in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania." In this case, each of the Plaintiffs bought a Class Vehicle from a Ford dealer. In each instance, Ford did not disclose -- indeed, it concealed -- the Design Defect before purchase. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Ford liable for other related deceptive and unfair acts and practices as well. In two distinct ways, Ford provided deceptive, unfair, and otherwise unconscionable warranty coverage to consumers. Ford is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bkTrmp at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are: Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert E. Gordon, Esq. Steven G. Calamusa, Esq. Daniel G. Williams, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, Esq. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: rgordon@fortheinjured.com scalamusa@fortheinjured.com dwilliams@fortheinjured.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Michael A. Innes, Esq. Zachary S. Bower, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com minnes@carellabyrne.com zbower@carellabyrne.com - and - Adam m. Schachter, Esq. Brian W. Toth, Esq. GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 728-0950 E-mail: aschachter@gsgpa.com btoth@gsgpa.com efilings@gsgpa.com FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER R. FITZGERALD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER MANUFACTURING LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01004-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): A. Conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective action under Section 216(b) against the Defendant Forest River Manufacturing LLC on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated consisting of the following classes: -- FLSA Piece-Rate Class "All current and former employees of the Defendant who work/worked for the Defendant as non-exempt manufacturing employees in the United States, are/were paid on a piece rate basis, and who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case;" and -- FLSA Deduction Class "All current and former employees of the Defendant who were subjected to one or more wage deductions taken by Forest River on employee pay stubs in at least one workweek when they were worked 40 or more hours during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case;" B. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to all members of the forgoing classes; C. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form informing such present and former employees of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them to opt in to the case; D. Directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days one or two Roster(s) of the foregoing class members including their full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, and personal email addresses. Additionally, directing Defendant to produce such Roster(s) in Excel or similar exportable/importable format if such format is available; E. Directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former class members within 14 days of Plaintiff's receipt of the Roster(s) using the information containing the same; F. Directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the produced Roster(s) fully complies/comply with the Court's Order; G. Directing a Notice Period of ninety (90) days; and H. Providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event that new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees. In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that she and those similarly situated are common victims of a piece-rate wage scheme that results in unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff adds that without providing an agreement, an explanation, or a formula for calculating wages, Forest River paid her and those similarly situated some piece-rate or ambiguous formulaic wage in a circumstance where they (1) worked both productive and non-productive hours; (2) were paid by the Defendant on a piece-rate basis only for their productive hours (e.g., time spent engaged in manufacturing work); and (3) were not regularly paid for their non-productive hours (e.g., wait time and time spent cleaning). Non-productive time consisted of significant amounts of time waiting for their units so that they could perform their manufacturing duties as well as being required to clean. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aDdYUe at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Robi Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com FUSION CONNECT: May 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 15 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Fusion Connect, Inc. (OTCMKTS: FSNN): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED FUSION CONNECT, INC. ("FUSION") COMMON STOCK FROM MAY 11, 2018 THROUGH APRIL 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on May 20, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 705, New York, NY 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $800,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 28% plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $35,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $10,000 in total to Lead Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 8, 2020 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. If you purchased Fusion common stock during the period from May 11, 2018 through April 2, 2019, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Fusion common stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Fusion Connect, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically or postmarked no later than April 29, 2021 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than April 29, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than April 29, 2021, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Ave 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Lead Counsel David Kistenbroker, Esq. Dechert LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 info@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JANUARY 21, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 4 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer M. Langston v. Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01902-VAP-KK (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillip entered an order setting dates as follows: Last date for hearing motions to Aug. 30, 2021 amend pleadings or add parties: Last date to conduct settlement Sept. 13, 2021 conference: Last date for filing motion Oct. 4, 2021 for class certification: Opposition to motion for Nov. 15, 2021 class certification deadline: Reply to motion for class Dec. 13, 2021 certification deadline: Hearing on motion for Jan. 17, 2022 class certification deadline: The Court declines the parties' request to have a magistrate judge conduct the settlement conference, and directs the parties to notify the Court no later than February 25, 2021, of the identity of the private mediator selected. The Court will set further dates, including the trial date, at or after the hearing on the motion for class certification. Gateway Mortgage is one of the largest privately-held mortgage lenders in the country. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OFItQB at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Economic-Loss Suit Must be Filed in April ------------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that deadline for class members to file claims in the economic-loss related suit is April 2021. The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions that were filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) had been economically harmed by one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District). These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC. In August 2017, the Southern District granted the company's motion to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling. That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs' successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies. In September 2018, the Southern District granted the company's motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47 jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27 jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern District held that plaintiffs' conjoint analysis-based damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs' difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas. Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement agreement described below. In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not addressed in the Southern District's August 2019 Opinion and renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages associated with having the recall repairs performed. In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust) reached a settlement agreement to resolve on a national basis the economic loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys' fees and costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs' counsel up to a maximum of $35 million. In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the Class Settlement Agreement. During April and May 2020, the Southern District entered orders granting preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement. In December 2020, the Southern District conducted a final fairness hearing and issued an order granting final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in its entirety. The order granting final approval became final, effective and binding in January 2021. The deadline for class members to file claims is April 2021. General Motors Company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that GM claims that the Bolt EV's 65 kWh battery pack will enable 259 miles of range on a single charge, while the slightly heavier Bolt EUV will have 250 miles of range -- basically the same as the current year model. The original 2018 Bolt had 238 miles of range, but typically got less due to cold weather or other external factors. Neither vehicles' range has yet been certified by US or European regulators. Chevy is also including an active thermal management system that uses coolant to maintain the battery's temperature. Late last year, General Motors was forced to recall over 68,000 Chevy Bolts manufactured between 2017-2019 after several battery fires were reported. Federal regulators are investigating and a class action lawsuit was filed alleging that the Bolt's battery is "prone to burst into flames." According to Jesse Ortega, chief engineer at Chevy, the new Bolts utilize a different battery chemistry that will help prevent future incidents, the same chemistry that allowed the automaker to increase the range from 238 miles to 250 miles. Both versions of the Bolt come with a single-motor drive unit that can deliver 200 horsepower thanks to 150 kW of power, and 266 pound-feet (360 Newton meters) of torque. Like previous models, the new Bolts will have regenerative braking and a one-pedal driving mode that is fairly common among EVs today. The Bolt EUV and redesigned Bolt EV share an architecture, but their designs are unique. No exterior sheet metal parts are shared between the two vehicles, after some owners complained about lackluster sheet metal in previous versions. The EUV is approximately 6 inches longer and will have about 3 inches of extra rear legroom than the Bolt EV. The grille has been tweaked, swapping the dual-tone look of the previous Bolt with a more monochromatic fascia. Chevy is keeping small ventilation panel rather than embrace the completely flat front-end of other EVs like the Tesla Model 3. The Bolt's interior has always been more practical than inspiring, with hard plastic abound. Now the Bolt EV and EUV's interior has been redesigned to include more screens and sensors, mostly to help power Super Cruise's promise of "hands-free" driving. Chevy has even ripped out the Bolt's oft-criticized seats and replaced them with seats that feature a triangular geometric pattern and contrasting color stitching, which the automaker claims is a "premium design that gives a consistent and upscale atmosphere." Not words you typically see used to describe a $30,000 vehicle. The main 10.2-inch infotainment screen is still embedded in the dashboard, but is integrated more seamlessly into the center console than the original Bolt's design. The physical buttons are smoother and less chunky. And Chevy swapped out the gear shifter for a series of electronic buttons to free up more interior space. There's also a new one-pedal driving button that keeps the system active between drive cycles. Other new additions include the light bar in the top of the steering wheel and the infrared sensor on the steering column. These are components of GM's Super Cruise assisted driving system, which uses cameras, radar, and mapping data to allow users to drive hands-free on divided highways. Super Cruise is not a self-driving system, in that it still requires drivers to keep their eyes on the road and engaged enough to be able to take over at a moment's notice. Notably, the Bolt EV and Bolt EUV will only come with the standard version of Super Cruise, not the enhanced version that includes automatic lane-changing. EV charging in the US is a bit of a mess, and while Chevy can't solve some of the more intractable problems, it is doing what it can to make charging a little less of a headache. A dual-level charge cord is included with the Bolt, which Chevy said will eliminate the need for many people to purchase a separate charger for their home. The changeable plug allows customers to plug into a standard 120-volt three-prong outlet for Level 1 charging and a 240-volt outlet for Level 2 charging up to 7.2 kilowatts. Both vehicles are also capable of 11 kW Level 2 charging, but separate charging equipment is required. As an added perk, anyone who buys or leases a Bolt EUV or Bolt EV will get free installation of a Level 2 charger in their home through GM's partnership with Qmerit, a home charger installer. For charging on the go, GM is partnering with public charging station operator EVgo to include over 80,000 public chargers in the My Chevrolet app. But charging times will still be subject to the power levels of each individual charger. When plugged into a normal 120-volt system (ie, most home outlets), the Bolt EV and EUV will only get four miles of range for every hour of charging. Plugged into a 240-volt outlet will get the Bolt to a full charge in seven hours. And a DC fast charger will add up to 100 miles in 30 minutes for both vehicles. Affordability has always been the Bolt's strongest selling point, offering a decent size battery and adequate range for under $35,000. Chevy wanted to ensure the Bolt stayed affordable even as it added new features, like Super Cruise, or leveled up to crossover status, said Steve Majoros, vice president of Chevy marketing. Keeping the price low will help spur EV adoption from its current status of only 2 percent of US sales to upwards of 15-20 percent of the overall car market, he said. "ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles will be around a long time," Majoros said. "But the EV movement is real." [GN] GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Kelly Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA KELLY; and COLE MILLICAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 121277972 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 11, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's manufacturing, distributing, marketing, labeling, and sale of baby food products that contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the baby food products manufactured by the Defendant contain significant dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. The Defendant knew that the presence of toxic heavy metals in its baby food products was a material fact to consumers yet omitted and concealed that fact from consumers, the Plaintiffs say. As a result, the Defendant's baby food products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, the suit added. Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well as offers life and health insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody L. Frank, Esq. FRANK LAW FIRM, P.A. 75 Miracle Mile, Suite 3 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (954) 815-3224 E-mail: cody@codyfrank.com GETWELLNETWORK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA KATHLEEN RICHEY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GETWELLNETWORK, INC., a foreign corporation; SEAN THOMPSON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02205-BEN-BLM (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez entered an order denying joint motion to dismiss as moot. The Court said, "Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the Parties jointly move to dismiss this action without prejudice as to the putative class claims. Having read and considered the Joint Motion submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants, and good cause appearing, the Joint Motion is denied as moot. Although this case was filed as a putative class action, the Plaintiff did not seek class certification, and as such, the Court did not certify the class. Therefore, with no certified class claims having come into existence, any dismissal would not affect putative class members' claims. The Parties may seek dismissal of the only claims currently alive in this case (e.g., Plaintiff's individual claims) by either a court order, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), or without a court order, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)." GetWellNetwork provides healthcare services. The Company offers interactive patient care, clinical practice designing, medical research, and hospital information system integration services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u7JSQo at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Faces Garcia Employment Suit in Cal. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Golden 1 Credit Union. The case is captioned as Alecia A. Garcia, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Golden 1 Credit Union, a California corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00293831-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 3, 2021). The case arises from employment-related issues. Golden 1 is a credit union headquartered in Sacramento, California. Golden 1 currently serves consumers throughout California with more than 70 branches and over 30,000 CO-OP ATMs nationwide. Founded in 1933 as California State Employees Credit Union No. 1, it changed its name to Golden 1 in 1977.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Sullivan, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Shepherd Consumer Class Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACQUELINE SHEPHERD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; BUNGIE, INC.; and ID SOFTWARE LLC, Case No. 719703/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00799 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged material misstatements about Google Stadia online gaming subscription service. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products based in Menlo Park, California. Bungie, Inc. is an American video game developer based in Bellevue, Washington. id Software LLC is an American video game developer based in Richardson, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: William P. Deni, Jr., Esq. J. Brugh Lower, Esq. GIBBONS P.C. One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 613-2000 Facsimile: (212) 290-2018 E-mail: wdeni@gibbonslaw.com jlower@gibbonslaw.com - and – Margaret Esquenet, Esq. Anna B. Naydonov, Esq. FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 E-mail: margaret.esquenet@finnegan.com anna.naydonov@finnegan.com GRAND CANYON: Miller Seeks to Certify Class of University Students ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIANE MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC. and GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00652-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the following class: "all Grand Canyon University students who have been enrolled in an online professional graduate degree or certificate program that is not accredited in the state where they are employed or, if not employed, where they reside;" Excluded from any class or subclass are Defendants Grand Canyon University, Inc. and Grand Canyon Education, Inc., any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest, and the Defendants' legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and employees. Also excluded is this Court and its employees. According to the complaint, all Class members allege losses from the Defendants' improper practice of enrolling students in professional degree programs that are not accredited. The Plaintiff and the entire Class have the same interests in recovering the damages caused by the Defendants' fraudulent omissions and fraudulent and intentional misrepresentations to its students. Therefore, the interests of Plaintiff and Class members are aligned. The Plaintiff can and will adequately represent the interests of the Class. Grand Canyon University is a for-profit, private, Christian university in Phoenix, Arizona. Based on student enrollment, Grand Canyon University was the largest Christian university in the world in 2018, with 20,000 attending students on campus and 70,000 online. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NAQ8PW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com - and - Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 675-8603 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 E-mail: allen@vaughtfirm.com GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Coleman BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIANNA COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2021 CH 00066, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00806 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act including: (1) failure to institute, maintain, and adhere to a publicly-available retention schedule pursuant to Section 15(a); (2) failure to obtained informed written consent and release before obtaining biometric identifiers or information pursuant to Section 15(b); and (3) disclosure of biometric identifiers and information before obtaining consent pursuant to Section 15(d). Greenwood Hospitality Management, LLC is a hospitality management company based in Greenwood Village, Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Simon, Esq. Franklin Z. Wolf, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-8061 E-mail: ksimon@fisherphillips.com fwolf@fisherphillips.com GULFPORT ENERGY: Court Appoints Joseph Rotunno as Lead Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. WOODLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, DAVID M. WOOD, KERI CROWELL, and QUENTIN R. HICKS, Case No.1:20-cv-02357-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order: 1. granting Joseph Rotunno' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approving Kaplan Fox as lead counsel; and 2. staying case as to Gulfport in light of its bankruptcy petition. The Court said, "Because Rotunno has timely filed his motion for lead-plaintiff status, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought, and satisfies the relevant requirements under Rule 23, he is entitled to the presumption that he is the "most adequate plaintiff" to serve as lead plaintiff. Given the lack of opposition to Rotunno's motion, the Court has been presented with no proof that he "will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" or is "subject to unique defenses that render [him] incapable of adequately representing the class." On March 17, 2020, this putative class action was brought under federal securities laws against Gulfport and its top officers. Robert F. Woodley claims to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Gulfport securities between May 3, 2019 and February 27, 2020, and seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws. Gulfport engages in the exploration, development, acquisition, and production of natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pt0wXd at no extra charge.[CC] HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Bredberg Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SALLY BREDBERG; and REBECCA BROMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00758 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2021) is an action arising out of the Defendant's deceptive marketing practices in connection with its sale of Earth's Best rice cereal (the "Product"). According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently advertises its Earth's Best rice cereal as wholesome, safe food to feed to infants and small children. In reality, though, the rice cereal product contains high levels of arsenic, higher than those allowed by the Food and Drug Administration, the suit says. The Defendant allegedly omitted information on the levels of inorganic arsenic in its rice cereal products allowing it to charge a premium by selling the product that the Plaintiffs and the Class believe to be a safe, wholesome cereal to feed to infants and small children, rather than a dangerous, toxic product for which consumers would pay less for or not buy at all. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a natural and organic beverage, snack, specialty food, and personal care products company. The Company's product line include grocery store foods such as organic cookies, cooking oils, sugar free products, kosher foods, snacks, and frozen foods, as well as organic skin, hair, and body products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com -and- Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com HAXTON MASONRY: Jimenez Collective Actions Get Conditional Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JIMENEZ v. HAXTON MASONRY, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-07109-SVK (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and class certification under Rule 23. The Court conditionally certifies the following collective actions: "All hourly workers residing in Arizona who traveled to remote job sites in California from November 21, 2015 to the present"; and "All hourly workers residing in Arizona who were not paid for loading time at the Haxton yard from November 21, 2015 to the present." The Court also entered an order: 1. directing the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed notice by no later than February 26, 2021. 2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the list of potential plaintiffs within 21 days of the date of this Order; 3. certifying the following class: "All Haxton hourly workers residing in Arizona who incurred lodging expenses for work in California from November 21, 2014 to the present;" 4. appointing the Plaintiff David Jimenez as class representative and appointing Granahan Law, P.C. as class counsel; and 5. setting a case management conference for March 9, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. In this Order, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). The Court also finds that class counsel is adequate. The Plaintiff David Jimenez brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated former and current employees against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay wages and overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, failed to pay travel expenses, including rental cars, gas, meals, and lodging, failed to pay all wages when due, and failed to provide accurate itemized statements, a violation under the Private Attorney General Act, and unfair business practices. The Defendant is a concrete and masonry contractor with a main office and work yard in Yuma, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NMw7Wk at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Breast Imaging Errors -------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan D. Assaraf, Esq., of Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on December 14, 2020, Gluckstein Lawyers commenced a class action naming Sudbury's main hospital, Health Sciences North (HSN), and their senior administrators. This class action lawsuit follows the revelation of systemic errors in breast imaging performed at the hospital over several years, including missed cancerous lesions, which have led to near-catastrophic outcomes for patients. A 2018 internal letter obtained by the law firm documents "countless missed lesions" and "overt misreads." The surgeons at the hospital warned of an "overwhelming decline below the standard of care for contemporary breast imaging," which was significantly impacting their ability to manage patients to an appropriate standard. The leadership of HSN, including Dr. John Fenton, HSN's chief of staff and Dr. Evan Roberts, the former chief of radiology, were repeatedly told of the poor quality of breast imaging and the potential for patient harm. They did little to fix the problems. They imposed major roadblocks to quality improvement. Healthcare professionals at HSN seeking to raise concerns in radiology and elsewhere at the hospital were subject to bullying and other punitive action. The hospital did not attempt to notify patients or the community of the quality problems. The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of patients and their family members by Shannon Hayes, a former HSN patient, who alleges that her breast cancer was missed. It would take another year before her breast cancer was diagnosed following imaging performed at another hospital. By then, cancer had spread. She is currently battling metastatic cancer. "There needs to be a fundamental change in the culture of safety and quality at HSN," said Ms. Hayes. "I was outraged to learn that HSN administration knew about problems for months before my imagining was misread but did nothing and kept the problems at the hospital under wraps." The lawsuit seeks compensation for affected patients and a court order requiring the hospital to have all affected breast imaging reviewed by a specialist for errors. The class includes all patients who had breast radiology performed or interpreted at HSN from 2008 until 2020. "I fear that Shannon's story is just the tip of the iceberg," said Jordan Assaraf, Shannon's lawyer. "It is apparent that there have been serious systemic quality problems at HSN which the management have failed to address. Shockingly, a hospital funded by taxpayers would punish whistleblowers rather than taking prompt action to avoid harm to patients. This tragic loss will cause these patients to lose trust in their healthcare institution, which is there to care and protect them at these vulnerable times." The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Bid to Amend Boynton Beach Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to amend the putative class action suit entitled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., has been denied. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc., and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleged that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the class action motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Court's judgment to permit amendment of the complaint, and on November 30, 2020, the Court denied Co-Lead Plantiff's motion. Co-Lead Plantiffs have not appealed the dismissal and denial of leave to amend their complaint. Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California. HFM INC: Brigati Class Action Junked without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BRIGATI, et al., v. HFM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-14208-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order dismissing class action without prejudice. Judge Martinez said, "This case is closed, and all pending motions are denied as moot." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37pyLIV at no extra charge.[CC] HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobby Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Hobby Enterprises LLC d/b/a Megahobby.com, Case No. 1:21-cv-00834 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Megahobby.com -- https://www.megahobby.com/ -- is the USA's largest online hobby shop with over 50,000 products in stock for same-day shipping, including plastic model kits, model railroading, also stocks a wide variety of paints, supplies, detailing sets, and books.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com HOBBYLINC.COM: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobbylinc. com, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Hobbylinc. com, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00830 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hobbylinc.com -- http://www.hobbylinc.com/-- carries over 100,000 hobby products at savings up to 60% including plastic model kits, model trains and railroads, model rockets, arts and crafts and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com HUSKY ENERGY: Class Cert. Schedule in Bruzek Tort Suit Stricken --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasen Bruzek, et al., v. Husky Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00697 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that the remainder of the existing class certification schedule is struck in light of the still-pending motion for class certification and the pending motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Conley said, "after the court has ruled on class certification, we will hold a telephonic conference to re-set the schedule in this case. Discovery may continue during this time." The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Husky Energy is a Canadian-based integrated energy company.[CC] IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOCKE, and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI) LLC, IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD., and IDS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (D.N. Mar. I.), the Hon. Judge Ramona V. Manglona entered a briefing order that: 1. the Defendants IPI respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion no later than Monday, February 15, 2021, and Plaintiff shall file a reply to IPI's Response no later Monday, February 22, 2021; 2. A hearing for this matter will be held on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the Third Floor Courtroom; 3. the Plaintiffs to file a brief discussing whether the 29th putative collective action and class member, Fuat Mert Oztuna, is to be properly considered part of the FLSA collective action and the Rule 23 class action by Friday, February 12, 2021; and 4. The Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on the IPI defendants, and a proof of service thereafter. On November 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated this action against the Defendants asserting three causes of action: (1) a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation; (2) an FLSA retaliation claim; and (3) a breach of contract claim. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs indicated they would seek recovery on the first two claims through an FLSA collective action. The putative collective action was to include at least Turkish individuals. The Complaint did not mention that the Plaintiffs would be seeking to certify a class action based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for their breach of contract claim. Imperial Pacific International Holdings Limited is a Chinese investment holding company. It was founded with headquarters in Hong Kong and originally named First Natural Foods Holdings until it was renamed in May 2014. It is majority-owned by Cui Lijie through her investment vehicle Inventive Star Limited. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aovv2i at no extra charge.[CC] INJURY FINANCING: Puckett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Injury Financing LLC. The case is styled as Myllette Puckett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Injury Financing LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00675-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Capital Financing -- https://injuryfinancing.com/ -- is a nationally recognized Pre Settlement company that stands behind the mission of helping clients when there is financial stress, without taking advantage of their situation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: shkoval@aol.com INTERNET HOBBIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Internet Hobbies, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Internet Hobbies, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00832 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Internet Hobbies -- https://internethobbies.com/ -- is the world's oldest online hobby shop specializing in plastic models, model trains, RC cars and trucks, wooden ships, hobby paints, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Block & Leviton Reminds of April 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockleviton.com), a national securities litigation firm, reminds investors that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) and one of its former executives for securities fraud. Investors who purchased IRTC shares between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021 and who lost money are strongly encouraged to contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website at https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/irtc for information on the case. The deadline to move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff is April 2, 2021. iRhythm Technologies provides wearable biosensor devices to detect and monitor heart arrythmias. On December 2, 2020, iRhythm issued a press release stating that new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician fee guidelines would change how payments for its Zio XT remote cardiac monitoring services would be calculated. On this news, IRTC shares dropped approximately 20%. Then on January 29, 2021, a Baird research analyst noted that Medicare Administrative Contractor rates affecting heart monitors are "way lower" than those published in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. On this news, IRTC shares closed down approximately 33%, wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and has been assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen, located in Courtroom 5 on the 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The case is captioned Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00776-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The class period is August 4, 2020 to January 28, 2021. If you purchased or acquired IRTC shares between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021 and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to this matter, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website at https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/irtc.The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the matter is April 2, 2021. Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: cases@blockleviton.com SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP www.blockleviton.com [GN] ITG INC: Mauthe Has Until July 23 to File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. ITG INC., ITG INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., and M SCIENCE, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01968-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Parties submit a joint stipulation modifying the current scheduling order as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Fact Discovery: Feb. 18, 2021 March 31, 2021 Expert Reports: March 18, 2021 April 21, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Reports: May 19, 2021 Expert Discovery: May 7, 2021 June 9, 2021 Summary Judgment and July 23, 2021 July 23, 2021 Class Certification Motions: ITG was a United States-based multinational agency brokerage and financial markets technology firm aimed at a hedge fund and asset management clientele. A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OSFPHx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Reilly, Esq. SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC 115 N. Jackson St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 556-9222 E-mail: areilly@swartzcampbell.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Jonathan A Piper, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com Counsel for the Defendant ITG Inc., are: Francis J. Earley, Esq. Esteban Morales, Esq. MNTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. The Chrysler Center 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 E-mail: fjearley@mintz.com emorales@mintz.com Attorneys for the Defendants ITG Investment Research, Inc. and MScience, LLC, are: Craig D. Mills, Esq. Patrick D. Doran, Esq. BUCHANAN , INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th St., Ste. 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail: craig.mills@bipc.com patrick.doran@bipc.com JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Status Set for April 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL., v. JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:09-cv-03495-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a briefing scheduling order: Event Date The Defendant's Supplemental March 2, 2021 Brief Addressing Relevant Developments in the Law Since October 2019 (not to exceed 10 pages): The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support March 23, 2021 of Class Certification; The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Defendants' Cross-Motion (not to exceed 35 pages); and Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert: Hearing on class certification April 27, 2021 and summary judgment: Jani-King of California Inc was founded in 1969. The company's line of business includes building cleaning and maintenance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qB0IVI at no extra charge.[CC] JEFFERSON COUNTY: Floyd & Nicholson Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI FLOYD and CHERI NICHOLSON On behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. HON. ANNETTE KAREM, in her offcial capacity as Chief Judge of the Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-DJH (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): "all defendants in forcible detainer actions pending before the Jefferson District Court who have not received notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances to afford them an opportunity to present their objections."" A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3jXooB7at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben Carter, Esq. KENTUCKY EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 222 South First Street, Suite 305 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 303-4026 E-mail: ben@kyequaljustice.org KING CATERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gonzales Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, LUIS GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING CATERING CORP., and KEVIN METZGER, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00763 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from in or around 1998 until in or around August 2020. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked a total of approximately 55 hours per week. However, he was only paid at a fixed hourly rate for all hours he worked, including those in excess of 40 per week. Purportedly, the Defendant denied him of overtime compensation of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 per week. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff with any notice at the time he was hired or at any time thereafter, and with wage statement with each wage payment. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks for all unpaid overtime wages due to them, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. King Catering Corp. provides catering services to businesses in the Long Island area. Kevin Metzger is a person in control of King Catering who exercises significant control of its operations and its employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola Ciliotta, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Ave., Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 460-0047 Fax: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- TROY WILLIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly aggrieved v. KONING & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation; CHRIS KONING, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00819-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime (including double-time) wages; compensation for missed meal and rest periods; and wages at termination and waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. On August 20, the Plaintiff was hired as a general adjuster for Koning & Associates, reporting to Mary Ann Johnson. His compensation was $35 per hour with a "guarantee" of 150 hours per month. He did not meet the monthly hour mark just a few times, and on those occasions the difference between his compensation for hours worked and the 150-hour "guarantee" was "advanced." Said amounts appeared on his wage statements as "pay advances." He alleges that Koning & Associates manipulated client billings to offset the pay advances. The Plaintiff added that Koning & Associates knowingly engaged in a fraudulent compensation scheme that denied adjusters wages to which they were legally entitled. Specifically, he and putative class members created time and expense logs which were submitted to supervisors who, in turn, would make manual adjustments in effort to reduce the amount billed to clients. However, Koning & Associates compensated him and putative class members only for hours billed to clients, not hours actually worked, he contends. Koning & Associates is a multiline insurance adjusting company providing Property and Liability investigations to the insurance, legal, and self-insured.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Corey B. Bennett, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com cbennett@maternlawgroup.com LALA HEALTHCARE: Limon Seeks Vocational Nurses' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- MAJANDRA LIMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LALA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC and CHANTAL TORRAIN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00132 (E.D. Tex., February 11, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for its alleged failure to pay overtime premiums in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a licensed practical/vocational nurse from October 2020 through February 4, 2021. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay her overtime premiums at one and one-half times of her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40. Instead, she only received straight time for all hours she worked in a workweek. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated licensed practical/vocational nurses seeing to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief that may be necessary and/or appropriate. Lala Healthcare Solutions, LLC operates a home health care company that provides patients with nursing care in their homes. Chantal Torrain is the owner and director who exercised managerial responsibilities and substantial control over the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, PC 700 West Summit Dr. Wimberly, TX 78676 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Has Until Nov. 13 to File Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunter v. Legacy Health, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02219 (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge John V Acosta entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order. The current scheduling order is modified as follows: 1. The parties are to complete discovery related to certification of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and decertification of any conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, by October 13, 2021. 2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and the Defendants' Motion for FLSA decertification are to be filed on or before November 13, 2021. 3. The Defendants opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion for Decertification due 28 days after motions for Rule 23 Class Certification and FLSA decertification are filed, which would be December 13, 2021. 4. The Plaintiff's reply in support of Rule 23 certification, and the Defendants' reply in support of FLSA decertification are due on January 14, 2022. 5. The Court delays the setting of a discovery cut-off date related to liability and expert discovery until after resolution of the class and collective treatment questions. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland, Oregon, United States. It consists of six primary-care hospitals, a children's hospital, and allied clinics and outpatient facilities.[CC] LINK FUND: Law Firm Leigh Day to Launch Investment Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Phillipps and Loukia Gyftopoulou, writing for Citywire Selector, report that Neil Woodford is making a dramatic return to investment management with a new fund, less than 16 months after his previous firm collapsed in a spectacular fall from grace. The disgraced manager has reunited with right-hand man Craig Newman to set up Woodford Capital Management Partners (WCMP), which will partner with US-based Acacia Research, to launch a Jersey-based biotechnology fund. 'We're going to rebuild the Woodford investment operation under a new brand,' Woodford told the Telegraph in an interview at the weekend. 'I didn't want what happened to me in 2019 to be the epitaph of my career, I didn't want it to be the full stop. I'm not trying to rebuild an ego, I just felt I wanted to continue to do the things that I believe in.' The new fund will only be available to institutional investors and will hold a number of stocks previously owned by the failed LF Woodford Equity Income fund. Woodford's empire collapsed in October 2019 after he was ignominiously sacked from his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund by administrators Link Fund Solutions. This followed a run of poor performance after a string of bets on illiquid, unlisted companies turned sour, leaving investors unable to withdraw their money for months. At the time of gating, £3.6bn of investor cash was trapped in the fund. 'I'm very sorry for what I did wrong,' he told the Telegraph. 'What I was responsible for was two years of underperformance - I was the fund manager, the investment strategy was mine, I owned it, and it delivered a period of underperformance.' He remains angry with Link for suspending the fund in June 2019 ahead of his sacking, claiming performance would have turned around if he'd been given more time. 'I can't be sorry for the things I didn't do. I didn't make the decision to suspend the fund, I didn't make the decision to liquidate the fund. As history will now show, those decisions were incredibly damaging to investors, and they were not mine. They were Link's decisions,' he said. Woodford highlighted the subsequent performance of several of his former fund's holdings. Synairgen's share price more than quadrupled in one day after the Southampton-based biotech company found a potential Covid-19 treatment, and Oxford Nanopore surged on developing a rapid Covid-19 test. Another holding, Kymab, was bought by Sanofi in a $1.45bn (£1.08bn) deal in January, months after Link had sold the position for a third of its current valuation. Link also came under fire last June for selling a portfolio of up to 19 quoted and unquoted healthcare stocks to Acacia Research, the company Woodford is working with on his new venture, in a 224m pounds deal. Acacia went on to flip some of these stocks, making a £113m profit in just five months. The remaining stocks held by Acacia will form the cornerstone of Woodford's new fund. This portfolio will only be offered to institutional investors, with Woodford saying he now accepts that unlisted stocks are unsuitable for retail funds. It remains to be seen how much money Woodford's new venture will raise, but the fallout from the collapse of Woodford Investment Management will continue to be felt for some time. Solicitors Leigh Day said it is close to formally launching a multimillion-pound class action against Link after securing funding. Leigh Day is one of five law firms looking to obtain compensation for investors in the fund. Harcus Parker was said to be close to going live with its claim, also against Link, at the end of last year. Other law firms are considering pursuing claims against Hargreaves Lansdown, which was a heavy promoter of the Woodford fund. Slater and Gordon and RGL Management are both looking into class actions against the broker, with Midlands-based Nelsons considering claims against both Link and Hargreaves Lansdown. The Financial Conduct Authority is also conducting a probe into the fund's collapse, looking both into Link and its depositary Northern Trust. Investors still trapped in the failed fund may have to wait several more months for a final payout as Link oversees the sale of assets left in the mandate. [GN] MARS INC: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages Over Child Slavery --------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Rose, writing for stuff, reports that Mars, Nestle, Hershey, and other companies are all being sued for child slavery after eight young adults claim that they were used for slave labour on their cocoa plants on the Ivory Coast. According to The Guardian, the young adults are all from Mali and seek damages for "forced labor and further compensation for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress" when they were children. This also marks the first time a class-action lawsuit is being filed against the cocoa industry in a United States court. It is also believed that this case is only one of many instances of child abuse and slave labour in the industry. The Ivory Coast is responsible for 45 per cent of the world's cocoa supply and has long been linked to human rights abuses, structural poverty, low pay, and illegal child labour. The court papers also say that the plaintiffs claim that they sustained injuries from machete accidents while working at the farms and that the farms knowingly profited from their labour without their knowledge at the time. One of the companies in question being sued, Cargill, released a statement responding to the lawsuit, saying it has no tolerance for child labour in cocoa production. "We are aware of the filing and while we cannot comment on specifics of this case right now, [the company wants] to reinforce we have no tolerance for child labor in cocoa production," the statement read. "Children belong in school. They deserve safe living conditions and access to good nutrition." Nestle also released a statement saying the lawsuit "does not advance the shared goal of ending child labor in the cocoa industry" and added, "child labor is unacceptable and goes against everything we stand for. Nestle has explicit policies against it and is unwavering in our dedication to ending it. We remain committed to combating child labor within the cocoa supply chain and addressing its root causes as part of the Nestle Cocoa Plan and through collaborative efforts." [GN] MATTEL INC: Barton Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class;" "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving contract product liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LUEnmG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MATTEL INC: Black Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03209 (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class"; "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rXRaEm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MATTEL INC: Nabong Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nabong v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class"; "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3psaqs7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MATTEL INC: Shaffer Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes as follows: "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice. These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the "Washington Class"; "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Class"); and "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the "Nationwide Purchaser Class");" -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various state law consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep, during the relevant period. 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class Representatives as follows: Class Name Proposed Class Representative(s) New York Class Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra Mulvey Arizona Class Emily Barton Arkansas Class Melanie Nowlin California Class Karen Flores and Megan Kaden Colorado Class Daniel Pasternacki Florida Class Jena Huey Iowa Class Nancy Hanson New Jersey Class Joshua Nadel Pennsylvania Class Rebecca Drover Washington Class Katharine Shaffer Nationwide Class Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer, Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and Renee Wray Nationwide Purchaser Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra Class Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel, Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis, Linda Black, and Katherine Shaffer; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover, there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the Plaintiffs add. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NCyuva at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are: Demet Basar, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are: Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MDL 2979: Consolidation of Four Actions in N.D. Texas Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION BUSINESS EXPENDITURES LITIGATION (MDL 2979), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order denying the motion for centralization of four actions in the Northern District of Texas. This litigation currently consists of four actions pending in three districts: "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. JAMES, Case No. 1:20-00889 (N.D.N.Y.);" "DELL'AQUILA v. LAPIERRE, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-00679 (M.D. Tenn.);" "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. ACKERMAN MCQUEEN, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:19-02074 (N.D. Tex.);" and "ACKERMAN MCQUEEN, INC. v. STINCHFIELD, Case No. 3:19-03016 (N.D. Tex.)" The Panel said, "The differences in these actions also extend to their procedural postures. The two Northern District of Texas actions are less complex and, therefore, likely to resolve sooner without the added burden of additional parties and proceedings. Discovery currently is set to close in Stinchfield this month and, as to the claims against the Ackerman parties in Ackerman, this June. Trials in both actions are set for 2021 -- Stinchfield in May and Ackerman in September. In contrast, while discovery was set to close in Dell'Aquila in August 2021, trial in that action was not scheduled until approximately one year later." The Panel continued, "The NRA's recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing is likely to further impact the disparities in progression among these cases. The Middle District of Tennessee has stayed and administratively closed Dell'Aquila and the Northern District of Texas has closed the counterclaims against the NRA in Ackerman pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362. We have held that where, as here, "only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.". And parties should attempt informal means of coordination "before resorting to Panel intervention." There are just four actions pending in three districts, and proponents have not demonstrated any attempt at informal coordination or transfer via other means before seeking Section 1407 centralization." The NRA claims there exist "other, related actions that are likely to be removed to federal court." But it appears the New York state court enforcement action will remain in state court, as that court recently denied defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The Panel has been "disinclined to take into account the mere possibility of future filings in [its] centralization calculus." The NRA and the Ackerman parties each are represented by common counsel in all actions in which they are parties, and the Stinchfield defendant is represented by counsel affiliated with the NRA's counsel. This "should facilitate informal coordination of this relatively small number of actions," the Panel added. The National Rifle Association (NRA) -- the plaintiff in two actions and defendant in a third -- moves under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Texas or, alternatively, states in its reply brief that it is unopposed to centralization in the Northern District of New York. The Defendant in the Northern District of Texas Stinchfield action supports the motion. All remaining responding parties oppose centralization, including (1) the New York Attorney General, who is defendant to the Northern District of New York action; (2) plaintiffs in the Middle District of Tennessee action; and (3) the Ackerman parties, who are defendants in one Northern District of Texas action and one of which is plaintiff in another. A copy of the MDL Panel order dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37rmWlt at no extra charge.[CC] METRODATA SERVICES: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed in Wentworth ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WENTWORTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. METRODATA SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00594-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order: 1. denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; 2. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on the question of whether Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1681e but denying otherwise; 3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Certain Affidavits. The Court said, "The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages must be dismissed because the Plaintiff has not produced evidence to substantiate his claim that Metrodata's conduct was "willful, wanton, and reckless." However, the Plaintiff has introduced evidence that could permit a factfinder to conclude that Defendant's actions “raised the 'unjustifiably high risk' of violating the statute necessary for reckless liability." The Defendant has acknowledged that, for an unknown reason, the preparation of Plaintiff's consumer report did not comply with Metrodata's standard procedures. The audit trail of the Plaintiff's consumer report indicates that a Metrodata employee approved the Insta-Crim search results for inclusion in Plaintiff's report in less than one minute. Despite the severity of reporting two felony convictions in a consumer report prepared for employment purposes, the Defendant did contact the Polk County Clerk of Courts to verify the two felony convictions reported by Insta-Crim. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Defendant's nonadherence to any procedures -- reasonable or strict -- in the course of preparing a consumer report that included criminal record information was so "objectively unreasonable" and reckless as to render its violations of the FCRA "willful” within the meaning of section 1681n. Consequently, the court denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages." The Plaintiff Wentworth has sued the Defendant Metrodata on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Plaintiff filed his first motion for class certification on May 24, 2019. The court denied that motion without prejudice on July 29, 2019, the giving Plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion for certification after the parties completed more discovery. Between the filing of the Plaintiff's first motion for class certification and the court's July 2019 order, both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed a motion to strike certain affidavits submitted in support of the Defendant's motion. The parties agreed that the court should defer deciding on the motions for summary judgment until after it ruled on the renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification on March 11, 2020. On November 9, 2020, the court granted class certification for a claim under 15 U.S.C. section 1681c and denied class certification for a claim under 15 U.S.C. section 1681k. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ugyMZh at no extra charge.[CC] MG FREESITES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Child Sex Trafficking ----------------------------------------------------------- ANE DOE #1; and JANE DOE #2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MG FREESITES, LTD, d/b/a "PORNHUB"; MG FREESITES II LTD; MINDGEEK S.A.R.L.; MINDGEEK USA, INCORPORATED; MG CY HOLDINGS LTD; MINDGEEK CONTENT RT LIMITED; 9219-1568 QUEBEC INC. d/b/a MINDGEEK; MG BILLING LTD, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00220-LSC (N.D. Ala., Feb. 11, 2021) alleges Defendants' violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"). The Plaintiffs assert that they are victims and survivors of childhood sex trafficking who had videos and images of their childhood sex trafficking sold and distributed on Websites owned, operated, managed and controlled by the Defendants. The Defendants have allegedly victimized and exploited this child sex abuse material for profit. The Defendants created, organized, and disseminated images and videos on their Websites that depict child sexual abuse, often referred to as child pornography. Each of these images and videos are crime scenes Defendants monetized, the suit says. MG Freesites, LTD, d/b/a "Pornhub" owns and operates pornographic Websites, including video sharing and adult film production. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Zarzaur, Esq. THE ZARZAUR LAW FIRM 2332 Second Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 E-mail: gregory@zarzaur.com -and- Joshua P. Hayes, Esq. PRINCE GLOVER HAYES 701 Rice Mine Road Tuscaloosa, AL 35406 Telephone: (205) 345-1234 E-mail: jhayes@princelaw.net -and- Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7056 E-mail: kadams@levinlaw.com -and- Brian Kent, Esq. Gaetano D. Andrea, Esq. Jill P. Roth, Esq. M. Stewart Ryan, Esq. Alexandria MacMaster, Esq. LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP 1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 399-9255 E-mail: bkent@lbk-law.com gdandrea@lbk-law.com jroth@lbk-law.com sryan@lbk-law.com amacmaster@lbk-law.com -and- Benjamin W. Bull, Esq. Peter A. Gentala, Esq. Dani Bianculli Pinter, Esq. Christen M. Price, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER ON SEXUAL EXPLOITATION 1201 F Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 393-7245 E-mail: lawcenter@ncose.com -and- Kevin Dooley Kent, Esq. Mark B. Schoeller, Esq. Joseph W. Jesiolowski, Esq. CONRAD O'BRIEN PC Centre Square West Tower 1500 Market Street, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100 Telephone: (215) 864-9600 E-mail: kkent@conradobrien.com mschoeller@conradobrein.com jjesiolowski@conradobrien.com -and- Louis C. Bechtle, Esq. CONRAD O'BRIEN PC Centre Square West Tower 1500 Market Street, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100 Telephone: (215) 864-9600 E-mail: lbechtle@conradobrien.com MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Hailey Class Action ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROME MENDEL HAILEY, v. BOGOTA, et al., HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH, Case No. 2:20-cv-12584-MAG-AP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order: 1. summarily dismissing actions; 2. denying the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief; 3. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 4. denying the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. The Court said, "The Plaintiff moved for class certification, alleging that at WCC, mentally ill prisoners are humiliated and degraded, improperly held in restraints or in isolation for "months, and some even years," and denied many privileges and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the majority of prisoners are heavily medicated, if not over-medicated. Though the Plaintiff's allegations are concerning, he has not alleged that he has been subjected to most of these deprivations, especially not for a duration of months or years. As a result, his claims are not typical of the claims of the class, and he is, therefore, not an appropriate representative party. Further, pro se prisoners are not considered proper class representatives. Consequently, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied." The Plaintiff Jerome Hailey, currently confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges deprivation of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments based on the conditions of his confinement at the Earnest Brooks Correctional Facility and the Woodland Correctional Facility. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the revocation of the Defendants' professional licenses, and monetary damages. He has also filed motions seeking injunctive relief, class certification, and appointment of counsel. In his complaint, the Plaintiff challenges the allegedly unconstitutional conditions of his confinement at the Earnest Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) and the Woodland Correctional Center (WCC). The Plaintiff names as defendants Heidi Washington, the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), and the following WCC staff members: (i) Mental Health Unit Chief Bogota, (ii) social worker Sheets, (iii) social worker Ferguson, (iv) psychologist Dinsa, (v) social worker Campbell, (vi) law librarian Meanance, and (vii) Warden Jodi D'Angelo. The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United States. It has 31 prison facilities, and a Special Alternative Incarceration program, together composing approximately 41,000 prisoners. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZwPx4a at no extra charge.[CC] MOONSHADOWS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moonshadows, et al. The case is styled as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moonshadows, a California limited partnership; Moonshadows Malibu, Inc., a California corporation; Does 1-10, inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-01407-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moonshadows -- http://www.moonshadowsmalibu.com/-- is a contemporary American cuisine restaurant located in Malibu California, serving lunch, dinner, and weekend brunch.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAT MASSRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action and granting final approval of their class settlement agreement, on behalf of the following class: "all persons to with an address in Kings County, New York to whom the Defendant sent an initial collection letter between August 13, 2018 to August 13, 2019 to collect a debt allegedly owed to Lenox Hill Hospital and "all medical providers who may be associated with Lenox Hill" containing the language "In the event that you do not dispute the amount shown above and if you feel that you have coverage through an insurance carrier, please complete the below form and return to us." The Court previously considered the terms of the Agreement in entering the Order, which are as follows: (a) Settlement Class Recovery. MJRF will create a class settlement fund of $8,215.00 (Class Recovery), which the Class Administrator, First Class, Inc. will distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement. (b) Relief to Plaintiff. MJRF shall pay Plaintiff an additional $1,500.00 in recognition of her service to the Settlement Class. On August 13, 2019 the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed the class action lawsuit, which alleges that MJRF violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending consumers written collection communications that were deceptive and overshadowed the Plaintiff's validation rights. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP is a debt-collection law firm. A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dkEiUR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Arleo, Esq. ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C. 380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (888) 646-0055 E-mail: RArleoESq@gmail.com NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Opening Brief To be Filed by March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Second Circuit entered a schedule for plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief to be filed by March 31, 2021. On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties' positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second Circuit's decision. After letter briefing on this issue and plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file a second amended complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied plaintiffs' request to amend and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims. On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order denying plaintiffs leave to amend, and on January 13, 2021, the Second Circuit entered a schedule for plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief to be filed by March 31, 2021. NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common stock." NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the development of various antisense therapies to address genetic diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders. NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr Pharmaceutical. NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. continues to defend a class action entitled, Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA. On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase, and Merger Sub, captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA. The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Ohr Acquisition or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action. NeuBase said, "Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm the Company's business and the value of its common stock." NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the development of various antisense therapies to address genetic diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases caused by mutant proteins, including Huntington's disease and myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders. NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr Pharmaceutical. NEW YORK CITY: Rosenfeld Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE ROSENFELD and VINCENT GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TARA LENICH; CITY OF NEW YORK; LU-SHAWN M. THOMPSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF KENNETH P. THOMPSON; ERIC GONZALEZ; MARK FELDMAN; WILLIAM SCHAEFER; BRIAN DONOHUE; WILLIAM POWER; MICHAEL DOWLING; JOSEPH PIRAINO; and ROBERT KENAVAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-12583-MAG-APP 1:18-cv-06720-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order: 1. granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, preliminary class certification, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the proposed notice procedures and class administrator; and 2. adopting the Plaintiffs' proposed schedule of events related to the Fairness Hearing and will hold the hearing by videoconference on September 23, 2021. Settlement Agreement: -- The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "all persons or entities, including the Class Representatives, whose wire or electronic communications with Stephanie Rosenfeld's personal cellular phone and/or with Jarrett Lemieux's personal cellular phone were intercepted using the [wiretap] system at the Kings County District Attorney's Office during the Class Period." An "entity" (non-human) belongs to the Settlement Class only if the human person who used the entity's phone number cannot be identified. Stephanie Rosenfeld and Jarrett Lemieux are not included in the Settlement Class. -- The Agreement calls for the $3.2 million award to be distributed among class members based on the number of each member's communications that were intercepted, according a system of "Award Units". -- The minimum value of an Award Unit is $756, and the maximum value is $1,000, depending on how many class members in each category submit timely claims. Thus, every class member will receive at least $4,536 and no more than $15,000. The Plaintiffs Danielle Rosenfeld and Vincent Garcia bring this putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of themselves and all other persons or entities whose communications were illegally wiretapped by Ms. Lenich over a period spanning June 2015 to November 2016. The Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to statutory damages under Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, known as the Wiretap Act. After previously reaching a settlement agreement with Ms. Lenich, Plaintiffs have now agreed to settlement terms with the City and the Individual City Defendants. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3se8jdg at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK TIMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York Times Company. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The New York Times Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01406 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The New York Times Company -- https://www.nytco.com/ -- is an American mass media company that publishes the The New York Times newspaper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com NEW ZEALAND: Settles Kiwifruit Growers' Lawsuit Over Psa Disease ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Komorek, writing for fruitnet.com, reports that after almost 11 years, a resolution has been reached in the litigation between The Crown and New Zealand's kiwifruit sector over the 2010 incursion of the kiwifruit vine disease, Psa. The plaintiffs, Strathboss Kiwifruit, representing a group of kiwifruit growers, and Seeka, a post-harvest operator, and others, have agreed to accept a Crown offer of NZ$40m, which includes a significant contribution from the Crown's insurers of NZ$15m. The plaintiffs had brought a claim for NZ$450m plus interest. The claim related to actions taken by the then Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and pre-dates the establishment of the Ministry for Primary Industries. Ministry for Primary Industries director general Ray Smith said all parties agreed it was time to move on and bring a close to the legal challenges that have been running since 2014, when the claimants filed against the Crown for what they alleged was actionable negligence in allowing Psa into the country. "This payment to settle is a sensible one on a per head basis given the number of claimants in the class action, and their legal and litigation funder costs," said Smith. "But the settlement acknowledges the grievance felt by the kiwifruit sector plaintiffs." Smith said settling now confirms the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal. "In its decision of April 2020, the Court of Appeal found it would not be fair, just or reasonable to make the Crown legally responsible for losses of this kind, and that therefore, no legal duty of care was owed by the relevant MAF staff to the plaintiffs. The staff were protected by a statutory immunity, as was the Crown." The claimants had appealed this ruling in the Supreme Court. The agreement means this hearing will now be vacated. Smith noted the settlement gives immediate financial certainty for the Crown and avoids a complex Supreme Court hearing and then needing to wait for the Court's decision which could take some time. "It is good that all parties can now move on from this event which goes back 11 years," commented Smith. "Since that time, much work has been done to enhance and improve the way we manage pre-border risk, import processes at the border and incursions that inevitably occur. "New Zealanders can have confidence in our current biosecurity system," concluded Smith. [GN] NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The case is styled as Autumn Chamberlain, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00281-JEJ (M.D. Pa, Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NRA -- https://www.nragroup.com/ -- is an accounts receivable management company that has been successfully providing debt collection services, skip tracing and credit bureau reporting to America's leading companies for over thirty years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com NU CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Murillo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO MURILLO v. NU CONNECT GROUP LLC; RENE PINEDA; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV04244 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to compensate for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to pay overtime pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff started working for Nu Connect Group from September 21, 2020 through October 25, 2020 as a Sales Representative/Customer Service. During his employment tenure, he was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and earned approximately $15 per hour. His schedule was Monday through Friday, 8am to 6pm, he says. It is Plaintiff's position that Nu Connect has violated numerous Labor Code Sections against him and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, who include all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for Nu Connect in the State of California at their various locations during the relevant Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) period. The Plaintiff is to recover compensation for all hours worked but not paid by the Defendants for the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. As a proximate result of the Defendants violations, he has been damaged in an amount according to proof at time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court, he contends. Nu Connect is a local, minority owned marketing company based out of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 NYP HOLDINGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYP Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NYP Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01407 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NYP Holdings, Inc. -- https://nypost.com/ -- operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers online sports, entertainment, metro, business, fashion, and real estste information services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com OMNIMAX INT'L: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN L. DAVILA as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OMNIMAX INTERNATIONAL, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation; EURAMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:18-cv-02069-TJH-SP (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule and trial schedule in light of ongoing class certification discovery efforts and the COVID-19 pandemic. 1. The Class Certification Briefing Schedule is continued as follows: Deadline for Initial Expert Disclosure: June 8, 2021 Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: July 20, 2021 Deadline for filing Motion for Class July 6, 2021 Certification: Deadline for filing Opposition to Aug. 17, 2021 Class Certification: Deadline for filing Reply Brief Sept. 7, 2021 in support of Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 25, 2021 Certification: 2. The Trial Briefing Schedule is continued as follows: Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: April 11, 2022 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: April 11, 2022 Last Date to Hear Motions: June 14, 2022 Deadline to Complete Settlement June 14, 2022 Conference: Trial Filings (First Round): Sept. 6, 2022 Trial Filings (Second Round): Sept. 13, 2022 Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 17, 2022 Omnimax manufactures building and transportation products. The Company offers coated coils, metal wall and roof systems, metal and vinyl rain carrying systems, roofing accessories, aluminum and vinyl windows and doors, patio products, recreational vehicle doors, and aluminum bath and shower enclosures. Euramax is a global producer of architectural copper, cladding, patio, roof and lawn drainage, snow retention, windows and transportation products for original equipment manufacturers, distributors, contractors and home centers worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZoZj8w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy Rusche, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9662 Facsimile: (310) 551-8303 E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com PAPA JOHN'S: Briefing Date for Class Status Bid Set for July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY HATMAKER, et. al., v. PAPA JOHN'S OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00146-TMR-SLO (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington entered an amended preliminary pretrial order as follows: a. Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines -- Defendants' Expert: April 1, 2021 -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert May 15, 2021 (if any): b. Deadline for Completion of Expert Witness Depositions -- Defendants' Expert: June 1, 2021 -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert June 15, 2021 (if any): c. Briefing Schedule for Motion for Class Certification -- Plaintiffs' Moving Brief: July 1, 2021 -- Defendants' Opposition Brief: August 1, 2021 -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: September 1, 2021 Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ne8ztJ at no extra charge.[CC] PEARL RIVER: Underpays Production Workers, Perez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ MERCY PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEARL RIVER PASTRY, LLC, JOSEPH KOFFMAN and MARTIN KOFFMAN, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-01259 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid production worker from in or about 2017 to January 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly compensate her and other similarly situated production workers for all hours they worked and for hours they worked over 40 hours per workweek at the applicable overtime rate. This resulted due to the Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of shaving their production workers' time and then paid their wages only for the shaved hours instead of their actual hours worked. The Plaintiff further assers that the Defendant failed to pay her and other production workers "on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned." Instead, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide them with a written notice upon hire, she added. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated production workers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover all unpaid wages and an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted y law, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Pearl River Pastry, LLC operates a commercial bakery in West Nyack, New York. The Individual Defendants were active in the day-to-day management of the Corporate Defendant, including the payment of wages of their employees and determining what wages were paid to them. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berridge v. Pediatric Home Healthcare, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01025 (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order on Feb. 11, 2012 denying motion to certify class without prejudice. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. PHH is a private duty nursing agency.[CC] PEOPLECONNECT INC: Misappropriates Photos in Website, Loendorf Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA LOENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CLASSMATES MEDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00610 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2021) is a class action complaint against Classmates for willfully misappropriating the photographs, likenesses, images, and names of Plaintiff and the class. The Plaintiff alleges that Classmates willfully use those photographs, likenesses, images, and names for the commercial purpose of selling access to them in Classmates products and services; and willfully uses those photographs, likenesses, images, and names to advertise, sell, and solicit purchases of Classmates services and products without obtaining prior consent from her and the class. Classmates' business model relies on extracting personal information from school yearbooks, including names, photographs, schools attended, and other biographical information. Classmates aggregates the extracted information into digital records that identify specific individuals by name, photograph, and other personal information, and stores those digital records in a massive online database. Classmates provides free access to some of the personal information in its database to drive users to purchase its two paid products -- reprinted yearbooks that retail for up to $99.95, and a monthly subscription to Classmates.com that retails for up to $3 per month -- and to get page views from non-paying users, from which Classmates profits by selling ad space on its website, the suit says. The Defendant sells its products on its website: www.classmates.com. Upon accessing Classmates' website, the public-at-large is free to enter the information of a particular school. After entering this information, any public user of Classmates' website is provided with a listing of search results. Each search result corresponds to a school of which Classmates sells their yearbook service. These search results provide a limited, free preview of Defendant's service. The Plaintiff discovered that Classmates uses her name and photo in advertisements on the Classmates website to advertise and/or actually sell Defendant's products and services. The Plaintiff believes that it is reasonable for others to identify her because Defendant's advertisements include accurate details about her as well as her photograph. Indeed, she can confirm that the individual Defendant identified in paragraph is herself. The Plaintiff never provided Classmates with consent to use any attribute of her identity in any advertisement or for any commercial purposes. She is not and has never been a Classmates customer. She has no relationship with Classmates whatsoever, she added. Classmates Media Corporation operates an online social networking site and loyalty marketing services. The Company, through its website enables users to locate and interact with acquaintances from school, work and the military. Classmates also operates an online loyalty marketing service. PeopleConnect is a full-service executive search firm specializing in the high tech, clean tech, and scientific industries. PeopleConnect is the parent company of Defendant Classmates Media Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Dominick Larry, Esq. NICK LARRY LAW LLC 8 S Michigan Ave, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (773) 694-4669 Facsimile: (773) 694-4691 E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court, Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PINECREST BAKERY: Andres Gamboa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GAMBOA And other similarly situated employees v. PINECREST BAKERY, LLC, PINECREST BAKERY CORPORATION, JOEL RODRIGUEZ, GLADYS VALDES, Case No. 20700634 (Fla. Cir., Dade Cty., Feb. 2, 2021) is an action by the Plaintiff and other opt in similarly situated employees for damages exceeding $30,000, excluding attorneys' fees or costs, for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a non-exempt chef employee from January 1, 2017 through July 23, 2019. He alleges that Defendant had or should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by him. He worked approximately 72 hours a week without overtime compensation paid by the Defendants. He performed cooking duties as his primary duty normally working 12 hours shifts and spending over 8 hours a day cooking food for the Defendant. He would also spend additional time performing other manual duties and spent over 80 percent of the work hours on manual tasks weekly, he adds. Pinecrest Bakery is a 24 hour Cuban-American bakery chain in South Florida. The Defendants Joel Rodriguez and Glades Valdes are a corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the activities of corporate Defendants Pinecrest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com PRECISION 2000: Employee Collective Wins Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN SERVANDO GARCIA-ROBELO, EDUARDO GARCIA-ZAVALA, GILBERTO GARCIA-ZAVALA, HUGO PEREZ-ZAVALA, and SALVADOR MARTINEZ-BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. PRECISION 2000, INC., CASA PROPERTIES, LLC, GUIOMAR OBREGON, individually, CARLOS FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, individually, and MAURICIO LANCHEROS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-02841-MLB-JKL (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge JOHN K. Larkins III entered an order granting the joint motion for conditional certification and stay of discovery. The Court conditionally certifies a collective group defined as: "All current and former employees of Precision 2000 within the three-year period before the [Notice mailing date], who were subject to housing deductions, or who were not reimbursed for inbound travel costs, or outbound travel costs, and who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section." The Court further ordered that: -- the Defendants shall, within 21 days of this Order, provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel all available mailing addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers, and any other available contact information for members of the collective, in a computer-readable format; -- the Plaintiffs' counsel shall, within five business days from the delivery of the information, then send the Notice and the Consent to Join Form, in the form submitted to the Court by the Plaintiffs (including a Spanish translation to be completed by Plaintiffs and certified by a neutral third party to be an accurate translation), by email and SMS text or WhatsApp message to all individuals within the Collective group; -- directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall also post the Notice and Consent to Join form to the websites and Facebook accounts maintained by their respective firms and listed below with the following neutral language: "Notice regarding lawsuit against Precision 2000, Inc. Click here [link to website with notice and opt-in form] to learn more." https://contratados.org/ https://www.facebook.com/Contratados.org https://www.facebook.com/CDMigrante https://www.buckleybeal.com/; -- If feasible, directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall disable any "share" feature for the notice posting on their firm websites; -- directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide notice to the Defendants that the Notice and Consent to Join forms have been sent by email, SMS text message or WhatsApp message and, if applicable, any Notices and Consent to Join forms mailed by U.S. or Mexican mail within three business days from the date of transmission and/or mailing; -- staying discovery in this action until May 12, 2021; and -- directing the Parties to submit a Joint Report by May 26, 2021 regarding the status of the case, including resolution, and the remaining discovery that needs to be completed in the matter, if any. Precision 2000 provides construction services. The Company offers products and services in civil infrastructure and transportation-related projects, including airports, military bases, roads, pedestrian paths, crossings, intersections, and sidewalks. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sbQVFI at no extra charge.[CC] PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 7 Hearing Set on $21MM Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement regarding the Precision Castparts Corp. Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SUMMARY NOTICE No. 3:16-cv-01756-YY CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE NECA-IBEW PENSION TRUST FUND (The Decatur Plan), and ANN F. LYNCH, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ANGELA LOHMANN REVOCABLE TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK DONEGAN, DON R. GRABER, LESTER L. LYLES, DANIEL J. MURPHY, VERNON E. OECHSLE, ULRICH SCHMIDT, RICHARD L. WAMBOLD and TIMOTHY A. WICKS, Defendants. TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, SOLD, OR HELD PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. ("PRECISION") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 9, 2015, THE RECORD DATE FOR PRECISION'S SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING THE SALE OF PRECISION TO BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. (THE "MERGER"), THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER ON JANUARY 29, 2016 (THE "CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, that a hearing will be held on May 7, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Youlee Yim You at the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, United States Federal Building and Courthouse, 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement1 of the Litigation for $21 million should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.2 IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD PRECISION COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 9, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 29, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF PRECISION COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Precision Shareholder Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43365, Providence, RI 02940-3365, or on the Internet at www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no later than May 6, 2021), or online at www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com no later than May 6, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you purchased or acquired Precision common stock during the Class Period, and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is postmarked no later than April 16, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, or Lead Counsel's request for time and expenses must be received by each of the following recipients no later than April 16, 2021: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION United States Federal Building and Courthouse 1000 S.W. Third Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP A. Rick Atwood Jr. Esther Lee Bylsma 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 BERGER MONTAGUE PC Lawrence Deutsch 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Defendants: CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP Justin C. Clarke 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. DATED: January 15, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning given to them in the Stipulation of Settlement. 2 In light of the outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19), the Court may decide to conduct the Final Approval Hearing by video or telephone conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or video without further notice to the Class. No further notice of such decision will be provided to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Final Approval Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Settlement website, www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Final Approval Hearing. Any updates will be posted to the Settlement website. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Rivka Greenfeld, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00838 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions. The Company offers insurance follow-up, medical debt collections, revenue cycle consulting, skip tracing, and practice management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PROGRESSIVE CORP: Bid for Class Status Must Be Filed by August 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BUFFINGTON, v. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:20-CV-07408-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered a discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: 1. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed by March 1, 2021. 2. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed by February 16, 2021. 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by August 9, 2021. 4. All expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be completed by October 11, 2021. 5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by August 25, 2021. 6. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by October 11, 2021. 7. All discovery shall be completed by October 11 2021. 8. The parties shall file a joint letter concerning settlement/mediation by August 23, 2021. Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company, one of the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The company insures motorcycles, boats, RVs, and commercial vehicles and provides home insurance through select companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZuBHiM at no extra charge.[CC] PURITAN'S PRIDE: May 7 Hearing on Revised Class Cert. Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY L. SHARPE, MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, JAY D. WERNER, and EVA KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. (formerly known as NBTY, INC.), a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Calif.), the Parties stipulated and agreed that: -- The defendants' opposition to Revised Class Cert. Motion and Daubert motion shall be due on March 19, 2021; -- The plaintiffs' reply in support of Revised Class Cert. Motion and Opposition to Daubert motion shall be due on April 16, 2021; -- The Defendants' reply in support of Daubert Motion shall be due on April 30, 2021; and -- The hearing on the Revised Class Cert. Motion and Daubert motion shall be on May 7, 2021. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvVglr at no extra charge.[CC] Founded in 1973, Puritan's Pride was established to provide customers with vitamins. The attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are: Tina Mehr, Esq. VISION LEGAL, INC. 4712 E. 2nd Street, Suite 840 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (877) 870-9953 Facsimile: (877) 348-8509 E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com - and - William Hansult, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT 1399 Ramona Avenue, No. C Grover Beach, CA 93433 Telephone: (805) 489-1448 E-mail: HANSULTLAW@AOL.COM - and - Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 911-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com The attorneys for the Defendants Puritan's Pride, Inc. and The Nature's Bounty Co., are: James F. Speyer, Esq. E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: james.speyer@apks.com alex.beroukhim@apks.com QUICKEN LOANS: Hearing on Class Status Denial Bid Set for March 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00989 (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order setting a joint hearing on New Penn Financial LLC's related motion to deny class certification and scheduling conference for March 4, 2021. The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Quicken Loans is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[CC] QVC INC: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay CSRs' OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ LANITA ADAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, INC., Defendant, Case No.2:21-cv-00646 (E.D. Pa., February 11, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between June 2019 and March 2020 as a customer service representative at the Defendant's Chesapeake, Virginia customer service call center. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate her and other similarly situated customer service representatives (CSRs) for the time they spent starting and logging into computer systems, applications, and phone systems, which takes approximately 10-20 minutes before her shift start times. This unpaid work is an integral and indispensable part of their principal activities and the Defendant arbitrarily failed to count it as "hours worked" by the Plaintiff and other CSRs. As a result, despite working in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, they were not paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation for all their overtime hours at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by its CSRs, the Plaintiff contends. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Customer Services Representatives employed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, statutory liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys' fee, costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. QVC, Inc. operates call centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com - and – Michael Fradin, Esq. 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and – Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC Th Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Certification Bid by June 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA S. SAYLOR, individually and as representative of the classes, v. REALPAGE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-13768-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Pretrial factual discovery will expire on March 8, 2021; -- All pretrial discovery shall be concluded by that date. 2. Discovery Applications; -- All discovery applications pursuant to L. Civ. R. 37.1(a)(1) shall include an Affidavit or Certification that includes the information identified in L. Civ.R. 37.1(b)(1); 3. Depositions; -- All depositions are to be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the order of Judge Gawthrop, in Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D.Pa. 1993); 4. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R.CIV.P.26(a)(2) on behalf of plaintiff shall be served upon counsel for defendant not later than March 3, 2021; -- All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R.CIV.P.26(a)(2) on behalf of defendant shall be served upon counsel for plaintiff not later than April 28, 2021; and -- Depositions of proposed expert witnesses shall be concluded by May 19, 2021; 5. The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification no later than June 11, 2021; -- Opposition to the motion should be served in a timely fashion; and 6. Any application for an extension of time beyond the deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons necessitating the application showing good cause under F ED . R. C IV.P.16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the application. RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides property management software for the multifamily, commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dlnlte at no extra charge.[CC] RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Due August 12 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peer v. Rick's Custom Fencing and Decking, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01155 (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order adopting the Parties' proposed deadlines as follows: 1. Class certification expert witness disclosures due by May 13, 2021; 2. Class certification rebuttal expert witness disclosures due by June 10, 2021; 3. Discovery, file all pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) and 15; and join all claims, remedies, and parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 and 19 to be completed by July 15, 2021; 4. Class certification motion due by August 12, 2021; 5. Dispositive motions are due 30 days after the Court's decision on the class certification motion; 6. Expert disclosure, joint ADR report, and pretrial order due 30 days after the ruling on dispositive motions; 7. Expert discovery cut-off 60 days after the ruling on dispositive motions; and 8. Trial to be determined at a later date. The nature of suit states civil rights – employment. Rick's Custom retails building materials. The Company offers decks, benches, fences, pasture, patio covers, pergolas, gates, and other lumber materials. Rick's Custom Fencing and Decking serves customers in the States of Oregon and Washington.[CC] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Siruk Sues Over GME Stock Trading Control -------------------------------------------------------------- PETRO SIRUK and MARINA SIRUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00415-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., February 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' removal of GameStop Corp. (GME) stock from their Web-based application in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors, including the Plaintiffs, of the ability to invest in the open market. The Plaintiffs and Class members allege that the Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the stocks in their trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN] SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT d/b/a CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO, an educational institution; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00851-AGT (N.D. Calif., Feb. 3, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's Website, https://www.ccsf.edu/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a legally blind, visually impaired, handicapped person, and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. San Francisco Community College District is a California educational institution with its headquarters located in San Francisco, California. The Defendant's servers for the Website are in the United States. The Defendant conducts a large amount of its business in California. The Defendant's campus constitutes a place of public accommodation. The Defendant's Website provides consumers with access to an institution that stylizes itself as a leader in innovation, personal freedom, and self-determination. Through Defendant's Website, consumers can access information regarding the CCSF login portal, resources to manage life at CCSF, virtual campus, city online, information about enrolling in English as a second language, employee services, language preferences, applications, centers, admissions and registration, academics, payment options, student services, campus life, about Defendant, and a search query.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com SAUSALITO, CA: Homeless Union Files Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Sausalito, et al. The case is styled as Sausalito/Marin County Chapter of the California Homeless Union, on behalf of itself and those it represents; Robbie Powelson, Sheri I. McGregor, Michael Arnold, Arthur Bruce, Melanie Muasou, Sunny Jean Yow, Naomi Montemayor, Mike North, Jackie Cutler, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated homeless persons v. City of Sausalito, Mayor Jill Hoffman, Police Chief John Rohrbacher, City Manager Marcia Raines, Kent Basso, Dept. of Public Works Supervisor, Case No. 3:21-cv-01143-LB (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Sausalito is a city in Marin County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony David Prince, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY D. PRINCE 2425 Prince Street, Suite 100 Berkeley, CA 94705 Phone: (510) 302-1472 Email: princelawoffices@yahoo.com SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Guilbeau Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- TREVER GUILBEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00122 (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a directional driller and MWD (measuring while drilling) from on or about June 2017 until on or about October 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid on a day rate basis by the Defendant. Although he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for approximately 100 hours, the Defendant failed to pay him overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 during each and every workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the suit adds. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated drillers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking all damages allowed by the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which the Plaintiff and the collective action members may be justly entitled. Schlumberger Technology Corporation provides oilfield drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Guilbeau Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- TREVER GUILBEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00142 (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a directional driller and MWD (measuring while drilling) from on or about June 2017 until on or about October 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid on a day rate basis by the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for approximately 100 hours, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay him overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 during each and every workweek. The Defendant also failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the suit adds. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated drillers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking all damages allowed by the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which the Plaintiff and the collective action members may be justly entitled. Schlumberger Technology Corporation provides oilfield drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net SEPTEM COMA INC: Brady Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------------ James Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Septem Coma Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-at-00077 (E.D. Cal., January 27, 2021), seeks injunctive relief and seeks statutory damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Septem Coma operates as "South Sacramento Care Center," a cannabis dispensary in California. To promote its services, it engages in aggressive unsolicited SMS blasts. On or about April 2020, it sent telemarketing text messages to Brady's cellular telephone number without his permission. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 305-975-3320 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SHAWMUT WOODWORKING: Bonett FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BONETT, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. SHAWMUT WOODWORKING & SUPPLY, INC., d/b/a Shawmut Design & Construction, Case No. 1:19-cv-01125-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Roemer entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification of and court-authorized notice to: "alll Assistants who worked for the Defendant at any period during their second and third rotation of the Construction Management Skills Training (CMST) program and were classified as exempt salaried employees not eligible for overtime pay in the last three years from when the Complaint was filed." Judge Roemer said, "The plaintiff seeks to certify a large, nationwide class of workers based only a declaration containing little more than generalized, conclusory allegations. These unsupported assertions are inadequate as they stand. Accordingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach any additional arguments." Plaintiff Bonett brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals seeking relief for alleged willful violations of the FLSA overtime compensation requirements by the defendant Shawmut Woodworking. Shawmut Woodworking provides construction services. The Company designs and develops hotels, apartments, hospitals, game zones, industrial, and commercial buildings. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OG8uzj at no extra charge.[CC] SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Albright Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSALINDA ALBRIGHT et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00601-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order granting Parties' joint stipulation of dismissal of this action and all of Plaintiffs' individual claims asserted, with prejudice. Ejudge Oliver said, "No class has been certified and no motion for class certification is pending. The Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each bear their own costs." Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3psmnOf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Muzilla, Esq. THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC 2996 Kingsley Road Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 401-8607 E-mail: tom@muzillalaw.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Bryan Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL 205 N. Monroe St. Media PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL 30 N LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael N. Ungar, Esq. Amanda Martinsek, Esq. David D. Yeagley, Esq. ULMER & BERNE LLP 1660 West Second Street, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 583-7000 Facsimile: (216) 583-7001 E-mail: mungar@ulmer.com amartinsek@ulmer.com dyeagley@ulmer.com SIERRA WES: Flores Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ALBERTO MUNGUIA FLORES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SIERRA WES WALL SYSTEMS, INC, California corporation; APEX CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21 CV375758 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 3, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages as well as meal and rest periods premiums in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew or should have known that he and the other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. He further adds that the Defendants failed to provide required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as required under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from December 2014 to May 2020. The Plaintiff and the other Class members worked over eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. Sierra WES is a drywall & insulation contractor in Northern California and Northern Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265—1021 SKANSKA KOCH: Court Dismisses Cortese et al. Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH -- KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ruby J. Krajick entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice; 2. denying the motion for conditional certification; and 3. closing the case. Skanska Koch offers construction related and project development services. The Company focuses on construction of housing, commercial buildings, and roads. A copy of the Court's Judgment dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZrYVGj at no extra charge.[CC] SKANSKA KOCH: Court Tosses Cortese Class Action with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH -- KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice; and 2. denying the motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (the NYLL") against the Defendants. The Defendants move to dismiss the third amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA. The motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice. Because the TAC is being dismissed, the move for conditional certification is denied, the Court says. This case arises out of work performed in connection with the Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project, connecting Bayonne, New Jersey with Staten Island, New York. Pursuant to a 2013 contract (the "Construction Agreement") with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Defendants agreed to serve jointly as the general contractors for the Bayonne Bridge Project. SKKJV allegedly is a joint venture between Skanska Koch and Kiewit formed for purposes of the Bayonne Bridge Project. The Plaintiffs allege that Skanska Koch, Kiewit, and SKKJV constitute "joint employers" under FLSA and the NYLL because they "have an arrangement to share Plaintiffs' services, act directly in the interest of each other on the Project and/or shared control of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees because the Defendants are jointly responsible for completion of the Project as PANYNJ's general contractor." The Plaintiffs are all members of New Jersey-based unions who were employed by SKKJV on the Bayonne Bridge Project. SKKJV is a party to collective bargaining agreements with the employees' respective New Jersey unions. Plaintiff Cortese, who worked as a crane operator on the Bayonne Bridge Project for five months beginning in August 2015, is a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825. The remaining Plaintiffs -- Kearney, Julio, Siciliano, Brooks, and Leyble -- were all ironworkers and members of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 11. The Plaintiffs (the "Iron Worker Plaintiffs") also worked on the Bayonne Bridge Project. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3anebKV at no extra charge.[CC] SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DualSense Drift ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Dealessandri, writing for gamesindustry.biz, reports that law firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Sony regarding the PlayStation 5's DualSense controller drift. The lawsuit was filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of plaintiff Lmarc Turner and "similarly situated consumers." The lawsuit, a copy of which was sent to GamesIndustry.biz, argued that the DualSense controller is "defective" as it suffers from a drift defect, a problem that sees it recording input even when the player is not using it. The issue "compromises the DualSense Controller's core functionality," the document continued, adding that Sony has been made aware of the issues through online consumer complaints. The lawsuit mentioned the case of a player encountering drift issues as early as ten days after their purchase, directly quoting the Kotaku report that unearthed the drifting issues. The lawsuit pointed out that the repair options at this stage are "slim" and also accused Sony of failing "to disclose this material information to consumers" despite being aware of the defect. "As a result of Sony's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of DualSense Controllers, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury in fact, and otherwise have been harmed by Sony's conduct," it continued. "Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Sony's violations of state consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief for damages suffered, declaratory relief, and public injunctive relief." Controller drift has become a prominent issue for every platform holder, with numerous lawsuits against Nintendo across Europe, the US, and Canada, while Microsoft recently asked a US district court judge to force plaintiffs in a lawsuit over defective Xbox controllers to go to individual arbitration. [GN] SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Faces Falls Suit in Central Dist. of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soulbound Studios, LLC. The case is captioned as James Falls v. Soulbound Studios, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021). The suit demand $75,000 in damages involving custom duties: forfeiture -- immoral articles. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Soulbound Studios, LLC is an American video game company, founded in 2015 by Jeromy Walsh.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine Chalhoub Zaouk, Esq. Evan M. Selik, Esq. MCCATHERN LLP 523 West 6th Street Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: czaouk@mccathernlaw.com eselik@mccathernlaw.com SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Marquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled REGINA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2027859, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00252 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay meal period premiums, failure to pay rest period premiums, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices. Southwire Company, LLC is a manufacturer of electrical cables headquartered in Carrollton, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David L. Cheng, Esq. Jamin Xu, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com jxu@fordharrison.com STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Pierce Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00117-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying the Settlement Class, and approving the proposed settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All borrowers whose loans were in default at the time the Defendant acquired the loans or servicing rights and from whom Defendant collected a Pay-to-Pay Fee from February 5, 2019 to February 4, 2020." The Proposed Settlement: -- The Settlement Fund of $40,380 represents 100% of the amount of Pay-to-Pay fees collected by Defendant from February 5, 2019 to February 4, 2020; -- The Separate from the Settlement Fund, the Defendant is paying Administrative Costs, agreed class counsels' fees and expenses, and Plaintiff's class representative incentive award, both of which are subject to court approval; -- The Defendant has also stopped collecting Pay-to-Pay fees from class members after February 4, 2020 and has agreed to additional injunctive relief, under which Defendant has agreed to stop charging Pay-to-Pay fees in all states where class members are located: Alaska, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming until at least five (5) years after the date this Court grants final approval to the Settlement; and -- As such, class members will receive a 100% refund as monetary relief and the Plaintiff estimates that prospective relief will provide class members at least $40,000 per year, for an added benefit of $200,000 additional relief over the five-year period. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 5, 2020 on behalf of himself and all similarly situated borrowers whose loans were serviced by Defendant. The Complaint alleged that the Defendant charged borrowers a $5.00 fee for each online payment in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where the $5.00 fee was not expressly authorized in the Plaintiff's and other class members' uniform mortgages. Statebridge Company is a mortgage loan servicer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37nww8L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kauffman, Esq. Victor S. Woods, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W., Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com vwoods@baileyglasser.com - and - Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. KLIEN & SHERIDAN, LC 3566 Teays Valley Rd. Hurricane, WV 25526 Telephone: (304) 562-7111 Facsimile: (304) 562-7115 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com - and - W. Stacy Miller II, Esq. MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC 2424 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 201 P.O. Box 6340 Raleigh, NC 27628 Telephone: 919-348-4361 Facsimile: 919-729-2953 E-mail: stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Malone Employment Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stoneledge Furniture, LLC. The case is captioned as Velvet Malone vs. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00293722-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 2, 2021). The case arises from employment-related issues. Stoneledge is located in San Francisco, California and is part of the furniture stores industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: scole@scalaw.com SUMMER WWK: Film Crew Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Brennan, Kyle Coleman, Caryn Frankenfield, Frank Galline, John A. Johnston, Dawn Snyder, Fredrick Waff, Cory Geryak and Sara Riney, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Summer WWK LLC, HL Woods and Cherelle George, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00423 (N.D. Ga., January 27, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the laws of the State of Georgia, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are film production crew members that worked on the production of the motion picture entitled "Summer When We Were Kings" produced by the production company Summer WWK, LLC. HL Woods is the Executive Producer and the sole manager of Summer WWK, LLC. Production shut down prior to the start of principal photography. Plaintiffs were not paid for any of the work they performed during the time they were employed. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq. James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq. STANFORD FAGAN LLC 2540 Lakewood Avenue SW Atlanta, GA 30315 Tel: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244 Email: michaels@sfglawyers.com jfagan@sfglawyers.com - and - Robert S. Giolito, Esq. ROBERT S. GIOLITO PC 1626 Montana Ave., Ste 201 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel: (310) 897-1082 Email: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com SUNRISE DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bano Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SAIRA BANO; HUZAIFA HUSAIN; and SHARMEEN BATATAWALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNRISE DOLLAR INCORPORATED d/b/a DOLLAR N THINGS; TARUN SHARMA; and MAMTA TARUN SHARMA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00744 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. Sunrise Dollar Incorporated d/b/a Dollar N Things operates as a convenience store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle T. Pulis, Esq. SCOTT MICHAEL MISHKIN, P.C. One Suffolk Square, Suite 240 Islandia, NY 11749 Telephone: (631) 234-1154 Facsimile: (631) 234-5048 SUNRISE SENIOR: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Audrey Heredia, et al., v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-01974-JLS-JDE (C.D. Calif. ), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs maintain that they made diligent efforts during this time to seek new representatives. First, Plaintiffs argue that Sunrise did not provide a list of putative class members until December 30, 2019. The Plaintiffs drafted communications to class members and began conducting interviews and reviewing documents by March 2020. However, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, such efforts were delayed, and the Plaintiffs were "unable to locate suitable class representatives who had signed the Sunrise arbitration agreement until July of 2020. The Plaintiffs then notified Sunrise of their intent to seek leave to file a further amended complaint on July 17, 2020, and filed the instant motion on August 21, 2020. The Court acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic likely made it more difficult for Plaintiffs to conduct interviews with potential class representatives, particularly in a case involving elderly class members residing in assisted-living facilities. But this does not explain why the Plaintiffs could not have sought an order modifying the Scheduling Order for the same reasons months earlier -- and especially before filing and fully briefing a motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs fail to explain why they could not have sought an order modifying the schedule at a much earlier point, instead of marching forward with their motion for class certification with “blind faith in [the named representatives'] adequacy." The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "all persons who resided or currently reside at one or more of the "Sunrise California Facilities" during the Class Period (June 27, 2013 through the present) and who contracted with Sunrise for services for which Sunrise was paid money." The Sunrise California Facilities consist of 43 assisted living facilities owned and/or operated by Sunrise under the Sunrise name. This is a putative class action arising out of the alleged failure of the Defendants to staff its assisted living facilities at levels sufficient to provide the promised level of care to its residents. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) brings three claims against Sunrise: violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and elder financial abuse. The Plaintiff Amy Fearn is the daughter of decedent Edith Zack, a resident of Sunrise of San Mateo, in San Mateo, California from September 2016 to November 2016. She is a successor-in-interest to the Estate of Edith Zack. The Plaintiff Helen Ganz is a current resident of Sunrise of San Rafael, in San Rafael, California, who moved into the facility on September 30, 2016. Sunrise provides assisted living and memory care for senior citizens and persons with disabilities in facilities across the United States, including California. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZqPaIH at no extra charge.[CC] SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Status Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRON WALLEN, SANJAY SHAKES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. & RICHARD FERNBACH, Case No. 0:20-cv-61690-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court for an order enlarging the time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members. The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Conditional Certification on January 27, 2021. Accordingly, the Defendant's response to the Motion for Conditional Certification is currently due February 10, 2021. The Defendants believe that an extension of two weeks would provide a sufficient amount of time to conduct adequate investigate the claims and issues raised in the Motion for Conditional Certification, the relief sought, and to prepare an appropriate response. The extension would move the deadline to February 24, 2021. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s4WK89 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Stella Chu, Esq. Aaron Reed, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Wells Fargo Center 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-7500 Facsimile: (305) 489-6375 E-mail: areed@littler.com sschu@littler.com SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing several complaints including putative class action complaints in relation to its merger with ChargePoint, Inc. On September 23, 2020, Lightning Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, ChargePoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Switchback entered into a business combination agreement and plan of reorganization, pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged with and into ChargePoint, with ChargePoint surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Switchback. On October 29, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the Business Combination: Bulsa v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No. 655800/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). Separately, on November 6, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a different purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the Business Combination: Bushansky v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No. 656119/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). Additionally, on December 15, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the Business Combination: Ward v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10577 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 16, 2020, a separate complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the Business Combination: Baker v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No. 657063/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). The Complaints name Switchback and current members of the Switchback's board of directors as defendants. The Complaints allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board of in connection with the Business Combination. The Complaints also allege that this proxy statement/prospectus/consent solicitation statement is materially misleading and/or omits material information concerning the Business Combination, including, with respect to the Federal Complaint, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaints generally seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages and awards of attorneys' and experts' fees, among other remedies. Although Switchback believes no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law to address the claims made in the Complaints, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its stockholders, Switchback determined to voluntarily supplement the definitive proxy statement/prospectus/consent solicitation statement as described in a Current Report on Form 8-K, which Switchback filed on February 4, 2021. In connection with the filing of the Form 8-K, each of the stockholders bringing one of the Complaints confirmed that he will voluntarily dismiss his Complaint upon the closing of the Business Combination. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over the handling of the Company's 401(k) Plan. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending the action. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment and, with the exception of one claim, the court has denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and will schedule the case for trial. T. Rowe Price said, "We cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a financial services holding company. The Company provides global investment management services through its subsidiaries to investors across the world. The Company provides an array of Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment vehicles, sub-advisory services, separate account management, recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors, institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unethical Sales Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that a TD Bank teller who spoke out about the pressure to sell customers products and services they didn't need says she feels vindicated now that a class-action lawsuit is underway, shining a light on those allegedly unethical practices. "It makes me know that I did the right thing, coming forward," she told Go Public after learning about the lawsuit. She said she and her colleagues were pressured to make unnecessary sales in order to earn revenue for the bank -- and to hold onto their jobs. [GN] TEMPO RESTAURANT: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Skimming --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Connelly, writing for Buffalo Business First, reports that the attorney for five employees who filed a lawsuit in 2020 against Tempo and its operators has taken a step in pursuit of class action status. Ian Hayes, partner at Creighton Johnsen & Giroux in Buffalo, filed a motion for class action certification on Jan. 25 in state Supreme Court for Erie County. The lawsuit, which was filed on July 16, contended that wait staff and other restaurant employees were cheated out of money and tips, and that they were instructed to falsely tell customers that money collected for an event fee was a gratuity for service. They sought $300,000 in damages. Paul Jenkins, the restaurant's managing partner and head chef, was initially the only defendant aside from the business. In September, owner Mark Hutchinson was added. Their attorney, Kristin Klein Wheaton, partner at Goldberg Segalla, denied the allegations on their behalf in court documents. Tempo, which opened in 2005, closed when Covid-19 restrictions were put in place and has not reopened. Hayes said previously that more than 40 employees could join the class action. [GN] TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class certification in the consolidated putative securities class action suit, is pending. On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation"). On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and October 2020, twenty complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses. The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the plaintiffs' class if one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial purposes. The case is now in discovery. Pursuant to that consolidation order, plaintiffs in several of the "opt-out' cases filed amended complaints on May 28, 2020. On January 22, 2021, the Court dismissed the "opt-out" plaintiffs' claims arising from statements made prior to the five-year statute of repose, but denied Teva's motion to dismiss their claims under Israeli laws. The Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel on June 19, 2020, which the defendants opposed. That motion is pending. Motions to approve securities class actions were also filed in the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel with similar allegations to those made in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motions for appointment for lead plaintiff and selection of counsel in the putative securities class suit related to COPAXONE, is pending. On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020, alleges that Teva and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva's donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE's commercial success and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the above referenced August 2020 False Claims Act complaint filed by the Department of Justice. The securities class action complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The case is in its preliminary stages. Motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of counsel were filed in late November 2020 and remain pending. A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the U.S. litigation, with similar allegations to those made in the above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that more than 3,000 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates. Since May 2014, more than 3,000 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies, tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were recently transferred back to federal district court for additional discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial. Those cases are: City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 14-cv-04361 (N.D. Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Other cases remain pending in various states. In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related to Teva's generic opioid products. In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Furthermore, approximately 700 complaints have named Anda, Inc. (and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate medical purposes. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several states in 2021, unless postponed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for $85 million. The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law for any of the claims or allegations made. As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount within the range to be the most likely outcome. Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 "Accounting for Contingencies." On October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of Ohio. Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will provide the two counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone(R) with a value of $25 million at wholesale acquisition cost and distributed over three years to help in the care and treatment of people suffering from addiction, and a cash payment in the amount of $20 million, to be paid in four payments over three years. Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide settlement framework. The framework is designed to provide a mechanism by which the Company attempts to seek resolution of remaining potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S. states and political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other plaintiffs) thereof. Under this framework, Teva would provide buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an estimated value of up to approximately $23 billion at wholesale acquisition cost over a ten year period. In addition, Teva would also provide cash payments of up to $250 million over a ten-year period. As of January 2021, the Company continues to negotiate the terms and conditions of the framework. The Company cannot predict if the framework will be finalized with its current terms and obligations. The Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes. The current provision remains a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs if the nationwide settlement framework is finalized based on recent discussions. However, if not finalized for the entirety of the cases, a reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows. Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the United States Attorney's office in the Western District of Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids. In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York for documents related to the Company's anti-diversion policies and procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into manufacturers' and distributors' monitoring programs and reporting under the Controlled Substances Act. In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on New York health insurance premiums. Following a Statement of Changes and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS, a hearing is currently scheduled to take place in June 2021. Currently, Teva cannot predict how the nationwide settlement framework agreement (if finalized) will affect these investigations and administrative actions. In addition, a number of state attorneys general, including a coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with respect to opioids. Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the multistate group. Teva is cooperating with these ongoing investigations and cannot predict their outcome at this time. In addition, several jurisdictions and consumers in Canada have initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as those in the United States. The cases in Canada may be consolidated and are in their early stages. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMA: Watson Pharmaceuticals Settles with BCBSM ------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan (BCBSM) reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit. Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches) violated the antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in California and were settled in 2018. The the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm(R) settlement, although in February 2019, FTC dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree. In July 2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of California. On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court relating to the Lidoderm(R) settlement. Defendants moved to dismiss that lawsuit on June 5, 2020, and those motions were granted in part and denied in part on October 16, 2020. In January 2021, Watson and BCBSM reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit. On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court relating to the Lidoderm(R) settlement, which it subsequently amended on June 12, 2020. Teva and Watson have moved to dismiss that amended complaint, and their motion remains pending. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TOP FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY PEARSON and VERONICA ADAMSON On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. TOP FLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT, LTD; FLIGHT CLUB & M ZIN ENTERPRISES, INC.; ABCDE OPERATING, LLC d/b/a PENTHOUSE CLUB; and ALAN MARKOVITZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-10258-PDB-KGA (E.D. Mich., Feb. 3, 2021) is a class and collective action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of other female employees who, during the relevant period of February 2018 through the date of judgment in this case (the relevant period), worked as an exotic dancer at one or more of the Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area Gentlemen's Clubs, and who were classified as independent contractors and were denied minimum wage compensation due and owing under federal and/or Michigan law. The Plaintiffs contend that they and all other exotic dancers worked at each of the Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area Gentlemen's Clubs through sign in or tip-in sheets, DJ records, and shift-managers monitoring and supervising Plaintiffs' work duties and the work duties of other exotic dancers at each club. At no time during the Plaintiffs' period of employment did Defendants ever pay Plaintiffs or any other exotic dancers any wages for hours that Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers worked each week at Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area Gentlemen's Clubs. The Defendants misclassified them and all other exotic dancers as independent contractors when these individuals should have been classified under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Minimum Wage Law as employees, the Plaintiffs add. The Defendants are doing business in the adult entertainment industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com TOYOTA MOTOR: 4-Runners Frame Rot Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------ John Matarese, writing for WCPO, reports that many cars and trucks are covered with road salt this chilly February -- salt that is not good for the underside of cars. In most cases, a car wash removes it, and there is no long-term harm. But for owners of some popular pickup trucks, salt is even more dangerous, because it can destroy their truck's frame. What's worse, though, is that a special warranty extension to replace those frames is running out, and many owners don't know about it until it is too late. Beautiful truck, but rotting underneath Jeanne Middleton's 2004 Toyota Tacoma has been a trusted friend for a decade, its paint still shiny and unblemished. But that all changed in recent weeks, when the Cincinnati woman says, "I heard something almost like a boom." The pickup started swerving, so she took it to a local repair shop and got some bad news. It was something far worse than a bad tire. "They said the frame was cracked, that it was rusted and it was unsafe to drive," she said. Certified mechanic Mike Fehler lifted the truck on a rack in his shop for us, and showed the extensive rust underneath. He believes it needs new frame rails, or the whole truck bed and rear end could fall off. "Basically, where the leaf spring mounts to the frame this is load bearing," he explained. "It is essential what holds the bed onto the truck." He told Middleton he had heard of an extended warranty for this exact issue, but that's where things got even worse. Safety recalls and warranty extensions save lives and save owners money, in this case thousands of dollars in potential frame repairs. But if it is not an NHTSA (government)-ordered safety recall, automakers set a window on them and, typically after 10 or 15 years, will not pay for a repair anymore. That's happened with Jeanne Middleton's truck. "They said there was a limited recall and it expired in 2019," she said. Warranty extension nearing its end for many owners A call to Toyota confirmed that Middleton had just missed the warranty cutoff date. Toyota, in 2016, settled a class-action suit by agreeing to spend $3 billion to repair millions of Tacomas, Tundras, and Sequioa SUV's with rusting frames. Model years affected are from 2004 to 2008 (or 2010 in a few cases). This follows an earlier extended warranty affecting Toyota trucks from 1995-2003. But there's one catch: the program expires 15 years after the date of manufacture. Middlteton never saw a notice. "I had the car in 2019 but did not receive any kind of notification it was expiring," she said. She believes any letter about the warranty extension may have been sent to the previous owner. So don't let this happen to you, no matter what brand vehicle you own. -- Make sure your car's manufacturer has your current address, for any recall or repair bulletins. -- Ask your shop to inspect the underside when you bring it in for an oil change. -- Check your car for recalls at www.recalls.gov to see if you have any outstanding safety issues. All you have to do is enter your car's VIN. -- Some states, like Ohio, now notify you at plate renewal time if your car has an open recall. "I would love to keep my truck," Middleton said. "I am sure it can go another 100 thousand miles." But it now needs a $7,000 frame repair in order to do that. We spoke with a Toyota corporate spokeswoman, who promised that customer service would contact Middleton about some possible options. But she would not promise a free repair, as the campaign ended a year and half ago for her model. A more recent class-action lawsuit claims Toyota 4-Runners can be susceptible to the same premature frame rot, but that case is still pending with no settlement. As always, don't waste your money. [GN] TRU TOP: Wolchko "Robocalling" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as George D. Wolchko, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Tru Top Offer, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and Corey Geary, an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-02506-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23 and Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the case to proceed on behalf of the following class: "all persons within the United States who received an unsolicited call or voicemail from the Defendants or someone acting on Defendants' behalf or direction using an artificial or prerecorded voice without emergency purpose and without the recipient's prior express written consent within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint." In addition, Mr. Wolchko requests the Court leave to take discovery to identify members of the class and determine the amount of damages they are entitled to prior to entry of final judgment. Mr. Wolchko brought this action on behalf of consumers who received unsolicited telemarketing calls or voicemails from the Defendants using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' practice of leaving unsolicited telemarketing voicemails using an artificial voice or a prerecorded message, a practice also known as "robocalling," caused the individuals in the class actual harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The robocalls also inconvenienced and caused disruption to the daily lives of those in the class. The Defendants use this telemarketing scheme on 10 hundreds, if not thousands, of people to obtain their business and as such certification of this case as a class action is appropriate. Tru Top is a real estate investment company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M7aakt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Jesse Vassallo Lopez, Esq. DESSAULES LAW GROUP 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-5400 Facsimile: (602) 274-5401 E-mail: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com jvassallo@dessauleslaw.com TWIN AMERICA: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Mirabel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRABEL, ET AL., v. TWIN AMERICA LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:15-cv-05086-ALC-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter entered a final order and judgment granting the plaintiffs' consent motion to certify class for final class certification, approval of class settlement agreement, class counsel's fees, service awards and administration costs, as follows: A. The Court confirms as final its certification of the Class for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such certification; B. The Court approves the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and certifies the collective class under the FLSA; C. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiffs Mariano Mirabel and William Hylton as representatives of the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); D. The Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of The Law Offices of Anthony Ofodile as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for the collective members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); E. The Court finds that the Notice distributed to class and collective members pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was accomplished in all material respects, and fully met the requirements of Rule 23, the FLSA , and due process; F. The Court hereby grants the Consent Motion for Final Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth in the Revised Settlement Agreement; G. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on Class Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order; H. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted; I. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel $148,573.00 in fees and costs, less than 30% of the Settlement Fund, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable; J. The Court approves and finds reasonable the two service awards for the named plaintiffs Mariano Mirabel and William Hylton each in the amount of $10,000, in recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of the class; and K. The Court approves and finds reasonable the payment of the Settlement Administrator's fees in the amount of $13,466.00, which shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund, according to the terms of the Revised Settlement Agreement. Twin America was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes arranging and assembling tours for sale through travel agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NCKr40 at no extra charge.[CC] TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Related Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit related to the alleged fixing of the rate of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers, is pending. On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement, acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily Earnest. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits were filed by individuals making similar allegations. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and named additional defendants. The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and sustained claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange information against five other defendants. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the impermissible group pleading. On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reasserting their claims. On December 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit in Oklahoma Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, in Oklahoma. On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters, and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied on January 6, 2020. The parties are now conducting discovery in the Oklahoma action. Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and California. On October 6, 2020, the named plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer and consolidate all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On December 15, 2020, the JPML granted the plaintiffs' motion and consolidated all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019. The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court granted on September 28, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suits initiated by turkey purchasers. On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants entered into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans, all with the intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. The company moved to dismiss the complaints, and in decisions on October 19 and 26, 2020, the court partially denied the motions. The parties are now conducting discovery. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Pork Price-Fixing Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of the company's pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The individual complaint has been filed in the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaints, and on October 16, 2020, the court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims. The parties are now conducting discovery. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Buyers' Lawsuit for $221.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Claire Kelloway, writing for Civil Eats, reports that late last month, Tyson Foods agreed to pay $221.5 million to settle several private lawsuits brought by poultry buyers who accused the corporation of colluding with competitors to raise chicken prices. Tyson joins other dominant poultry and pork corporations in settling private price-fixing suits after Pilgrim's Pride pled guilty to similar charges brought by the Justice Department this fall. These settlements mark the end of a four-year legal battle in which grocery shoppers, restaurant chains, and supermarkets accused major meat corporations of conspiring to raise pork and poultry prices. While these payouts are not an admission of guilt, the size and timing of the settlements make some antitrust experts suspect foul play. "When you see a settlement like this what it tells you is that the defendants have made the assessment that there's a substantial likelihood that they will lose and they will lose big," says emeritus law professor and former federal antitrust attorney Peter Carstensen. "That is, the jury will not only find that they colluded but that the collusion resulted in significant damages." While hundreds of millions for cheated customers is nothing to sneeze at, it is not clear if these payments will discourage future collusion. One study found that most corporations that settle out of court end up paying less in penalties than they made off the conspiracy (and that's only the unlucky few who get caught). To deter price-fixing, antitrust experts want to see criminal charges for executives, new restrictions on information sharing between competitors, and broader efforts to address the industry consolidation that makes price-fixing easier to begin with. Tyson recently settled three class-action lawsuits brought by wholesale buyers (think: supermarkets and distributors), indirect purchasers (think: restaurant chains), and direct consumers (you and me). These cases all accused Tyson and some 13 other poultry corporations of conspiring together to rig a poultry price index and coordinate production cuts in order to raise the price of chicken for wholesalers, who had to pass costs on to consumers and restaurants. Poultry processors allegedly used a data-sharing service, AgriStats, to monitor one another and identify deviants in the conspiracy. And the allegations extended beyond chicken. Numerous private suits have accused pork and turkey processors of conspiring together to raise prices with the help of AgriStats. Other suits claim chicken processors used AgriStats to hold down wages for workers and prices paid to farmers. The recent rush to settle by both poultry and pork companies suggest these claims were credible. In addition to Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride reached a $75 million settlement and several smaller chicken companies will pay a collective $13 million to settle their charges. In December, the owner of Pilgrim's Pride, JBS, also reached a $24.5 million settlement with pork buyers and agreed to cooperate with ongoing litigation against co-conspirators, such as Hormel. Notably, these settlements come after Pilgrim's Pride pled guilty in October to similar, but far more specific, bid-rigging charges brought by the Justice Department. As a part of their antitrust probe, the DOJ indicted 10 poultry executives who still face charges. Chicken companies maintain that this federal probe and the private suits are unrelated and continue to deny broader price-fixing allegations, even in settling. Tyson told the Wall Street Journal that "the settlements were in the best interests of the company and its shareholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation." Tyson and others claim higher grain costs and new demand drove up chicken prices, not collusion. However, Carstensen doubts that Tyson and others would pay such large settlements without some guilt. "When you tell me you are paying $200 million to avoid trial, but you were going to win at trial, there is a down home farm expression -- bullshit -- that comes to mind," he says. "No, you realize[d] that there was a very substantial probability that you would lose." While $221 million may seem like a steep penalty, it likely dwarfs what the corporation made in illicit profits. One study by antitrust scholars found that in approximately 80 percent of private price-fixing settlements the plaintiffs did not take back the full value of overcharges. By these odds, the risk of a fine alone may not outweigh the benefits of price-fixing for corporations, especially since scholars believe most cartels are never even discovered. To that end, Carstensen would like to see more behavioral remedies or conditions, that force corporations to change their business practices—such as reasonable restrictions on information sharing through third-parties like AgriStats. Carstensen and other scholars also believe criminal charges for executives are a much stronger deterrent for corporate decision-makers. Carstensen also notes that decades of lax merger enforcement simply makes collusion easier. "More markets are sufficiently concentrated [with] few enough competitors that collusion of one kind or another becomes much more feasible," he says. "There's a professor at the Wharton school who has been saying, 'look if companies can't avoid price fixing, why not just break 'em up, make the market more workably competitive?' That's an extreme possibility, but very unlikely." [GN] ULTRA SHINE: Car Wash Attendants Get Collective Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romel Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. Ultra Shine Car Wash, Inc. and Adelino Pastilha, Case No. 7:20-cv-00498-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order that: 1. The collective action notice entitled "NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN," submitted as Exhibit A attached to plaintiff's letter of February 3, 2021, and the opt-in form entitled "CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION AND BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF," submitted as Exhibit B attached to the plaintiff's letter of February 3, 2021, are hereby approved for mailing to potential collective action opt-in the plaintiffs in English and Spanish and any other language spoken by a significant number of class members; 2. The collective class of potential plaintiffs in this matter shall consist of: "all current and former car wash attendants who were employed by Ultra Shine Car Wash, Inc. at any time on or after January 20, 2017, to the date of this Order"; 3. Within ten days of this Order, the defendants shall provide to plaintiff's counsel, in a spreadsheet or other machine-readable form, the full names and last-known addresses of all potential plaintiffs who fit within the defined collective class, and indicate the native languages (if known) of any individuals for whom English is not their native language; 4. For any identified individuals for whom defendants lack valid addresses, the defendants shall instead supply to the plaintiff's counsel telephone numbers and/or email addresses, to the extent the defendants possess this information; 5. The Plaintiff's counsel shall keep all information supplied pursuant to strictly confidential, and shall use the information solely for the purpose of locating potential opt-in plaintiffs for the purpose of notifying them of the pendancy of this action; 6. The Plaintiff shall mail the notice of collective action and opt-in form, in English and any other native language, to all potential collective action opt-in plaintiffs no later than ten days following defendants' disclosure of their names and addresses. The notice shall be dated the exact date of the initial mailing and the deadline date set forth in the notice shall be the date exactly 60 days thereafter; 7. If any notice to any potential collective action opt-in plaintiff is returned as undeliverable, plaintiff's counsel is permitted to mail the notice to any such persons again at any other address they may determine is appropriate. However, this shall not extend the 60 day opt-in deadline from the date of the initial mailing; 8. On the date the notices are mailed, the English and other language versions of the collective action notice and opt- in form shall be conspicuously posted at defendants' business, in a place accessible to employees, and maintained during the notice period, and the defendants shall provide photographic confirmation of same to plaintiff's counsel; and 9. All potential collective action plaintiffs must opt-in no later than 60 days following the date of the initial mailing of the collective action notice by returning the executed form entitled "CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION AND BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF" in sufficient time for it to be filed with the Court no later than 60 days from the date of the initial mailing. Ultra Shine operates a hand car wash and auto detailing center. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OWGOGH at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED FOOD: Nagel Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Matthew Nagel filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Nagel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01053-WMW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 12, 2021, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Nagel's motion for class certification. The dispute arises from a 2018 collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") negotiated between Defendant Local 653 and SuperValu Cub Foods and other independent grocers located in the Minneapolis metropolitan area ("Grocers"). Nagel is employed by SuperValu and is a member of Local 653. Local 653 is the exclusive bargaining agent for all meat and food market employees of the Grocers. Nagel brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, asserting claims against Local 653 for breach of the duty of fair representation and violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"). Local 653 moved to dismiss Nagel's claims, and the Court concluded that Nagel has sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim for a breach of the duty of fair representation by bad-faith conduct. It also dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Nagel's claim for violation of the LMRDA. Mr. Nagel is seeking an appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the said order by Judge Wright. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Nagel v. United Food and Com. Workers, Case No. 21-8003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 16, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Matthew Nagel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott Moriarity, Esq. Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. BAILLON & THOME 100 S Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3578 E-mail: samoriarity@baillonthome.com sjwanta@baillonthome.com Defendant-Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers Local 653 is represented by: Timothy J. Louris, Esq. Emily Lacy Marshall, Esq. MILLER & O'BRIEN 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2400 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1529 Telephone: (612) 333-5831 E-mail: tlouris@mojlaw.com emarshall@mojlaw.com UNITED INSURANCE: Seeks Feb. 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA BARRETT, as Executrix of the Estate of Chester Barrett, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00215-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Defedant United Insurance moves to extend its deadline to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by nine days, from February 17, 2021 to February 26, 2021. The Defendant said, "The Plaintiff is not opposed to the requested extension. United requests this extension to ensure that it is given adequate time to brief the issues presented in the Plaintiff's motion, which included a lengthy expert report. United also requests this extension because both of United's lead lawyers have summary judgment and Daubert deadlines in another matter on February 12 and February 19, which will make it difficult to prepare a thorough response to Plaintiff's motion by February 17. If the Court grants United's requested extension, United agrees to a commensurate nine-day extension of the Plaintiff's deadline to file her class certification reply brief. The requested extension will not alter any other case deadlines." A copy of the Defendants's motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NbAWcd at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for United Insurance Company of America, are: Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq. Elizabeth J. Campbell, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 870-4679 E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com - and - Roger B. Cowie, Esq. Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 E-mail: rcowie@lockelord.com tbrinkman@lockelord.com UNITED STATES: Kluge Third Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN C. KLUGE, et al., v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02618-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order that: 1. The defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, or in the alternative, to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations, is granted in part; -- The plaintiffs' third amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice; 2. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is denied as moot; and 3. The plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before March 1, 2021. The Court said, "The complaint fails to comply with the pleading standards set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" and "(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The complaint does neither." The plaintiff, John C. Kluge, as putative class representative, filed his initial complaint on August 29, 2019. On April 1, 2020, Scott Schwieger was added as a named plaintiff and putative class representative in a second amended complaint. On August 5, 2020, the plaintiffs moved to file a third amended complaint, which this Court granted by minute order on October 1, 2020. The defendants' renewed motion to dismiss argues that the complaint should be dismissed on various grounds, including for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jXbC5w at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Boley Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY K. BOLEY, KANDIE SUTTER and PHYLLIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., THE UHS RETIREMENT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:20-cv-02644-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1): "all participants and beneficiaries in the Universal Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after June 5, 2014 to the present, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period;" 2. appointing themselves as representatives of the certified Class; and 3. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C. and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The only remedy available to participants in the Plan is Plan-wide relief, including the restoration of losses. As a "defined contribution" or "individual account" retirement plan, the Plan enables its participants to invest money contributed from their salary or employer matching funds in a number of investment options selected by The UHS Retirement Plans Investment Committee and any former committees serving a similar function. Each of the named plaintiffs was a participant in the Plan during the Class Period and was invested in one or more of the options currently at issue. Plaintiff Mary K. Boley is a participant in the Plan and is invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2050 target date fund. Plaintiff Kandie Sutter is a participant in the Plan and is invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2025 fund. Plaintiff Phyllis Johnson was a participant in the Plan during the Class Period and was invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2045 target date fund. Universal Health is the Plan sponsor and Fidelity Management Trust Company is the Trustee and recordkeeper of the Plan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OISLj7 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: mark@capozziadler.com gabriellek@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Plan and the Proposed Class, are: James C. Shah, Esq. Eric L. Young, Esq. Michael P. Ols, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com eyoung@sfmslaw.com mols@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com VAIL RESORTS: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Oct. 20, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Han v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01121 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order setting a full-day hearing on motion for class certification for Oct. 20, 2022 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A 902. The nature of suit states Diversity -- Breach of Contract. Vail Resorts, Inc. is an American mountain resort company.[CC] VITAMIN SHOPPE: Ferrari Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD FERRARI and WILLIAM BOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-10475-GAO (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and/or Rule 23(b)(2): Massachusetts Class defined as: "all persons who purchased BodyTech Creatine & Glutamine with Beta-Alanine, not for resale, in the State of Massachusetts from March 21, 2011 to present;" and Illinois Class defined as: "all persons who purchased BodyTech Glutamine and BodyTech BCAA & Glutamine, not for resale, in the State of Illinois from March 21, 2011 to present;" 2. appointing the Plaintiff Richard Ferrari as class representative for the Massachusetts Class, and appointing the Plaintiff William Bohr as class representative for the Illinois Class; and 3. appointing the law firms of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, and Barbat Mansour Suciu & Tomina PLLC as class counsel for the Classes. The Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative, certification of the Massachusetts Class and Illinois Class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) for issues related to Defendant Vitamine Shoppe's liability for violations of Massachusetts and Illinois consumer protection and warranty laws. The Plaintiffs Richard Ferrari and William Bohr bring this straightforward false advertising case to recover the price premium they and thousands of other consumers paid the Defendant for L-glutamine supplements and to stop the Defendant from further misinforming similar consumers. The Defendant uniformly told consumers through its Labels -- and corroborated through statements on its website -- that its BodyTech line of L-glutamine supplements provided a number of health benefits, without any scientific support, says the complaint. Vitamin Shoppe is an American, New Jersey-based retailer of nutritional supplements. It also operated three stores in Canada under the name VitaPath from January 2013 until March 2016. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b9o5z8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: Charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Road Bloomfield Hills, MH 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 E-mail: Erica@mirabellaLLC.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Has Until March 21 to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY DACK, et al., v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00615-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered a scheduling order for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Dack shall file any motion for class certification on or before March 21, 2022; 2. The parties shall amend all pleadings and/or add parties on or before September 13, 2021; 3. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and related to Class Discovery shall be completed on or before February 28, 2022. 4. At least three days before any discovery dispute conference or hearing, counsel for each party shall submit a Position Letter by email to the Courtroom Deputy; 5. A party may request oral argument relative to a motion, consistent with L.R. 7.0(e); and 6. A motion for extension of time should be filed at least three days before the deadline established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8inGr at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN BOOTS: Gray Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Phyllis Gray, Erika Brown, Lisa Satchel, Kenneth Brewer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., LNK International, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04415, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 16, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00856 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Walgreens Boots Alliance -- https://www.walgreensbootsalliance.com/ -- is one of the largest drugstore chains in the U.S., has strong market positions in Europe, Latin America and Asia, and is a leading pharmaceutical wholesaler in Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Arthur Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: adam@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Mitchell M Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 784-6400 Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara Madavo, Esq. David Alexander Hickerson, Esq. Jay N Varon, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 682-7474 Email: smadavo@foley.com dhickerson@foley.com jvaron@foley.com WEST TOWN: Somerville Suit Wins Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SOMERVILLE III, et al., v. WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST, Case No. 8:19-cv-00490-PJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, for the reasons provided during oral argument held on February 4, 2021. Judge Messitte said, "The Court's order of February 4, 2021, is amended and superseded by this order. The parties shall confer and submit to the Court a proposed notice to the class no later than 30 days from entry of this order." West Town offers a variety of financial services including checking, savings, loans, and mortgages. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dtyoAP at no extra charge.[CC] WESTCO CHEMICALS: Diaz ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merry Russitti Diaz and Kater Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger; and Steven Zwillinger, Case No. 2:20-cv-02070-ODW-AGR (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 15, 2021, for an order: 1. certify this case to proceed as a class action on behalf of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Pension Plan whose Plan account had a balance at any time on or after March 03, 2014;" Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and any Westco employees having or exercising fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the Pension Plan's assets or administration of the Pension Plan's terms; and 2. appointing Michael C. McKay and Shoham J. Solouki as Class Counsel. According to the complaint, the Defendants are Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciaries for the Westco Chemicals Defined Benefit Pension Plan. In 2005, the Defendants received a large cash settlement from a lawsuit involving anticompetitive business practices. The Defendants wanted to avoid paying the anticipated hefty tax bill on the cash settlement, so they created the Pension Plan, and the Defendants used the cash settlement to fund the Pension Plan. Then Defendants were able to deduct the amount of the contribution against income for federal tax purposes as well as funnel the money back to themselves over time. The facts of this case are extraordinary. The Defendants never intended for the Pension Plan to be a legitimate Pension Plan that provides meaningful retirement income to their employees, or to otherwise comply with existing laws and regulations that govern such plans. Rather, the Defendants created and have since used the Pension Plan primarily to surreptitiously funnel the settlement funds from the lawsuit to themselves and their relatives via the Pension Plan. Indeed, the Defendants kept the existence of the Pension Plan a secret from most of Westco Chemical's employees. The Defendants did not design the Pension Plan to meet the non-discrimination rules. The Defendants did not fund the Pension Plan as required by the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA. The Defendants did not administer the Pension Plan as required by ERISA, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs are participants in the Pension Plan. Westco is a supply and distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qpt4lG at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP 316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoy.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us WHIRLPOOL: Top-Load Washing Machine Model Suits Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two class action suits related to top-load washing machine models. The company is currently defending against two lawsuits that have been certified for treatment as class actions in U.S. federal court, relating to two top-load washing machine models. In December 2019, the court in one of these lawsuits entered summary judgment in Whirlpool's favor. That ruling remains subject to appeal, and the other lawsuit is ongoing. Whirlpool said, "We believe the lawsuits are without merit and are vigorously defending them. Given the preliminary stage of the proceedings, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. The resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements in any particular reporting period." Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets home appliances and related products worldwide. Its principal products include laundry appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers, mixers, and other small domestic appliances. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan. ********* 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 2021. 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 ***