/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210301.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 37 Headlines 3M CO: Daikin's Petition for Permission to Appeal in Hardwick Nixed ACCELLION INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ACRO INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ADOBE INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Suit Says AIR METHODS: Gretzingers Seek Withdrawal of Class Status Bid ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 17 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Until April 21 AMBI PAVING: Laborer Class Wins Conditional Certification AMERICAN BANKERS: Notice to Class of SIU Investigators Sought AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Putative Class Action Underway AO SMITH: Birmingham Retirement Plan Suit Dismissed ASTRAZENECA PLC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 29 Deadline AXH HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Cantero Class Suit Ruling BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Hymes Class Suit Ruling BEECH-BUT NUTRITION: Sued Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food BELMONT VILLAGE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 22 BHA SERVICES: Ragoobar Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls BLAND LANDSCAPING: Reply to Class Status Bid Filing Due March 4 BLAND LANDSCAPING: Seeks Deadline Extension to File Reply Brief BLOOMBERG LP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Suit Claims BOTANICAL INTERESTS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRILLIANT SHOPS: Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice as to Calcano BURRELL SEED: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ordered to Reply to Escobar's Bid to Remand CAREONE HEALTH: Modise Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Response to Class Status Bid Due March 10 CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Has Until May 10 to File Class Certification Bid CINTAS CORP: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Hawkins ERISA Suit CITIGROUP INCORPORATED: Head's Bid to Certify Class Nixed CLEANSPARK INC: Facing Bishins Class Action in New York CLEARVIEW AI: 7th Cir. Refuses to Revisit Class Action Ruling CLOVER HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 6 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline CODE INC: Smith Sues Over Tip Pooling and Failure to Pay Wages COOKIE DOUGH: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing CURALEAF HOLDINGS: E.D. New York Dismisses Securities Litigation DASCO HME: Progressive Health Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads DAVID JENNINGS: June 30 Class Certification Filing Deadline OK'd DAVITA INC: Settlement in Peace Officers' Suit Gets Initial OK DELTA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in D.C. Antitrust Suit DIESTEL TURKEY: Products Aren't Raised From Sonora Ranch, Suit Says DISCOUNT TWO: Campbell Street Seeks to Certify Class DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 19 DOORDASH INC: Faces Campbell Tort Suit in California State Court EARN COMPANY: Faces Atterbury CROA Suit Over Illegal Upfront Fees EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Amberber Suit Over Drop in Share Price EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Investors' Class Action Lawsuit EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Helms-Burton Act Pending EXPEDIA GROUP: Intervenor's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd EXPEDIA GROUP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Buckeye Tree Suit EXPEDIA GROUP: Suit Against HomeAway.com in Texas Concluded EXPEDIA INC: Quezada Sues Over Inaccessible Website to Blind Users EXXON MOBIL: Faces Bentler Suit Over Drop in Share Price FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces Data Breach Suit in Florida Circuit Court FLORIDA TECHNICAL: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages FORESEE SESSION: Wiretaps CVS Websites' Visitors, Lubin Alleges FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Nix Appeal in Ohio PERS Suit Pending FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation G&G FITNESS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GARRETT WADE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Junks Bezio Class Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Dismissed from Tri-State Putative Class Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Varga Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Shea Suit Over Alleged Oil Consumption Defect GEORGE'S MUSIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Claims GOLUB CORPORATION: Pochesci Files Suit in Massachusetts GOOGLE LLC: Black Suit Moved to Northern District of California GRAND CANYON: Denial of Dismissal/Arbitration Bid in Ward Affirmed GREENWOOD NURSERY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Joint Bid to Decertify Conditional Status Filed HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Mays Alleges HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Boyd Suit Says HALL MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Martinez Suit With Prejudice HELBIZ INC: Barron Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit HENLY LAND: Misclassified Workers Seek Overtime Wages Under FLSA HERITAGE COMPANY: Yasevich Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification HIGGINS AG: Onofre Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA HOLMES COUNTY, OH: FLSA Class Status of Corrections Officers Sought HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Kanefsky Class Suit INSPERITY INC: Building Trades Pension Fund Suit Underway INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 2021 IOWA: Appeals Ruling in Boys State Training School Class Suit JEWEL-OSCO: Employees May Join Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gutierrez Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 6th Cir. KAOS LIMITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gorr Suit Alleges KIMBERLY-CLARK: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit Dismissed LA PEQUENA TIENDA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuevas Alleges LEDGER TECHNOLOGIES: Seirafi Suit Removed to C.D. California LEXISNEXIS RISK: Contreras Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports LORNA JANE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California LUNA CUISINE: Templos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages LYFT INC: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Final Ruling in Class Suit MAHONING COUNTY, OH: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Youngblood Suit MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Over OK'd Damage Class Settlement Pending MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Rejected MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending MASTERCARD INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shift Fraud Liability Suit MASTERCARD INC: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid MDL 2885: Earplug Product Liability Row Transferred to N.D. Fla. MDL 2913: JUUL Labs Product Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. MICHAEL FAUST: B.K. Settlement Deal Gets Final Approval MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Coss FDCPA Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois MINNESOTA: Larsen Files Civil Rights Suit MOLEX LLC: Joint Bid to Hold Rule 23 Hearing Remotely Sought MOLSON COORS: Consolidated Colorado Suit Concluded MPC HOLDINGS: Seeks March 5 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid NEOS THERAPEUTICS: Tkatch Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote NEW YORK CITY: Court Certifies Class in Clark & Aziz Suit NIKE INC: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 12 NOBLE ENERGY: Bids to Junk Boulter Suit Granted Without Prejudice O.J. SMITH: Court Approves Class Notice in Gonzalez Suit OHIO: Guardians' Medicaid Act Claims in Ball Suit Survive Dismissal ONTEL PRODUCTS: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Martin Suit PAPA JOHN'S: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers PB WEALTH: Bautista Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Due to Time-Shaving PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Agreement Entered with Direct Purchaser Class PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan Suit Pending PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Grower Litigation in Oklahoma Underway PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Underway PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Can't Enforce Final Judgment Against Tierney QUANTUM GLOBAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval RADNET INC: Class Status Filing Deadline Extended to March 19 RALPH LAUREN: Pullover Sweater Isn't 100% Pima Cotton, Carter Says REGENCY GP: Wins Judgment on Merger Issues in Dieckman Class Suit ROSS STORES: Court Junks Marshall Class Suit SEBA ABODE: Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines for Class Cert. Sought SEBA ABODE: Court Stays Pending Deadlines for Class Certification SERCO INC: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice SERVICEMASTER RESTORATION: Murie Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SHARKS SPORTS: Center App Blind Users Seek to Certify Class SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: LR Trust Balks at Merger Deal With Salesforce SLEEPY'S LLC: Hearing on Class Certification Set for May 20 SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: NYC Carpenters Sue Over Stock Price Drop ST. LOUIS, MO: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Dixon Suit Denied ST. LOUIS, MO: Judges' Bid to Decertify Class in Dixon Suit Denied STARK BROS NURSERIES: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATE FARM: Whitman Seeks to Certify Washington Policy Owners Class STATE FARM:Filing of Reply to Class Status Bid Extended to March 29 STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Court Certifies Classes in Moorer Suit SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Phelps Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Viracta Merger Related Suits SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Initially OK'd SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary Appeals Suit Dismissal TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss Kingston Ash Spill Suit Pending TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss LPC Customer Suit Pending THREE LIMES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TIM ABLES: Faces Main Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TONY PARKER: Court Tosses Green, et al. Bid to Certify Class TRANSUNION LLC: March 30 Hearing Set in Damages Class Action TRAVEL INSURED: Edelson Files Suit in S.D. California TREEHOUSE FOODS: Pandemic Concerns Postpone MPERS Suit Mediation TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit TRICIDA INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline TRU TOP: George Wolchko Suit Wins Class Certification TRUFFA PIZZERIA: Court OK's Ruiz Bid for Conditional Certification U.S. XPRESS: Stein Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED INSURANCE: Reply Brief for Class Cert. Bid Due March 12 UNITED STATES: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of JOP Class Cert. Bid Ruling UNITED STATES: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification US FERTILITY: Mateson Files PI Suit in Maryland US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Underway UTOPIA LIVING: Ex-Eco Village Tenants Fail to Get Emergency Relief VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending VERA INTERIOR: Fails to Properly Record OT Hours, Vazquez Claims VRK MEDIA: Bodde Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Alcazar Says WALGREEN CO: Samuel Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA, NYLL WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Lett Class Suit WEST MARINE: Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice as to Graciano WHEELCARE EXPRESS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 30 WHOLE FOODS: Hodgson Russ Attorneys Discuss Labeling Class Action WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Brigati Files Suit in S.D. Florida XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing YELLOW CORP: Joint Motion to Stay Appeal in Lewis Suit Granted YOU FIRST SERVICES: ARcare Inc. Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ZENDESK INC: Hearing on Bid to Nix Reidinger Suit Set for March 5 ZILLOW GROUP: Asks 9th Cir. to Review Class Status in Vargosko Suit ZURICH AMERICAN: Crescent Appeals Class Suit Dimissal to 7th Cir. ********* 3M CO: Daikin's Petition for Permission to Appeal in Hardwick Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN D. HARDWICK, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1185 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied Defendant Daikin Industries, Ltd.'s Petition for Permission to Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Plaintiff Hardwick filed the action against 3M, Daikin, Daikin America, Inc., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., the Chemours Co., Archroma Management L.L.C., Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC, and AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. The case focuses on "PFAS," which are man-made chemicals described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as follows: "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS and GenX chemicals. Since the 1940s, PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both are very persistent in the environment and in the human body. Exposure to certain PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects." Mr. Hardwick alleges that he and others in Ohio and the nation have potentially dangerous amounts of PFAS in their blood. He brings claims for negligence, battery, conspiracy, and declaratory judgment. Mr. Hardwick asks for equitable relief in the form of a panel of scientists to study the effects that the PFAS has in his body and for medical monitoring as part of that relief. The Defendants moved jointly to dismiss the case in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and each Defendant moved separately under Rule 12(b)(2) for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court issued a decision denying all the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Daikin and another foreign Defendant, Archroma, filed a Motion to Reconsider the Denial of their Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Daikin and Archroma argued that the Court's conclusion was in violation of "Sixth Circuit precedent dating back 50 years." They contended that instead of relying on precedent, the Court relied upon "stray language in CompuServe v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir. 1996)] or cases like it." After briefing was complete on the reconsideration motion, the Sixth Circuit issued Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 965 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2020), a decision in the line of cases that establish the applicable burdens under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). In Malone, as in the instant action, a foreign defendant moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2), which the district court decided without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary hearing, but rather on written submissions alone, including affidavits from the foreign defendant. In Malone, district court granted the motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit in a published opinion reversed the district court's grant of dismissal, clarifying the effect of affidavits on a plaintiff's prima facie case when a court decides a motion for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary hearing, finding them "irrelevant." As did the Court in its decision denying Daikin's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Malone relied on numerous prior decisions by which it was bound. The Court included Malone in its decision denying Daikin's request for reconsideration. In that decision, it specifically states that Malone clarified the standard applicable to Daikin's request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2). Daikin admits that the Court's decision followed Sixth Circuit precedent, stating that Malone "sided with the Court in holding that a plaintiff makes out his prima facie case with allegations of jurisdiction alone; any affidavits submitted by the defendant are 'irrelevant.'" However, Daikin believes that the Malone panel misinterpreted Sixth Circuit law, arguing that "Malone changed seventy-plus years of law on deciding cases in this posture." Daikin has, therefore, filed a Petition asking the Court to certify for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292 its decisions on personal jurisdiction so the Sixth Circuit is forced to resolve the "intra-circuit split" Daikin contends Malone caused. Judge Sargus explains that Daikin must meet all three elements set out in 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) to prevail on its request for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's personal jurisdiction decisions. He begins and ends his analysis with the second requirement--that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists regarding the correctness of the Court's decision. Citing City of Dearborn v. Comcast of Mich. III, Inc., No. 08-10156, 2008 WL 5084203, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2008), the Sixth Circuit notes that some district courts utilize a four-pronged test to make this determination, stating: "District courts in this circuit have interpreted a substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the correctness of the decision to mean when (1) the question is difficult, novel and either a question on which there is little precedent or one whose correct resolution is not substantially guided by previous decisions; (2) the question is difficult and of first impression; (3) a difference of opinion exists within the controlling circuit; or (4) the circuits are split on the question." Daikin, therefore, maintains that this prong of Section 1292(b) [difference of opinion] is established either when a difference of opinion exists within the controlling circuit or when the circuits are split on the issue. Daikin asserts that both apply in the case. In other words, Daikin's assessment of Malone is that it is not only out of line with prior Sixth Circuit precedent, but that it also reflects the minority opinion in other federal circuits. As to the first argument, the Judge opines that Daikin misinterprets the law upon which it relies regarding what constitutes a difference of opinion within the controlling circuit, in the case, the Sixth Circuit. A difference of opinion within the controlling circuit means that the controlling circuit has no binding authority on the issue and the relevant authorities are susceptible to competing interpretations. Thus, the proper inquiry, he says, is directed toward whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the correctness of a district court's decision in the absence of binding authority. When there is binding authority, as is the case, the Court must follow it. With regard to Daikin's second argument, it posits that even if there is no 'intra-circuit split or confusion within the Sixth Circuit,' substantial disagreement is met when the circuits are split on the issue. Again, it is a misinterpretation of the law of the circuit, the Judge holds. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has spoken directly to the issue that because there is governing precedent in the circuit that settles the issue at hand, the Defendants cannot show the extraordinary circumstances such that an interlocutory appeal should be granted. In the case sub judice, all parties agree that the Sixth Circuit in Malone has spoken directly to the issue of the appropriate burdens under Rule 12(b)(2). Thus, the inquiry ends there. The Court "is bound by the Sixth Circuit's published authority." Because there is governing precedent in the circuit that settles the issue at hand, Daikin cannot show the extraordinary circumstances such that an interlocutory appeal should be granted. Daikin asserts that Malone is already causing confusion and conflict in the Circuit." Yet, Daikin fails to cite any case where there is confusion and/or conflict caused by Malone. This is understandable since there are no cases available for that proposition--indeed the opposite. Likewise, all other courts to consider motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since the issuance of Malone either explicitly or implicitly agree that the case simply clarified the respective burdens when the motion is decided without benefit of discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, there is no evidence that Malone has left confusion in its wake. No district court has found that Malone did anything other than clarify the respective burdens applicable under Rule 12(b)(2) motions decided without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Judge Sargus concludes with an observation. The motion addressed in his opinion is without merit. Although Daiken never asked for one, a conference will be scheduled to craft an expedited discovery timeline dealing solely with the issue of personal jurisdiction. The Defendant is entitled to contest personal jurisdiction; it is not entitled to distort the caselaw that applies in the case. Archroma, who joined in the previously filed motion for reconsideration, may participate in the conference and expedited discovery timeline directed solely at whether this Court possesses personal jurisdiction over these two foreign Defendants. For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus denied Daikin's Petition. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytqm6fv7 from Leagle.com. ACCELLION INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- MADALYN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELLION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01155 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2021) is an action alleging that the Defendant failed to safeguard and protect the sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, on January 2021, Accellion, a software company, providing services to the Washington State Auditor's Office (the "SAO"), announced that unauthorized individuals gained access to SAO files by exploiting a vulnerability in Accellion's file transfer service. This unauthorized access began in December 2020 and continued into January 2021 (the "Data Breach"). The SAO files contained the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") of Washington residents who filed unemployment insurance claims in 2020. In addition, the compromised files may have included the PII of other Washington residents whose information was contained in state agency and local government files, the suit says. Accellion's failure to ensure that the File Transfer Appliance ("FTA") product provided adequate security protocols exposed the PII of more than one million Washington residents, including Plaintiff and the Class Members. As a result of Defendant's alleged conduct, the PII of Plaintiff and the Class was compromised and their PII was disclosed to unknown and unauthorized third parties without their consent. Accellion, Inc. provides secure collaboration and managed file transfer solutions. The Company offers productivity, enterprise content, file sharing and synchronization and storage, replacement, and backups and recovery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandlerv Ari Cherniak , Esq. Steven Resnick, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, PC 11780 W. Sample Road, Suite 1103 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com sresnick@hammondlawpc.com ACRO INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acro International Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Acro International Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01606 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acro International is located in Hicksville, New York and primarily operates in the Women's and Children's Clothing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ADOBE INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01435 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, www.adobe.com, 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 the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. Adobe Inc. develops, markets, and supports computer software products and technologies. The Company's products allow users to express and use information across all print and electronic media. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal AIR METHODS: Gretzingers Seek Withdrawal of Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GRETZINGER and ANGELA GRETZINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-01233-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs Michael and Angela Gretzinger ask the Court for an order withdrawing their previously-filed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Lead Class Counsel and Class Representatives. The Gretzingers have decided to proceed with their individual claims only, and no longer wish to be appointed as representatives of other similarly-situated persons in any class action litigation. The Plaintiffs' counsel are, simultaneously herewith, filing a motion for leave to amend their complaint herein to delete all class allegations and proceed with the Gretzingers' individual claims. Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical services to between 70,000 and 100,000 patients every year. It operates in 48 states and Haiti, with air medical as its primary business focus. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kx62Hq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Schuver, Esq. Deanna L. Litzenburg, Esq. Natalie T. Lorenz, Esq. MATHIS, MARIFIAN & RICHTER, LTD. 23 Public Square, Suite 300 P.O. Box 307 Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 234-9800 Facsimile: (618) 234-9786 E-mail: mschuver@mmrltd.com dlitzenburg@mmrltd.com nlorenz@mmrltd.com - and - Troy E. Walton, Esq. WALTON TELKEN 241 North Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-9880 Facsimile: (618) 307-9881 E-mail: twalton@waltontelken.com ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA PERRY, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., Case No. 1:16-cv-01522-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered a schedule order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's export report(s) to be served by March 3rd; -- The Defendant's export report(s) to be served by April 5th; -- The Expert depositions to be completed by May 3rd; -- The Plaintiff motion for class certification due on May 17th; -- The Defendant's opposition brief due on June 16th; -- The Plaintiff's reply brief due on July 1st; and -- Purposed class certification hearing on August 16th. Allstate Indemnity is located in Northbrook, Illinois and is part of the Insurance Agencies & Brokerages Industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37RBjPY at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Until April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANAN SCHUMANN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. and AMAZON.COM INC., Delaware corporations, and AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-01751-JR (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order staying the proceedings until April 21, 2021. The Court has every reason to believe that both parties, after assessing the respective strengths and weaknesses of their cases, will do exactly that. The motion to stay is granted and the proceedings in this case are stayed until April 21, 2021. In addition, the Court encourages consultation with counsel as to any impact mediation may have on that case and, if necessary, invite Schumann to participate in the mediation as well. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion stays the proceedings in Case No. 20-CV-1751-JR until April 21, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O6ybIU at no extra charge.[CC] AMBI PAVING: Laborer Class Wins Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARYL E. HUGHES v. AMBI PAVING, LLC and DHARAM DEOCHAND, Case No. 6:20-cv-00910-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order: 1. adopting and confirming the Report and Recommendation filed January 29, 2021; 2. granting the Motion for Conditional Certification; 3. conditionally certifying a class of: "individuals who (1) were employed as "laborers" at AMBI's Orlando, Florida, location during the proceeding three years; (2) were paid an hourly rate; and (3) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without being paid proper overtime compensation; 4. appointing the Plaintiff Daryl E. Hughes as Class Representative; 5. appointing Scott C. Adams and N. Ryan LaBar of LaBar & Adams, P.A., as class counsel; 6. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the full names, job titles, dates of employment, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for each individual in the conditional certified class in a computer-readable format; 7. approving the Notice; 8. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the approved Notice to each putative class member by United States Mail and e- mail within 14 days after the Defendants provide the Plaintiff with the list of contact information; and 9. directing the Plaintiff to file all consent-to-join forms within 90 days after the Notice is served. Ambi provides complete professional asphalt services including paving parking lots and sealcoating. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qYaDob at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN BANKERS: Notice to Class of SIU Investigators Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLE RASKIN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. AMERICAN BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, and AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-25094-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order permitting notice to: "all current and former salary paid SIU Investigators who were classified as exempt and who worked for the Defendants within the last three years prior to the filing of this Motion." The Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to the entire class of SIU Investigators who were/are not paid proper overtime compensation due to them, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for the overtime hours that they worked each week. Due to the Defendants' company-wide policy, the Plaintiff and the putative class members have been, and continue to be, deprived of wages for all hours worked. Specifically, the Defendants compensate their SIU Investigators on a salary basis and classifies each of their SIU Investigators as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. However, as will be shown in this litigation once the Parties reach the merits stage, Defendants misclassified these SIU Investigators as exempt and these employees should have been paid overtime compensation for the long hours they worked to complete their jobs. Therefore, the Defendants violated, and continue to violate, the FLSA by failing to pay their SIU Investigators proper overtime compensation, the Plaintiff contends. American Bankers operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3knbsEP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Bruce A. Mount, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-8778 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com bmount@theleachfirm.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), is still pending. A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), alleged that provisions in our merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging our cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws. On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit ------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against an antitrust class action lawsuit entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al. In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the company's charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Putative Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc. On January 29, 2019, the company was named in a putative class action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., in which the plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard, Visa and/or Discover credit cards (but not American Express cards) and allege they paid higher prices as a result of our anti-steering and non-discrimination provisions in violation of federal antitrust law and the antitrust and consumer laws of various states. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief. The court dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust claim, numerous state antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust enrichment claim. The remaining claims in plaintiffs' complaint arise under the antitrust laws of 11 states and the consumer protection laws of six states. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AO SMITH: Birmingham Retirement Plan Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- A. O. Smith Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the consolidated putative securities class action suit entitled, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., has been dismissed. On May 28, 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. Subsequently, on November 22, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. This action, captioned as City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought damages and other relief based upon the allegations in the complaint. On January 24, 2020, A. O. Smith and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 24, 2020, the U.S. District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. Based on its June 24, 2020 order, on August 3, 2020, the District Court entered final judgment for the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. A. O. Smith Corporation, incorporated on July 9, 1986, operates through two segments: North America and Rest of World. The Company's Rest of World segment primarily consists of China, Europe and India. Both segments manufacture and market comprehensive lines of residential and commercial gas, gas tankless and electric water heaters, as well as water treatment products. Both segments primarily manufacture and market in their respective regions of the world. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ASTRAZENECA PLC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ:AZN) investors to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: May 21, 2020 - Nov. 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021 Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/AZN Contact An Attorney Now:AZN@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 AstraZeneca PLC (AZN) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and omitted to disclose widespread flaws in the design, execution, and results of the company's clinical trials of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine candidate (AZD1222). Specifically, Defendants concealed that: (1) a critical manufacturing error resulted in a substantial number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (2) clinical trials consisted of an improper patient makeup that received subtly different treatments undermining any conclusion that could be drawn from the clinical data; (3) certain clinical trial participants had not received a second dose at the designated time points; and (4) the Company failed to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age. Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Nov. 23, 2020, when AstraZeneca announced an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222, which revealed that the company used two different dosing regimens in two trials conducted in the UK and Brazil. In one trial, patents received a half dose followed by a full dose (resulting in 90% efficacy). In the other, patients received two full doses (resulting in 62% efficacy). Thereafter, investors learned through a series of disclosures that: (1) the differing dosing regimens were due to a known manufacturing error discovered early in the process, (2) the half dose had not been tested in patients over 55, (3) certain trial participants did not timely receive the second dose, and (4) U.S. regulators stated that, absent a clear explanation of discrepancies in the trial results, approval for commercial sale of AZD1222 in the U.S. was unlikely. In response to this news, the price of AstraZeneca American Depositary Receipts significantly fell. "We're focused on investor losses and proving AstraZeneca knowingly took undisclosed shortcuts in its rush to commercialize AZD1222," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding AstraZeneca should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email AZN@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. CONTACT: Reed Kathrein 844-916-0895 [GN] AXH HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SARAH YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXH HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a LILYFUL, a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00290-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., February 17, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to construct and maintain a Website that is equally accessible to visually impaired individuals that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read Website content using her computer. The Plaintiff alleges that during his numerous visits to the Defendant's Website, https://www.lilyfu.com/, he has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and service offered to the public and made available to the public on the Defendant's Website. Those access barriers on the Defendant's Website have deterred the Plaintiff from visiting the Defendant's physical locations and hours of operation of its store, the Plaintiff adds. Purportedly, due to its failure to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 which would provide blind people with equal access to its Website, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Thus, on behalf of herself and other visually impaired individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to take the steps necessary to make its Website readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals, as well as statutory minimum damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-judgment interest, litigations costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. AXH Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lilyful operates a retail store and offers its Website to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Cantero Class Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 18-cv-4157, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to pay interest to Plaintiff and the class members on funds held in escrow accounts. According to the complaint, the Defendant like many mortgage lenders, regularly requires borrowers to maintain escrow accounts containing sufficient funds to cover payments for property taxes and insurance on mortgaged properties. The Defendant collects the funds from borrowers in advance, holds the funds in escrow accounts, and then directly pays property taxes and insurance premiums when they become due. In violation of New York State law, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent interest on amounts paid into these escrow accounts. Instead, Defendant uses this money to generate "float" income for itself. Money sitting in an escrow account is the property of the borrower, not the Defendant. For this reason, in New York, Defendant is required to pay interest on amounts in escrow accounts to the true owner of the account and may not use those amounts solely for its own benefit. Because the Defendant has ignored this legal obligation, the Plaintiff now brings this class action to stop this unlawful conduct and to seek redress for borrowers who did not receive the interest to which they were entitled. In a memorandum and order dated September 30, 2019, the Court denied the Bank's motions to dismiss two of Plaintiffs' four claims on the ground that the National Bank Act preempts New York General Obligation Law Section 5-601 (the "Prior Order") . The Bank moved to amend the Prior Order to certify the preemption question for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to stay further proceedings before this Court pending a decision from the Second Circuit. The motions to amend the Prior Order were granted and the motions to stay were denied without prejudice to renewing the motions before the Magistrate Judge if the Second Circuit grants permission to file the interlocutory appeal. The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's memorandum and order, and Court's Order directing appeals 21-400 and 21-403 to be heard in tandem. The appellate case is captioned as Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-400, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Alex Cantero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bradley F. Silverman, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3282 E-mail: bsilverman@fbfglaw.com Defendant-Appellant Bank of America, N.A. is represented by: Mark William Mosier, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5435 E-mail: mmosier@cov.com BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Hymes Class Suit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bank of America, N.A., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2352, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action against the Defendants for restitution and reimbursement, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, pursuant to the New York General Obligation Law. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants violated the New York General Obligation Law, which requires a mortgage lender making a loan secured by a one-to-six family residence located in New York to pay the borrower a minimum of 2% simple interest for money received in advance from the borrower for tax and insurance that is held by the lender in an "escrow" account until payment is due. During all or part of the Class Period, the Plaintiffs have paid hundreds of dollars into an escrow account but have received no interest on those payments. In a memorandum and order dated September 30, 2019, the Court denied the Bank's motions to dismiss two of Plaintiffs' four claims on the ground that the National Bank Act preempts New York General Obligation Law Section 5-601 (the "Prior Order") . The Bank moved to amend the Prior Order to certify the preemption question for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to stay further proceedings before the Court pending a decision from the Second Circuit. The motions to amend the Prior Order were granted and the motions to stay were denied without prejudice to renewing the motions before the Magistrate Judge if the Second Circuit grants permission to file the interlocutory appeal. The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's memorandum and order, and Court's Order directing appeals 21-400 and 21-403 to be heard in tandem. The appellate case is captioned as Hymes v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-403, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: krasner@whafh.com Defendant-Appellant Bank of America, N.A. is represented by: Mark William Mosier, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5435 E-mail: mmosier@cov.com BEECH-BUT NUTRITION: Sued Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food -------------------------------------------------------- John Cropley, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that Beech-But Nutrition is the target of class-action lawsuits filed over potentially dangerous heavy metals in the baby food it makes. Beech-Nut and six other baby food manufacturers were the subject of a critical report released Feb. 4 by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee. Consumer-focused lawsuits rapidly followed, including two filed in federal court in Albany against Beech-Nut on Feb. 5 and 12. Hain Celestial Group, Gerber and Campbell Soup were named in various other federal lawsuits, each of them seeking class status for all the people who had bought their baby food and allegedly been defrauded in the process. Beech-Nut has operated for more than a century in Montgomery County, mostly in Canajoharie but more recently in the town of Florida, just outside Amsterdam. Beech-Nut said via email on Feb. 16 that it does not comment on pending litigation. However, it did address the underlying issue: "We want to reassure parents that Beech-Nut products are safe and nutritious. We are currently reviewing the subcommittee report. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA, in partnership with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry." The report by the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Reform focused on the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury in baby food made by Beech-Nut, Campbell, Gerber, Hain Celestial, Nurture, Sprout Foods and Walmart. The investigation was launched Nov. 6, 2019, in response to reports of heavy metals in baby food. These substances can be harmful to human health, especially for babies and young children with fragile, still-developing systems. Campbell, Sprout and Walmart refused to comply with the subcommittee's requests. The others provided internal testing policies, test results and documentation on what they did with ingredients and or finished products that exceeded their internal testing limits. The provided data showed a significant presence of all four metals in the products of all four companies, leading the subcommittee to worry that the products of the three companies that refused to cooperate might contain "even higher levels of toxic heavy metals" than their competitors' baby food. Among the four companies' data, Beech-Nut showed the highest level for three of the four metals. The fourth — mercury — is something that Beech-Nut (and Hain) don't even test for. A critical distinction is that these test results are for additives, some of which are used in very small quantities. So the batch of cinnamon that was tested by Beech-Nut at 886.9 parts per billion of lead on Oct. 19, 2016 may have been only a microscopic part of the finished bottle that Beech-Nut shipped out to store shelves. The lead content of the entire bottle would have been much lower. (The federal limit for lead in bottled drinking water is 5 PPB.) Beech-Nut's own internal limits for the additives it uses are 5,000 PPB for lead and 3,000 PPB for arsenic and cadmium. Federal standards for bottled water are 10 PPB inorganic arsenic and 5 PPB cadmium. The report indicated Beech-Nut's standards allowed the highest levels of metal among the four manufacturers that provided data. Another critical distinction: Beech-Nut and a majority of baby food manufacturers don't measure toxic metals in their finished products -- only in the ingredients. "That policy recklessly endangers babies and children and prevents the companies from even knowing the full extent of the danger presented by their products," the report noted. The report also noted that in every test Hain did perform on its final products, it found more arsenic than it expected to find. The Democratic-controlled House subcommittee also noted in its report that the Trump administration received a "secret slide presentation" from Hain on Aug. 1, 2019, laying out the situation, but did nothing. The committee recommended that manufacturers be required to test their final products, not just their ingredients; that levels of toxic heavy metals be required on labels; that toxic ingredients be phased out; and that the FDA set standards for baby food. The two proposed class-action lawsuits against Beech-Nut quote heavily from the report, in some cases even copying charts. One lawsuit has nine named defendants, the other just one. Only one is a New York state resident; the case was filed in the Northern District of New York because Beech-Nut makes its baby food here. A combined seven law firms in five states and the District of Columbia are bringing the actions. The two lawsuits run to a combined 134 pages but boil down to a simple allegation: Beech-Nut knew but did not say its products contained heavy metals, thus misleading consumers who thought they were getting natural, organic, healthy products for the higher purchase price. To make this point, one of the lawsuits quotes Beech-Nut's own website: "In fact, we conduct over 20 rigorous tests on our purees, testing for up to 255 pesticides and heavy metals (like lead, cadmium, arsenic and other nasty stuff). Just like you would, we send the produce back if it's not good enough." The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and hope to achieve change and receive monetary awards. Specifically, they seek: Court orders that would Enjoin Beech-Nut from selling the baby foods in question until the heavy metals are removed or full disclosure is given in labels and advertising, and enjoin it from suggesting or implying that such products are healthy, natural and safe. A court order that Beech-Nut mount a corrective advertising campaign and take other affirmative actions, such as product recalls. Restitution of all funds acquired through unfair or fraudulent practices; payment of actual, statutory and punitive damages; award of legal fees and costs; and any other relief possible. [GN] BELMONT VILLAGE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FATIMA GOODARZI, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; BELMONT VILLAGE ALISO VIEJO CA LP, a Delaware limited partnership; BELMONT VILLAGE BERKELEY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BELMONT VILLAGE THOUSAND OAKS CA LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04827-GW-AS (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting parties' Joint Stipulation to Class Certification Deadlines as follows: Event Existing New Deadline Deadline Deadline to File Motion Feb. 18, 2021 March 22, 2021 for Class Certification Deadline to File Opposition March 18, 2021 April 19, 2021 to Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to File Reply April 8, 2021 May 10, 2021 re Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to Hear Class April 22, 2021 May 24, 2021 Certification Motion: Belmont Village, L.P. is located in Houston, Texas and is part of the Residential Real Estate Brokerage & Management Industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aWORf4 at no extra charge.[CC] BHA SERVICES: Ragoobar Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SASHA RAGOOBAR, invidually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRYANT, HODGE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, d/b/a BHA SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-003487 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., February 18, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by sending two prerecorded voice calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone on or about February 3, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the Defendant with her cellular telephone number and never gave prior express written consent to call him on her cellular telephone by using prerecorded voice. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff suffered actual harm, such invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the suit adds. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons seeking an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using an artificial or prerecorded voice to contact telephone numbers without the prior express permission of the called party, an award of actual and statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just. Bryant, Hodge and Associates, LLC d/b/a BHA Services is a det collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 628-5793 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com BLAND LANDSCAPING: Reply to Class Status Bid Filing Due March 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roldan v. Bland Landscaping Company, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00276 (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J Conrad, Jr. entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply: -- Certification Class Conditionally Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; -- Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); -- Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and -- Appointment of Class Counsel. The Responses due by March 4, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bland provides landscaping services.[CC] BLAND LANDSCAPING: Seeks Deadline Extension to File Reply Brief --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Roldan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Bland Landscaping Company, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00276-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Defendant Bland asks the Court for an order extending the deadline to file a Brief in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Class Certification to March 4, 2021. In May 2020, Plaintiff sued Bland on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). Since that filing, the parties have diligently advanced the litigation of this case through written discovery and four depositions. On February 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his motion seeking conditional certification under the FLSA and class certification under the NCWHA. This extension is not sought for any improper purpose and will not cause unnecessary delay. The Plaintiff has consented to the extension, the Defendant says. Bland provides landscaping services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uyDzFB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Abee, Esq. Debbie Whittle Durban, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1320 Main Street / 17th Floor Post Office Box 11070 (29211-1070) Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-2000 E-Mail: debbie.durban@nelsonmullins.com matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com BLOOMBERG LP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01410 (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited the Defendant's Website, www.bloomberg.com, in February 2021 to browse and potentially make a purchase. The Defendant's Website purportedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to its Website, which resulted from its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, like him. Bloomberg L.P. is a software and financial company that owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Ave., Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BOTANICAL INTERESTS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Botanical Interests, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Botanical Interests, Inc., Botanical Interests Online, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01619 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Botanical Interests -- https://www.botanicalinterests.com/ -- offers more than 600 dependable varieties of certified organic, heirloom, non-GMO, untreated, and responsibly produced hybrid vegetable, herb, and flower seeds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BRILLIANT SHOPS: Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice as to Calcano ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, EVELINA CALCANO, Plaintiff v. BRILLIANT SHOPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 9826-LTS-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs. The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, Judge Swain dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs, and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to her calendar if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of the date of her Order. I f a party wishes to reopen this matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before the 30-day period expires. The Judge advised the parties that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycplvwjz from Leagle.com. BURRELL SEED: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burrell Seed Growers LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Burrell Seed Growers LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01620 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Burrell Seed Growers, LLC -- https://burrellseeds.us/ -- sells Heirloom, Open Pollinated & Hybrid Seeds - All Non-GMO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ordered to Reply to Escobar's Bid to Remand --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IVAN ESCOBAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02501-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the Defendants to file a supplemental response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff Escobar brought the action against Capstone Logistics, asserting violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a) and California Labor Code Section 2698, and purporting to sue on behalf of himself and "all current and former employees of Capstone Logistics in the state of California who were paid "Premium" wages at any time between May 13, 2019, through the present." Defendant Capstone Logistics removed the case to the Court asserting original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, as well as supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. The Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand the case. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion focused solely on why his case should remain in federal court based on the CAFA. After reviewing his arbitration agreement, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint which removed his class action claims and now only asserts claims under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Section 2968, et seq. Because the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to remand focused solely on class claims that are no longer present in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Judge Shubb ordered the Defendants to file a supplemental response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand addressing whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants will file the supplemental response by Feb. 26, 2021. The Plaintiff may file a supplemental reply in support of his motion by March 2, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pm9axynh from Leagle.com. CAREONE HEALTH: Modise Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOTLALEPULA MODISE, TIRELO MMOLAWA, MORWESI MMOLAWA, individually and on behalf of others similarly, v. CAREONE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC and ABEL N. OSAGIE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00765-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act: 1. granting conditional certification of the following class/collective: "All domestic service workers who worked at least one "live-in" shift for the Defendants, CareOne Health Services, LLC, and Abel N. Osagie in Connecticut and were paid a flat daily rate for their work during any time between January 13, 2017 until the date of final judgment;" and 2. directing the Defendants be ordered to produce information about potential collective action members that will not otherwise be available without this conditional certification. CareOne is a senior care company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NyZfRm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Response to Class Status Bid Due March 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolf v. Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00957 (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order extending the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by March 10, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen is a full service law firm devoted to representing businesses, nonprofits, individuals and community associations.[CC] CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Has Until May 10 to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA COLLINS CORK, an individual; GEORGIA L. MAY, an individual; THOMAS MERIGAN, an individual; and JANICE R. ANDERSON, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. CC-PALO ALTO, INC., a Delaware corporation; CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership; and CC-DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order vacating discovery cutoff and extending class certification deadline, as follows: 1. The discovery cutoff deadline currently set for March 31, 2021 be vacated and a new discovery deadline be set at the trial setting conference in connection with the setting of a trial date; 2. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file their class certification motion be continued from April 8, 2021 to May 10, 2021; 3. The deadline for the defendants to file their opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion be continued from April 29, 2021 to June 1, 2021; 4. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their class certification motion be continued from May 11, 2021 to June 15, 2021; 5. The hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be continued from June 3, 2021 to July 8, 2021, or as soon thereafter as the court is available. The Plaintiffs Linda Collins Cork, Georgia May, Thomas Merigan, and Janice R. Anderson, individually, and on behalf of a proposed class, filed a Third Amended Complaint in this action on November 13, 2020, asserting eleven causes of action against three corporate defendants. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on December 18, 2020. CC-Palo is doing business in healthcare facility industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bDvUNL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James McManis, Esq. Matthew Schechter, Esq. Hilary Weddell, Esq. Andrew Parkhurst, Esq. McMANIS FAULKNER a Professional Corporation 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 E-mail: hweddell@mcmanislaw.com CINTAS CORP: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Hawkins ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Cintas Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RAYMOND HAWKINS and ROBIN LUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CINTAS CORPORATIONS, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1062, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2021, Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings filed by Defendants Cintas, Board of Directors of Cintas, Scott D. Farmer, and the Investment Policy Committee. Plaintiffs Hawkins and Lung ("Participants") bring the action pursuant to Section 409 and Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Participants, both former Cintas employees, pursue the action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated participants in the Cintas Partners' Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan, established by Cintas in 1991. Each participant in the Plan is provided an individual account and the benefits derived for each participant are based "solely upon the amount contributed to those individual accounts." The Participants contend that Cintas breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by mismanaging and failing to investigate and select better cost options for the Plan from December 13, 2013, to the present. They also contend that Cintas failed to monitor the decision-making of the Plan's committee groups and/or individual fiduciaries. The Defendants are seeking a review of the District Court's Order, denying their motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Hawkins, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-3156, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, February 19, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant brief is due on March 31, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due on April 30, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND HAWKINS and ROBIN LUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Joseph Connick, Esq. CONNICK & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA 25550 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 101 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 367-1150 E-mail: mconnick@mjconnick.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com Defendants-Appellants CINTAS CORPORATION, INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE, SCOTT D. FARMER, and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CINTAS CORPORATION are represented by: Mark Bruce Blocker, Esq. Christopher Kenneth Meyer SIDLEY AUSTIN One S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: mblocker@sidley.com cmeyer@sidley.com - and - Jacob D. Rhode, Esq. KEATING, MUETHING & KLEKAMP 1 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 639-3855 E-mail: jrhode@kmklaw.com CITIGROUP INCORPORATED: Head's Bid to Certify Class Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Head v. Citigroup Incorporated, Case No. 3:18-cv-08189 (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order terminating the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in light of the stay currently in effect. Judge Rayes said, "After the stay is lifted, the parties may request that the motion and response be reinstated or seek to amend those filings, if appropriate, based on the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511." The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] CLEANSPARK INC: Facing Bishins Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------- CleanSpark, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a class action suit entitled, Bishins v. CleanSpark, Inc. et al. On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford, and its Chief Financial Officer, Lori Love. The Class Complaint alleges that, between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, the Company, Bradford, and Love "failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.". The Class Complaint seeks: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the litigation. To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action. CleanSpark said, "Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company stands behind all of its prior statements and disclosures and believes that the claims raised in the Class Complaint are entirely without merit. The Company intends to both defend itself vigorously against these claims and to vigorously prosecute any counterclaims." CleanSpark, Inc., is in the business of acquiring, licensing and marketing patents and technology to create sustainable energy for its energy customers. The company is based in Woods Cross, Utah. CLEARVIEW AI: 7th Cir. Refuses to Revisit Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Lamoureux, Esq. -- christina.lamoureux@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the Seventh Circuit has declined to revisit its ruling affirming that a putative class action brought under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") should be heard in state court, rather than federal court. In an Order denying defendant Clearview AI's petition for rehearing en banc in Thornley v. Clearview AI, No. 20-3249, the court noted that the members of the original panel that heard the case had all voted to deny panel rehearing, and that no other judge had requested a vote on the petition for rehearing. CPW previously covered the Seventh Circuit's decision and Clearview's petition for rehearing. As a brief reminder, Plaintiffs had brought suit in state court, alleging violations of BIPA Sections 14/15(a), (b), and (c). Clearview removed to federal court, and Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, claiming they lacked Article III standing, which is necessary for suit in federal court and requires that a plaintiff show: (1) an injury in fact; (2) causation of the injury by the defendant; and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. The court found for Plaintiffs, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's remand. The Seventh Circuit found that the complaint had not sufficiently shown an injury in fact: this was likely a strategic choice by Plaintiffs, who likely preferred to sue in state court rather than federal court, but the Thornley court noted this was an acceptable strategy for Plaintiffs to employ. Thornley will likely not be the first BIPA case this year in which the parties dispute Article III standing to determine whether the appropriate forum is state or federal court. It also presents a unique situation in that plaintiffs were the parties disputing that they had Article III standing, as defendants would traditionally be the parties to dispute that plaintiffs have standing to sue. This may be a growing trend as more BIPA lawsuits are filed; defendants should take extra care to examine the way that a complaint alleging violations of BIPA is pled. [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("Clover Health" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities (1) between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/clov. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Clover's Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation presented an existential risk to the Company, since it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover's sales were by way of an undisclosed relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/clov or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Clover you have until April 6, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Feb. 18 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("Clover" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:CLOV)(NASDAQ:CLOVW) violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Clover securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger of Clover and Social Capital III, are encouraged to contact the firm before April 6, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Clover was the subject of an active DOJ investigation of at least 12 issues including kickbacks and deceptive marketing. The investigation represented a major threat to the Company's future due to its dependence on Medicare for revenue. The Company's sales were not driven by its "best-in-class" technology as it touted, but rather by misleading marketing practices aimed at senior citizens. A considerable portion of the Company's sales were derived from an undisclosed relationship with a brokerage firm controlled by the Clover's head of sales. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Clover, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] CODE INC: Smith Sues Over Tip Pooling and Failure to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- LARISSA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CODE, INC., d/b/a SHE SHE'S LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00347 (E.D. La., February 18, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an exotic dancer at the Defendant's Club during the period of about January 2017 through about November 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers at the Club as independent contractors. Consequently, they did not receive any kind of compensation from the Defendant for all work duties they performed. In addition, the Defendant required them to pay a per-shift house fee or kickback of $55.00 to $85.00 or more for each shift they worked, and to pay portions of the tips they received form the Defendant's customers to the Defendant's managers, vendors, and non-customarily tipped employees, the suit says. Code, Inc. d/b/a She She's Lounge operates a strip club that features exotic dancers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry A. Murphy, Esq. KERRY MURPHY LAW LLC 715 Girod St., Suite 250 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 603-1502 E-mail: kmurphy@kerrymurphylaw.com - and – Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com COOKIE DOUGH: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cookie Dough Cafe Holdco, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Cookie Dough Cafe Holdco, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00986-ENV-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Cookie Dough Cafe Holdco -- https://www.thecookiedoughcafe.com/ -- offers gourmet edible cookie dough.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Credit Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company and its business, and seeking class certification, unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020. Credit Acceptance said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter." Credit Acceptance Corporation provides funding, receivables management, collection, sales training, and related services to automobile dealers. The Company provides indirect financing for buyers with limited access to traditional sources of consumer credit. Credit Acceptance operates in the United States. The company is based in Southfield, Michigan. CURALEAF HOLDINGS: E.D. New York Dismisses Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled IN RE CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19-cv-4486 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.). In the securities action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misled investors about the legality of their cannabidiol ("CBD") products, causing loss when the truth was revealed. CBD is a chemical compound derived from plants in the cannabscae family. Both marijuana and hemp contain CBD and can be used to make CBD products, such as oils. Marijuana has a higher delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") content (up to 30%) and can come from both the cannabis indicia and cannabis sativa families of plants; hemp is derived only from the latter family and has a lower THC content (less than 0.3%). CBD has been incorporated into a variety of products--beverages, lotions, supplements, vape pens, bath bombs, pet treats, and more. Retailers claim that it provides various health benefits, ranging from treatment of pain and anxiety to cancer and Alzheimer's disease, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned that there is little to no scientific evidence supporting such claims. Further, the FDA has warned that CBD has the potential to cause liver injury, male reproductive toxicity, and changes in alertness and mood, among other harm and side effects. There is a conflict between state and federal regulation of cannabis and cannabis-based products. Marijuana is listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), meaning it is categorized as a drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. But 33 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana, 11 of those states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana, and 17 states have legalized the use and possession of CBD, although "legalization" means different things in different states. Most states also regulate hemp. On August 29, 2013, U.S. Attorney General James M. Cole issued a memorandum advising the federal government to exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing federal marijuana laws. This memorandum was rescinded on January 4, 2018, by the issuance of a new memorandum from U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who similarly instructed prosecutors to weigh relevant considerations in deciding whether to prosecute marijuana offenses. On December 20, 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 ("Farm Act") was enacted. The Farm Act amended the CSA by removing hemp from the definition of marijuana and, thus, from Schedule I of the CSA, allowing hemp to be grown under federal law in some circumstances. That same day, the FDA issued a statement confirming that it retained the authority to regulate cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, including CBD products. The FDA explained that such compounds are "subject to the same authorities and requirements as FDA-regulated products containing any other substance." Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., was created in a reverse takeover between the Canadian company Lead Ventures, Inc. (renamed Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.) and the Delaware corporation PalliaTech, Inc. (renamed Curaleaf, Inc. ("Curaleaf")). The action is brought on behalf of purchasers or acquirers of Curaleaf Holdings securities on the OTCQX, a United States market for companies already listed on a qualified international stock exchange. Curaleaf Holdings is listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange ("CSE"). On October 26, 2018, the same day that the Company announced the completion of the business combination, it filed its Listing Statement with the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval ("SEDAR"). SEDAR is the Canadian equivalent of the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system ("EDGAR") in the United States--it is the filing system designed to facilitate the electronic filing of securities information and allow for the public dissemination of Canadian securities information collected in the securities filing process. The Listing Statement is a document that "must be used for all initial applications for Listing and for Issuers resulting from a fundamental change" and "contains comprehensive disclosure about the issuer." The October 26, 2018 Listing Statement--filed with SEDAR that day, with the CSE on November 2, 2018, and with the OTCQX on January 15, 2019--included discussion about the cannabis industry, including the fact that Curaleaf will derive a substantial portion of its revenues from the cannabis industry in certain states of the United States, which industry is illegal under United States federal law. On October 29, 2018, Curaleaf Holdings began trading on the CSE. A press release from that date included comments from Defendant Lusardi that the Company was committed to aggressive organic growth, that the Curaleaf brand was a premium mainstream cannabis brand and that the products met the highest standards for safety, effectiveness, and quality. On November 21, 2018--the proposed beginning of the class period--Curaleaf Holdings issued a press release announcing that the Company had launched "a line of premium hemp-based CBD products," described as "natural," having undergone "strict laboratory testing," meeting "the strictest quality standards" and "supporting overall wellness." The CBD products were advertised and sold on the Company's website. The first press release did not discuss FDA approval, nor did another issued that same day, nor did press releases issued on November 26 and 28 and December 4, 5, and 14--all of which contained similar language regarding "premium" products and "highest standard for safety, effectiveness," and quality. On July 22, 2019, the FDA issued a warning letter to Curaleaf regarding several CBD products sold on its website. The FDA determined that these products are unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs sold in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). The letter instructed the Company to take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter and noted that failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including seizure and injunction. The Company's share price fell in the days following the issuance of the warning letter. On July 26, 2019, Curaleaf Holdings issued a press release reporting that it had responded to the FDA, removed the statements highlighted in the warning letter, and discontinued many of the products referred to within it. The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the class period, public statements made by the Company were false and misleading because the Defendants failed to fully disclose the illegality of the sale of CBD products under federal law due to the lack of FDA approval. The Defendants contend that the Company repeatedly disclosed that its cannabis-based products are not approved by the FDA as drugs, that the FDA may regard their promotion as the promotion of an unapproved drug in violation of federal law, and that the risk that the Company could be subject to an FDA enforcement action with significant negative consequences. The Defendants argue that these disclosures are fatal to plaintiffs' allegations that defendants deliberately withheld material information from investors. District Judge Brian M. Cogan agrees. He notes, starting on its first day in existence, the Company publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the very information that the Plaintiffs contend it concealed: its cannabis-based products are not approved by the FDA and, thus, the FDA may regard their promotion as violating established law. After describing the complex and contradictory nature of cannabis regulation in the United States and the risks attendant to operating a company that derives its revenues from the cannabis industry, the Listing Statement--the key disclosure document filed in connection with the Company going public--expressly disclosed, among other things, that the Company's cannabis-based products are not approved by the FDA as 'drugs' and that the FDA may regard their promotion as the promotion of an unapproved drug in violation of the FDCA. The Plaintiffs also argue that the Listing Statement does not disclose that selling a CBD-based product is "illegal" under federal law. But "illegal" and in "violation" of federal law mean the same thing, Judge Cogan says. The information that the Plaintiffs contend was not disclosed was clearly disclosed from the Company's inception. There is no requirement that a Company disclose its risk in any magic words preferred by the Plaintiffs, the Judge points out. Judge Cogan holds that the Company's on-point public disclosures are fatal to the Plaintiffs' claims, and those claims cannot be revived merely because the disclosures were not repeated in every press release issued by the Company. In opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs appear to assert a new, slightly different theory. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff had described the suggestion that the Company's CBD products were "safe" or "effective" as misleading in terms of FDA approval; the Plaintiffs alleged only that the Defendants created the misleading impression that the CBD products were safe, effective, had the health and medical benefits advertised and met medical/scientific standards when, in fact, the products had not be approved by the federal agency responsible for certifying the safety, effectiveness and quality of food and medical products sold in the U.S. The Defendants argue that the Court should not consider this claim but, if the Court is inclined to do so, the claim should be dismissed because it cannot satisfy loss causation. Judge Cogan holds that he will consider the claim because it was set out in the Plaintiffs' opposition motion and, thus, afforded the Defendants the opportunity to address it on reply, and the Defendants identify no prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiffs would like to assert a claim for securities fraud based on allegedly false statements about the Company's products' safety and efficacy, that claim fails, Judge Cogan rules. The Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend the complaint should the Court find that it fails to state a claim but have not included any proposed amended pleading or indicated what they might allege to cure the deficiencies. The Plaintiffs have already been permitted to file one amended pleading through the filing of the Amended Class Action Complaint. Judge Cogan says he cannot identify any further amendment that would improve upon the complaint; repleading cannot change the fact that the lack of FDA approval and risk of enforcement were adequately disclosed. Leave to amend is, thus, denied as futile, citing In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 303 F.Supp.2d 385, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the case dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated Feb. 15, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/x54uunzv from Leagle.com. DASCO HME: Progressive Health Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. DASCO HME, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00705-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 18, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent at least two unsolicited facsimiles to its fax machine on or about August 19, 2020 and on or about November 23, 2020 in an attempt to advertise the commercial availability and/or quality of its home medical equipment products and services. The Defendant's facsimiles do not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47 C.F.R. Section 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4). Additionally, the Plaintiff did not provide "prior express invitation or permission" to the Defendant to send the faxes, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from committing additional violations, as well as actual monetary damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dasco Home, LLC offer home medical equipment products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq. MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel: (513) 768-5227 Fax: (513) 768-9227 E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com - and – Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com DAVID JENNINGS: June 30 Class Certification Filing Deadline OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, et al., v. DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02731-VC (N.D. Calif.), the Court entered an order approving the parties stipulation to the case management deadlines and briefing schedule as follows: Last day to serve written fact discovery Feb. 15, 2021 Close of fact discovery April 30, 2021 Close of expert discovery June 15, 2021 The Plaintiffs' class certification June 30, 2021 and summary judgment motions due The Defendants' class certification and July 28, 2021 summary judgment oppositions and cross-summary judgment motions due: The Plaintiffs' class certification August 25, 2021 and summary judgment replies and cross-summary judgment oppositions due: The Defendants' cross-summary judgment Sept. 15, 2021: replies due: A copy of the Court's dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3stjjDt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Freeman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm St San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 The Attorneys for the Federal Defendants are: David L. Anderson, Esq. Sara Winslow, Esq. Wendy M. Garbers, Esq. Adrienne Zack, Esq. Shiwon Choe, Esq. Neal C. Hong, Esq. 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7200 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 E-mail: wendy.garbers@usdoj.gov adrienne.zack@usdoj.gov shiwon.choe@usdoj.gov neal.hong@usdoj.gov DAVITA INC: Settlement in Peace Officers' Suit Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the class action initiated by Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia, has been granted. On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's business and operational status and future growth prospects." In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Company and various individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company answered the complaint on May 28, 2019. On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company filed its opposition on June 29, 2020. While the Company continues to dispute the allegations, in July 2020, it reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter without admitting to any liability. Settlement of this matter on the agreed terms is expected to be covered primarily with insurance proceeds, with the Company contributing an amount that would not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on October 27, 2020. The settlement is subject to, among other things, final approval by the court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease (ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. DELTA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in D.C. Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the antitrust lawsuit against the company and other airline companies is still on discovery. In July 2015, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits were filed alleging that Delta, American Express, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines had conspired to restrain capacity. The lawsuits were filed in the wake of media reports that the U.S. Department of Justice had served civil investigative demands upon these carriers seeking documents and information relating to this subject. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In November 2016, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims, and the matter is now proceeding through discovery. Delta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is vigorously defending these lawsuits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Delta Air Lines, Inc., is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. DIESTEL TURKEY: Products Aren't Raised From Sonora Ranch, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DONOVAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH, Case No. 30-2021-01183688-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Calif. Super., Orange Cty., Feb. 9, 2021) is a consumer class action against Diestel, which markets and sells premium-priced turkey products (Turkey Products) nationwide through retailers such as Whole Foods and Amazon.com claiming that the Turkey Products are being raised from the Sonora Ranch and not from typical factory farms. According to the complaint, the label of each Diestel turkey product and Diestel's advertising uniformly states that Diestel's turkeys originate from its idyllic, family-run turkey ranch in Sonora, California (the Sonora Ranch), where turkeys are represented to be, among other things, "[t]houghtfully raised on sustainable family farms with plenty of fresh air and space to roam [and] are given individual care and a wholesome diet," "slow grown," and Diestel workers reportedly "walk the flock every day." The Defendant invites the public to visit the Sonora Ranch to see the turkeys and conditions for themselves. Diestel's representations indicate to consumers that its turkeys are not raised on typical factory farms, the suit says. To further bolster its representations that its turkeys are from Sonora Ranch, not from typical industrial farms, the Defendant also represents that its turkeys are raised in conformance with the highest animal welfare standards under the Global Animal Partnership ("GAP") Animal Welfare Certified program, added the suit. Diestel actively engaged in humanewashing its industrially produced turkey products. Farm Forward, a public interest organization, published a report in December 2020 titled, "The Dirt on Humanewashing: A Farm Forward Report on Consumer Deception in Animal Welfare Certification." Humanewashing is defined as "efforts to market animal products by promoting the illusion of animal well-being while concealing the extent of animals' illness and suffering." The report details how companies use the "halo effect" to deceive consumers. Companies, including Diestel, use certifications to give the impression that the most rigorous certification levels are representative of all products. Diestel boasts of these anomalous products as if they were the norm for the brand. "The halo effect is especially and increasingly worrisome at GAP," the report states. The Plaintiff contends that Diestel is a turkey processing company that sources nearly all of its turkeys from outside of Sonora, California, at typical factory farms (the "Off-Site Facilities"), where turkeys are raised in large, overcrowded sheds that lack sufficient space to engage in natural behaviors and are often mired in manure -- i.e., not ranches or ranch-like conditions depicted at the Sonora Ranch. Each of Diestel's misrepresentations creates an overall marketing scheme that misleads the public as to the origin of Diestel's Turkey Products and the conditions under which the turkeys are raised. The use of factory farming techniques means that Diestel's turkeys commonly suffer from, among other things, overcrowding, illness, injury, pain, filth, excessive confinement, lack of enrichment, and premature death, the Plaintiff contends. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently investigated its label review process and concluded that inaccurate labels are in commerce. The report, titled "Controls Over Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labels," indicated how unreliable these meat and poultry labels are even if they have been approved. As a result of Diestel's alleged misrepresentations about its turkey products from the Sonora Ranch, consumers paid more for Diestel Turkey Products and suffer harm in the form of paying a higher price for them than they would have paid if they had known that Diestel turkeys were raised at the agro-industrial Offsite Facilities. The Plaintiff brings this class and private attorney general action against Defendant, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, in order to seek damages and injunctive relief for the Defendant's false and misleading representations regarding its Turkey Products. The Defendant's misrepresentations constitute violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Law, Esq. COOPER AND SCULLY, PC 505 Sansome No. 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-9700 Facsimile: (415) 391-0274 Email: Alan.Law@cooperscully.com - and - Timothy L. Sifers, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 1901 W. 47 Place, Suite 210 Westwood, KS 66205 Telephone: (816) 931-2230 Facsimile: (816) 931-7030 E-mail: tsifers@potts-law.com - and - Gretchen Elsner, Esq. ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC 314 South Guadalupe Street Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 303-0980 E-mail: Gretchen@ElsnerLaw.org DISCOUNT TWO: Campbell Street Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMPBELL STREET COMPLEX L.L.C., an Indiana limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. DISCOUNT TWO WAY RADIO CORPORATION, a California corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00057-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant, (3) from whom Defendant did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendant did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4);" 2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiff submitted its Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint" and "the pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to the extent [it] hold[s] that a defendant's offer of full compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III case or controversy" but not commenting on effect of a "placeholder" motion if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot for some other reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted"). Discount Two distributes electronic communication equipment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bFN659 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J. et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by no later than July 19, 2021; 2. The Defendants shall file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by no later than September 27, 2021; 3. The Plaintiffs shall file any Reply by no later than October 25, 2021; and 4. Any rebuttal discovery related to class certification shall be completed by October 25, 2021. The nature of suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[CC] DOORDASH INC: Faces Campbell Tort Suit in California State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DOORDASH, INC. The case is captioned as LANIKA CAMPBELL and SOPHIA BARRERA, ON BEHALF OF v. DOORDASH, INC. ET AL., Case No. CGC21589694 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 9, 2021). The suit involves business tort issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Samuel K. Feng. A case management conference will be held on July 14, 2021. DoorDash is an American food delivery service. It launched in Palo Alto, California in 2013. As of January 2020, it had the largest food delivery market share in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1100 15th St NW, Fl4 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com EARN COMPANY: Faces Atterbury CROA Suit Over Illegal Upfront Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA ATTERBURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EARN COMPANY; CREDIT EXTERMINATORS INC.; SPRINKLE OF JESUS CORP.; CASEY OLIVERA a.k.a. DANA CHANEL; DONNELL MORRIS a.k.a. PRINCE DONNELL; CASSANDRA OLIVERA a.k.a. APRIL; and NAKIA RATTRAY a.k.a. JAMES ALLEN a.k.a. UNCLE MAJIC THE HIP HOP MAGICIAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-00623 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 10, 2021) is a consumer class action for damages under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA). The Defendants are a combination of corporate entities and their owners, agents, and employees who hold themselves out as providing credit repair services to consumers in exchange for money, or who have contracted with consumers seeking credit repair services. The Defendants have operated under several names -- sometimes using Credit Exterminators, and other times using the nonexistent, unincorporated association called the Earn Company. Indeed, most of the individual Defendants have concealed their true identities behind pseudonyms. As part of their course of business, the Defendants Earn Company, Credit Exterminators, and their agents and/or employees allegedly charge their consumer clients hundreds of dollars in illegal upfront fees, followed by a minimum six-month term during which consumers are forced to shell out hundreds of dollars more each month. As part of their course of business, these Defendants use contracts that unlawfully attempt to waive the CROA rights of its consumer clients, which require payment before the performance of any services, and which fail to include the most basic disclosures required by CROA, the suit says. The Defendants' failure to provide the required CROA disclosures prohibited it from performing any credit repair services for those consumers, and the Defendants' use of illegal waivers renders all of the credit repair contracts void. Dozens of consumers have complained about the Defendants' fraudulent and deceptive business practices, including that Defendants fail to provide the services promised, despite the hefty upfront fees. Nonetheless, Defendants persisted in their unlawful practices, added the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Christina Atterbury brings this class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for damages under CROA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, PC 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Amberber Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ EYOBE AMBERBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED; HUAZHI HU; RICHARD JIAN LIU; and EDWARD HUAXIANG XU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01392 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021) is a class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ehang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") American depositary shares ("ADS") between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"), alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. During the trading day on February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a scathing report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn." In this report, and as further alleged herein, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer who appears to us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in EHang than about buying its products." On this news, the price of EHang's ADS fell from its February 12, 2021 close of $124.09 to a February 16, 2021 close of $46.30 per share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share or approximately 62.7%, the suit says. EHang Holdings Limited operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, focuses on aerial vehicle technology, as well as offers passenger transportation and logistics services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com steti@blockleviton.com EHANG HOLDINGS: Faces Investors' Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Feb. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) American depositary shares ("ADS") between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer was overstated; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased ADS's of EHang between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021 and suffered significant losses on that investment, you are encouraged to contact Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss your legal rights. Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D. Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Suits over Helms-Burton Act Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss lawsuits over violation of the Helms-Burton Act remains pending. In September 2019, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. The complaint, filed by Marciela Mata, et al., alleges that class members hold an interest in property that was expropriated by the Cuban government and subsequently became the location of a hotel owned by Melia Hotels International. It further alleges that Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com and Orbitz LLC trafficked in that property by facilitating reservations for travelers. Between September 2019 and January 2020, five additional actions (three putative class actions and two individual actions) alleging similar claims related to additional properties were filed (Glen v. Expedia, Inc., et al.; Trinidad v. Expedia, Inc.; Del Valle, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al.; Echevarria v. Expedia, Inc.; Echevarria, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al.). Five of the actions are pending in the Southern District of Florida and one action is pending in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. The Mata action has been administratively adjourned until the parties agree to recommence the action and related jurisdictional discovery. In March 2020, the Court granted Expedia's motion to dismiss with prejudice in the Del Valle case. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and that appeal remains pending. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Glen action was held on December 7, 2020 and that motion remains pending. On January 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed Amended Class Action Complaints in the Trinidad, and both Echevarria matters. Expedia filed Motions to Dismiss in each matter on January 19, 2021 and those motions remain pending. Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments. The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EXPEDIA GROUP: Intervenor's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the trial court in the class action suit initiated by Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County, granted the intervenor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. In September 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz, alleging that defendants failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. In February 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of tax liability. The matter is currently pending in the trial court on damages issues. The prosecuting attorney for the Arkansas Sixth Judicial District filed a Complaint in Intervention, purportedly on behalf of the State of Arkansas, which the trial court granted, over defendants' objections, in a February 2020 order. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the intervenor's complaint in August 2020. On February 9, 2021, the trial court granted the intervenor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments. The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EXPEDIA GROUP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Buckeye Tree Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the Buckeye Tree Lodge lawsuit have reached a settlement in principle and are seeking court approval of the settlement. In August 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Expedia Australia Investments Pty Ltd. and trivago relating to alleged false advertising. The putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia Group defendants' websites with whom the defendants allegedly did not have a booking agreement during the relevant time period. The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia Group defendants for violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business & Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and restitution. The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are seeking court approval of the settlement. Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments. The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EXPEDIA GROUP: Suit Against HomeAway.com in Texas Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------- Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit against HomeAway.com, Inc. related to its implementation of a service fee, has been concluded. In March 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in federal district court in Texas against HomeAway.com, Inc. related to its implementation of a service fee. The putative class was comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites for rent. The complaint asserted claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the state consumer protection statutes. Subsequently, three other putative class action lawsuits were filed making similar claims. After a series of motions and appeals, three of the four lawsuits were dismissed and compelled to individual arbitration; one is proceeding as a putative class action in the Texas federal district court. The parties reached a settlement of the matter and the case was dismissed on December 18, 2020 thereby ending the matter. Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments. The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. EXPEDIA INC: Quezada Sues Over Inaccessible Website to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01405 (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's Website, www.vrbo.com, has multiple access barriers which denied him a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited the Website in February 2021 to browse and potentially make a purchase. The Defendant's Website purportedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. Moreover, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to its Website, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, like him. Expedia, Inc. is a travel company that owns and operates the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Ave., Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com EXXON MOBIL: Faces Bentler Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN J. BENTLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; DARREN W. WOODS; ANDREW P. SWIGER; DAVID S. ROSENTHAL; NEIL A. CHAPMAN; JACK P. WILLIAMS; LIAM M. MALLON; NEIL A. HANSEN; and JEFFREY J. WOODBURY, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00335-X (N.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2021) is a class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon securities between February 28, 2018, and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had overstated the value of its assets in the Permian Basin by at least $10 billion to $20 billion; (2) the Company's aggressive production goals in the Permian Basin were unrealistic and overly optimistic; (3) the Company therefore faced an increased risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's Permian Basin assets lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting declines in the market value of Exxon securities, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages. Exxon Mobil Corporation operates petroleum and petrochemicals businesses. The Company provides operations include exploration and production of oil and gas, electric power generation, and coal and minerals operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl Rupp, Esq. Bradley Beckworth, Esq. Jeffrey Angelovich, Esq. Susan Whatley, Esq. Cody Hill, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, LLP 1845 Woodall Rodgers Freeway, Suite 1050 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 831-1188 Facsimile: (972) 444-0716 E-mail: krupp@nixlaw.com bbeckworth@nixlaw.com jangelovich@nixlaw.com swhatley@nixlaw.com codyhill@nixlaw.com -and- Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Karissa J. Sauderv KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com ksauder@ktmc.com FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces Data Breach Suit in Florida Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC. d/b/a AdventHealth Medical Group Surgical Specialists at Tampa, a Florida corporation, Case No. 121109783 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Feb. 9, 2021) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information that the Defendant acquired from its patients. The Defendant required this information from its patients or recorded this information for its patients as a condition or result of medical treatment, including without limitation, name, date of birth, gender, marital status, email address, race, religion, Social Security number, driver's license information, address, and billing information (personal identifiable information or PII) as well as medications list and clinical documentation/notes ("protected health information" or PHI). On or before December 22, 2020, the Defendant determined that an unauthorized actor obtained access to a legacy computer system on December 18, 2020 (the Data Breach). On or before December 22, 2020, the Defendant learned that the files accessed and acquired during the Data Breach contained the PII and PHI of Defendant's current and former patients, including Plaintiffs and Class Members. In a letter dated January 21, 2021, Defendant advised that it was informing its current and former patients of the Data Breach, the suit says. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII and PHI exposed to "unauthorized activity" included names, dates of birth, genders, marital statuses, email addresses, races, religions, Social Security numbers, driver's license information, addresses, billing information, medications lists, and clinical documentation/notes. This PII and PHI was allegedly compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect PII and PHI of Defendant's current and former patients. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct. These injuries include lost or diminished value of PII and PHI; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and PHI; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including lost time, and significantly the continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII, which remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and may remain backed up in the Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII and PHI, and at the very least, are entitled to nominal damages, the suit adds. The Plaintiffs are both citizen of Florida residing in Hillsborough County, Florida. They received the Defendant's letter notifying their Data Breach, dated January 21, 2021. The Defendant operates dozens of medical facilities throughout Florida under a variety of fictitious names, including AdventHealth Medical Group Surgical Specialists at Tampa. In order to obtain medical treatment, the Plaintiffs and other patients of the Defendant entrust and provide to the Defendant an extensive amount of PII. The Defendant also records an extensive amount of PHI regarding its patients, including medications lists and clinical documentation/notes. The Defendant retains this information on computer hardware -- even long after the treatment relationship ends. The Defendant acknowledges that it understands the importance of protecting information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com FLORIDA TECHNICAL: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-003363 (Fla. 17th Jud Cir. Ct., February 17, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about November 3, 2020, November 6, 2020, and January 25, 2021, in an attempt to solicit and promote its for profit college. Allegedly, the Defendant has been utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in transmitting unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff without obtaining his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS. The platform that was used by the Defendant in transmitting text messages has the capacity to store telephone numbers, to generate sequential numbers, to dial numbers from a list of numbers, to dial numbers without human intervention, and to schedule the time and date for future transmission of text messages, the suit adds. The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff harm, including invasion of his privacy and annoyance, as well as inconvenienced and disruption to his daily life. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using an ATDS to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the prior express consent of the called party, as well as statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just. Florida Technical College, Inc. is a for profit college with multiple campuses in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (844) 542-7235 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com FORESEE SESSION: Wiretaps CVS Websites' Visitors, Lubin Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TIM LUBIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FORESEE SESSION REPLAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and VERINT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-60319-JIC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2021) is a class action suit brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to CVS.com, CVSSpecialty.com and Caremark.com (CVS Websites). According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the Websites, are used by the Defendants to secretly observe and record Websites visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of Protected Health Information ("PHI") and Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"), in real time. By doing so, the Defendants have allegedly violated Florida's Security of Communications Act (FSCA), and invaded the Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights in violation of Florida law. In January of 2021, Mr. Lubin visited CVS.com, CVSSpecialty.com and Caremark.com, the Websites. During the visit, the Defendants recorded his electronic communications in real time, including his mouse clicks, keystrokes, insurance, medical, and payment card information. Foresee Session Replay, Inc. is a subsidiary of Verint Systems, Inc. Foresee provides businesses software-as-a-service ("SaaS"), including marketing software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Nix Appeal in Ohio PERS Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage 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 filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the putative securities class action suit entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al. This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk management, and the procedures it put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On January 23, 2019, the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal that decision. On September 17, 2020, the District Court granted a request from the plaintiff for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Freddie Mac and the other defendants. On October 9, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit. On January 27, 2021, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Freddie Mac said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of the appellate process, and the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event the case is ultimately remanded to the District Court in whole or in part. In particular, while the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, this decision and the entry of final judgment in defendants' favor have been appealed. Absent a final resolution of whether a class will be certified, the identification of a class if one is certified, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss." Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia. FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action suit. This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and (FHFA), filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time. Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA, and Treasury. This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The allegations and demands made by plaintiffs, in this case, were generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations case. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also requested that, if injunctive relief were not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they stated to be approximately $42 million. American European Insurance Company, Cacciapelle, and Miller vs. Treasury and FHFA. This case was filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a nominal defendant, on July 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that, through the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and FHFA breached their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac, causing Freddie Mac to suffer damages. The plaintiffs asked that Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory damages and disgorgement, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses. FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. In September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision granting the motions to dismiss. The DC Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims except certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims. On July 17, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the petitions for rehearing and issued a modified decision, which permitted the institutional plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that had been remanded. The DC Circuit also removed language related to the standard to be applied to the implied duty claims, leaving that issue for the District Court to determine on remand. On October 16, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging whether HERA's prohibition on injunctive relief against FHFA bars judicial review of the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, as well as whether HERA bars shareholders from pursuing derivative litigation where they allege the conservator faces a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court denied the petitions on February 20, 2018. On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in the District Court. Each of the proposed amended complaints names Freddie Mac as a defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law. On January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to dismiss the amended complaints. On September 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed all of the claims except those alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Discovery is ongoing. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia. G&G FITNESS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against G & G Fitness Equipment Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. G & G Fitness Equipment Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01602 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. G&G Fitness Equipment -- https://livefit.com/ -- is a provider of specialty home fitness equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com GARRETT WADE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garrett Wade Company, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Garrett Wade Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01616 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Garrett Wade -- https://garrettwade.com/ -- is a quality woodworking and gardening tools company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Second Circuit affirms the order of dismissal in the consolidated Birnbaum and Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds putative class action suits. In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two actions. In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power business. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018. In August 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In September 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In May 2020, the court granted GE's motion to dismiss the case, and in February 2021, the Second Circuit in the plaintiffs' appeal affirmed the lower court's dismissal. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Junks Bezio Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court handling the "Bezio Case" granted the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. In June 2018, the lawsuit was filed in New York state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k) plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration statement and documents incorporated therein by reference. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP. In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in November 2019, the court dismissed the remaining claims and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended derivative complaint, and in January 2020, GE filed a motion to dismiss. In December 2020, the court granted GE's motion to dismiss and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Hachem Suit ----------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in the consolidated "Hachem Suit" granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Hachem case). In October 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a fifth amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019. In January 2021, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. Specifically, the court dismissed all claims related to insurance reserves, as well as all claims related to accounting for long-term service agreements, with the exception of certain claims about historic disclosures related to factoring in the Power business that survive as to GE and its former CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein. All other individual defendants have been dismissed from the case. In addition, the court denied the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint again. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Dismissed from Tri-State Putative Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court dismissed all claims asserted against GE in "Tri-State" case, allowing only the claim against the former Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) CEO to move forward. In August 2019, the putative class action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE and the former Board of Directors of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI). It alleges fraud, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of duty of disclosure by GE based on allegations regarding financial statements that GE provided the former BHI board, management and shareholders in connection with BHI's merger with GE's Oil and Gas Business in July 2017. The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of BHI shareholders during the period between October 7, 2016 and July 5, 2017. In October 2019, the City of Providence filed a complaint containing allegations substantially similar to those in the Tri-State complaint. The cases were consolidated in November 2019, and in December 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which is similar to the prior complaints but does not include fraud claims against GE. In February 2020, GE and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. In October 2020, the court dismissed all claims asserted against GE, allowing only the claim against the former BHI CEO to move forward. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Varga Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Second Circuit affirms the order of dismissal in "Varga" case. In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in connection with the oversight of the GE RSP. It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through January 19, 2018 or later. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2020, the court granted GE's motion to dismiss the case, and in February 2021, the Second Circuit in the plaintiffs' appeal affirmed the lower court's dismissal. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Class Suit over ERISA Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class suit related to the GE Retirement Savings Plan. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the oversight of the GE RSP, and those class actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period. Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in their oversight of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options for plan participants and by charging higher management fees than some alternative funds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. General Electric said, "We believe we have defenses to the claims and are responding accordingly." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil & Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Shea Suit Over Alleged Oil Consumption Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- RON SHEA and ROBERT KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00086 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 9, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs seeking damages and equitable relief individually and on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom purchased or leased one or more model year 2011-2014 GM vehicles fitted with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines (the "Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines"). GM made the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine available as an engine option in the following vehicles: Chevrolet Avalanche; Chevrolet Silverado; Chevrolet Suburban; Chevrolet Tahoe; GMC Sierra; GMC Yukon; and GMC Yukon XL (Class Vehicles). According to the complaint, GM failed to disclose the truth about these vehicles and failed to remedy the well-established defects in the Class Vehicles that were on the road. In 2006, for its model year 2007 vehicles, General Motors Corporation ("Old GM") introduced its redesigned Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine and installed it in many of its most popular Class vehicles. Unfortunately, the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an abnormally and improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This excessive oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage, the suit says. On June 8, 2009, Old GM filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Defendant GM acquired its assets and, for model years 2010-2014, continued manufacturing and selling Chevrolet and GMC vehicles equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. Multiple factors contribute to the excessive oil consumption problem in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The combination of these factors, and the resultant excessive oil consumption, is referred to as the "Oil Consumption Defect." It is an inherent defect in each of the Class Vehicles. Despite this knowledge, GM continued selling and leasing Class Vehicles without ever disclosing the Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, GM has never disclosed the Oil Consumption Defect to consumers. Rather, GM has allowed drivers of the Class Vehicles to continue driving those vehicles, despite knowing that they are consuming oil at an abnormally high rate, and has continued allowing drivers of the Class Vehicles to rely on the Oil Life Monitoring System, despite knowing that they were driving well past the point at which their vehicles have consumed the amount of oil necessary for proper engine lubrication and proper, safe operation, the suit adds. Each current or former purchaser or lessee of a Class Vehicle paid for a vehicle fitted with a defective engine that consumed an abnormally high volume of oil, subjecting their vehicles to the problems described herein. Each of these current and/or former owners and/or lessees were damaged in that they paid more for their Class Vehicles than they would have paid had they known about the defect that GM failed to disclose, or they would not have purchased or leased their Class Vehicles at all.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott L. Starr, Esq. Andrew B. Miller, Esq. STARR AUSTEN & MILLER, LLP 201 South Third Street Logansport, Indiana 46947 Telephone: (574) 722-6676 E-mail: starr@starrausten.com miller@starrausten.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq Daniel R. Ferri, Esq DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Tyner D. Helms, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Lori E. Andrus, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-986-1400 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com lori@andrusanderson.com GEORGE'S MUSIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE'S MUSIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01455-AJN (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited the Defendant's Website, www.georgesmusic.com, using a popular screen reading software on or around January 2021 with the intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase. The Defendant's Website purportedly lacks of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 guidelines, which could provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated visually-impaired persons equal access and independently navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction similar to that of a sighted individual do. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons, the Plaintiff seeks damages, fees, costs, and injunctive relief resulting from the Defendant's violations of the ADA which have caused them harm. George's Music, Inc. is a musical company that owns and operates the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com GOLUB CORPORATION: Pochesci Files Suit in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Golub Corporation. The case is styled as Lynne Pochesci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Golub Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-40022-TSH (D. Mass., Feb. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Golub Corporation -- https://www.pricechopper.com/ -- is an American supermarket operator. Headquartered in Schenectady, New York, it owns the chains Market 32 and Price Chopper Supermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Longo, Esq. CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, PC 996 Smith Street Suite 101 Providence, RI 02908 Phone: (401) 383-7550 Fax: (401) 537-9185 Email: jtlongo@jtlongolaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Black Suit Moved to Northern District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NICHOLAS BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00077, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 18, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01200-JD to the proceeding. The case arises from antitrust-related issues and is assigned to the Hon. James Donato. Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on Web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Paul J. Tahan, Esq THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com ptahan@simonlawpc.com GRAND CANYON: Denial of Dismissal/Arbitration Bid in Ward Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. v. WARD, Case No. A20A1894 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division, affirmed the trial court's denial of Grand Canyon's motion to dismiss or compel arbitration in the class action lawsuit filed by Lee Ward. Mr. Ward alleges that in 2015 he enrolled in an online course at Grand Canyon Education, doing business as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). GCU procured federal loans and grants on Ward's behalf. The enrollment agreement that Ward signed contained an arbitration clause stating that Ward agreed that any dispute arising from his enrollment will be resolved by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. After taking an online class for several weeks, Ward decided to terminate his enrollment. Thereafter, GCU notified Ward that he owed approximately $1000 in tuition, which Ward ultimately paid. GCU also sent Ward a form indicating that it had obtained over $2,000 in federal grants or scholarships on his behalf. After being contacted by a GCU recruiter, Ward decided to enroll in another online class. This time, GCU obtained over $6,000 in federal loans on Ward's behalf. After attending the online class, Ward again decided to withdraw his enrollment. Ward claims that he completed an online form several times during the first week of classes indicating his desire to withdraw. However, Ward did not hear anything regarding his withdrawal request so he submitted the form again, and he was then contacted by the GCU recruiter who informed him that since he waited until after the first week of classes to withdraw from the course he was required to pay the full tuition and may also owe money to the federal government for the loans obtained on his behalf. Mr. Ward filed a class action lawsuit against GCU alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeking a declaratory judgment that certain contractual provisions were unenforceable. GCU removed the case to federal court, but the district court found that GCU's notice of removal was untimely and remanded the case back to the superior court. GCU then filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, which the superior court granted. Mr. Ward then appealed the superior court's order, contending that the "Borrower Defense Regulations," 34 CFR Section 685.300 et seq. (2016), prohibited enforcement of the arbitration clause. During the pendency of the appeal, a federal court held unlawful a previously-imposed stay in implementing the regulations in Bauer v. DeVos, 325 F.Supp.3d 74, 96(II)(B), 101(II)(C), 110(II)(D)(3) (D. C. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Court vacated the superior court's order and remanded the case for the court to consider the effect of the Borrower Defense Regulations on GCU's motion to compel arbitration. On remand, the parties submitted supplemental briefing, and the superior court concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the Borrower Defense Regulations. Accordingly, it denied GCU's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. GCU obtained a certificate of immediate review, and the Court granted GCU's application for interlocutory appeal. On appeal, GCU contends that the Borrower Defense Regulations do not preclude arbitration of Ward's claims because they do not qualify as "borrower defense claims." Before turning to the issue at hand, the Court of Appeals assesses the governing regulatory framework. On Nov. 1, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education promulgated the revised "Borrower Defense Regulations." The Department's 2016 amendments to the regulations resulted from government investigations establishing that Corinthian Colleges, a publicly traded company operating numerous postsecondary schools, had "engaged in widespread misrepresentations and other abusive conduct," resulting in the Department levying a $30 million fine in 2015 against Heald, a chain owned by Corinthian. Days later, Heald and other Corinthian-owned schools closed and filed for bankruptcy relief, and none of the government actions against the company actually achieved affirmative recovery for Corinthian Direct Loan borrowers. Class action lawsuits and individual suits brought by Corinthian students were barred by arbitration clauses included in the Corinthian enrollment agreements, resulting in a flood of students applying for loan relief pursuant to the Department's borrower defense regulations. The Department was left to redress the losses with taxpayer dollars. In response to the collapse of Corinthian Colleges, the Department of Education proposed amendments to the regulation governing the terms of the program participation agreement, which participating institutions must agree to before their students may receive federal Direct Loans. Most notably, the Department proposed amending the program participation agreement to require institutions to agree, as a condition of participation in the Direct Loan program, to forego the use of class action waivers and the use of mandatory predispute arbitration clauses in their enrollment agreements. These amendments were codified in 34 CFR Section 685.222 and Section 685.300 et seq., and took effect in October 2018. Pertinently, Section 685.300 provides that an institution of higher education subject to the Borrower Defense Regulations "will not rely in any way on a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to any aspect of a borrower defense claim." The regulations define a "borrower defense claim" as "a claim that is or could be asserted as a borrower defense as defined in Section 685.222(a)(5), including a claim other than one based on Section 685.222(c) or (d) that may be asserted under Section 685.22(b) if reduced to judgment." Based on the language in Section 685.300, GCU argues that claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation under Section 685.222(c) and (d), such as Ward's claims in the instant case, are expressly excluded from the categories of "borrower defense claims" covered by the regulations. Specifically, GCU interprets "including a claim other than" as a phrase of exclusion such that breach-of-contract (Section 685.222(c)) and substantial-misrepresentation (Section 685.222(d)) claims are never "borrower defense claims" within the meaning of 34 CFR Section 685.300(i)(1). Ward maintains that the phrase "does not operate to exclude claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation but rather clarifies that a claim other than a breach of contract or misrepresentation can also be asserted." According to him, one cannot properly read a phrase following "including" to exclude. Thus, Ward, and the superior court, read the phrase to mean that breach-of-contract and substantial-misrepresentation claims are "borrower defense claims" and that non-breach-of-contract and non-misrepresentation are borrower defense claims so long as they could be asserted as borrower defenses under Section 685.222(b) if reduced to judgment. In light of the regulations' background and stated purpose of protecting student borrowers as well as taxpayer dollars, the Court of Appeals cannot agree with GCU's exclusionary reading which would gut the regulations' protections. As the Eleventh Circuit pointed out, GCU would have it read the phrase including a claim other than one based on Section 685.222(c) or (d) that may be asserted under Section 685.222(b) if reduced to judgment to exclude at least two-thirds of the specified borrower defenses--and indeed, the ones most likely to underlie claims asserted by jilted borrowers, namely breach-of-contract and misrepresentation claims. In sum, the Court of Appeals agrees with the superior court's conclusion that Ward's breach-of-contract and misrepresentation claims fall within the breadth of "borrower defense claims." Regardless of whether the regulations do or do not provide a basis for a student to resist a motion to compel arbitration, GCU is foreclosed from seeking to enforce the arbitration clause it publicly announced it would not enforce as to borrower defense claims, as determined by a court. Given its holding that Ward's claims qualify as borrower defense claims, the Court of Appeals finds that GCU cannot now seek to circumvent its agreement/pronouncement not to enforce arbitration agreements against a student asserting such claims. For the reasons it stated, it affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s2lyj0x7 from Leagle.com. GREENWOOD NURSERY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenwood Nursery, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Greenwood Nursery, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01618 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Greenwood Nursery -- https://www.greenwoodnursery.com/ -- offers the online sale of plants, trees, shrubs, perennials, fruit plants, and garden supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Joint Bid to Decertify Conditional Status Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Satchidananda Buber and Joseph Trejo, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. GrowersHouse LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; GG Growth, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Nathan Lipton and John/Jane Doe Lipton, a married couple; and Paul Lipton and John/Jane Doe Lipton, a married couple, Case No. 4:20-cv-00219-RM (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court for an order to decertify the collective action conditional certification approved by this Court on November 30, 2020. On December 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs transmitted via First-Class U.S. Mail the approved Notice of Collective Action to all current and former employees of GH and GG who may fall within the scope of the class. The conditional certification provided a deadline of January 25, 2021, or 45 days after transmission of the Notice, for prospective class members to join this action. None of the prospective members elected to join. Given the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree that this case should proceed in the regular course and without any collective action elements. The parties respectfully request that the Court enter and sign the proposed order submitted, the Parties say. Growers House is a family-owned and operated hydroponics supplies and indoor gardening center. A copy of the Parties joint motion dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O67OTt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto C. Garcia, Esq. Jacob R. Valdez, Esq. FARHANG & MEDCOFF 4801 E Broadway Blvd No. 311 Tucson, AZ 85711 Telephone: (520) 214-2000 E-mail: rgarcia@farhangmedcoff.com jvaldez@farhangmedcoff.com The Defendants are represented by: J. Greg Coulter, Esq. Monica M. Ryden, Esq. Andrew M. Gaggin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2111 East Highland Avenue, Suite B-250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: Greg.Coulter@jacksonlewis.com Monica.Ryden@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Gaggin@jacksonlewis.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Inorganic Arsenic, Mays Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALYSSA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01185 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2021) is a consumer class action brought individually by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all persons, all of whom purchased one or more of certain baby foods manufactured by Hain. Hain manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name Earth's Best throughout the United States. Hain states that "it ensures a high degree of attention to both ingredient and product quality and safety -- from procuring, handling, storing, blending, and packaging through distributing Earth's Best (TM) products to our consumer." Hain further states it "ensures the best ingredients for our food and ultimately the best food for your children." Hain does not list heavy metals as an ingredient on the Products' labels nor does it warn of the potential presence of heavy metals in the Products. Hain also does not disclose that the ingredients of its supposedly organic Products contain inorganic arsenic, the Plaintiff contends. According to the complaint, unbeknown to the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and contrary to the representations on the Products label, the Products contain heavy metals, including inorganic arsenic, cadmium and lead at levels above what is considered safe for babies, which, if disclosed to the Plaintiff and members of the Class prior to purchase, would have caused Plaintiff and members of the Class not to purchase or consume the Products. As a result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, the suit adds. The Plaintiff and the Class thus bring claims for consumer fraud and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The products at issue are all baby foods sold by Defendant that contain one or more of the following ingredients: organic barley flour, organic chopped broccoli, organic date paste, organic cinnamon powder, organic brown flax milled, organic yellow papaya puree, organic whole what fine, organic red lentils, organic oat flakes, organic oat flour; organic vitamin pre-mix, organic brown rice flour, organic whole raisins, organic soft white wheat flour, organic spelt flour, organic barley malt extract, organic yellow split pea powder, medium grain whole rice, organic butternut squash puree, and organic blueberry puree, and include, Stage 1: Baby Chicken & Chicken Broth, Stage 2: Sweet Potato and Chicken Dinner; Stage 2: Chicken & Rice (the Products).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FORM LLC 134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8297 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Boyd Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LEE BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00884 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for its negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of toxic heavy metals in its baby food products. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant's wrongful marketing and advertising, which includes misleading, deceptive, unfair, and false marketing and omissions, allowed Hain Celestial to capitalize on, and reap enormous profits from, consumers who paid the purchase price or a premium price for the Baby Food Products that were not sold as advertised. The Defendant continues to wrongfully induce consumers to purchase its Baby Food Products that are not as advertised, the Plaintiff adds. 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Julie B. Palley, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com jpalley@barrack.com -and- Michael A. Toomey, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Eleven Times Square 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688–0782 Facsimile: (212) 688–0783 E-mail: mtoomey@barrack.com -and- Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230–0800 Facsimile: (619) 230–1874 -and- John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800)-551-8649 Facsimile: (501)-286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com -and- Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Facsimile: (888) 505-0909 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com HALL MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Martinez Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, ERIKA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. HALL MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-00343-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.). On Jan. 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate granted a stay of the action so the parties could instead seek preliminary approval of the parties' settlement of the related class action case proceeding in Kern County Superior Court, No. BCV-19-101497 ("Kern County action"). On Aug. 11, 2020, the judge presiding over the Kern County action granted preliminary approval of that class action settlement. Notice of the proposed settlement was mailed to the proposed class members, and the parties state no proposed class member opted out. On Jan. 26, 2021, the judge presiding over the Kern County Superior Court action granted final approval, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The parties are now seeking a dismissal of the pending action because the parties' class action settlement has been approved through the Kern County Superior Court action. As the assigned magistrate judge previously determined, the parties' decision to seek state court approval of the settlement of an identical class could be used to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). This process has now been completed, all issues related to class settlement have been addressed, including awarding the attorneys' fees, the settlement administrator costs, and the Plaintiff's service award, so the pending case may be closed in accordance with the terms of the parties' stipulation. Accordingly, Judge Drozd dismissed with prejudice the action in accordance with the terms of the parties' stipulation. He directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/17d6upc3 from Leagle.com. HELBIZ INC: Barron Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ryan Barron, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RYAN BARRON, FILIPPO BULGARINI D'ELCI, DENIS DESARI, ILLIA CHEHERST, MARAT GARIBYAN, RISHI KHANCHANDANI, DANIILS LEBEDEUS, DONG SEOK LEE, TAREK RAHMAN, ABHISHEK SIKARIA, for themselves and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HELBIZ INC., SALVATORE PALELLA, NETELLER (US) INC., SKRILL USA INC., LORENZO PELLEGRINO, MILOS CITOVEK, JONATHAN HANNESTAD, STEFANO CIRAVEGNA, MICHAEL COPPOLA, GIULIO PROFUMO, JUSTIN GUILIANO, and SAEED ALDARMAKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-LLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is brought to obtain justice for approximately 20,000 small investors who were swindled in a crypto currency scam called HelbizCoin perpetrated by Defendants PALELLA and HELBIZ INC. The scam preyed mainly on small, unsophisticated investors, with the average investment being approximately $2,000. But by leveraging the exponential messaging capacity of social media worldwide, and by creating purposeful misimpressions about the size of the company and the popularity of the investment, Defendants were allegedly able to trick thousands of people and extract over $40 million dollars by an initial coin offering and by later dumping the coins on the secondary market. As part of the alleged illicit scheme, PALELLA falsely claimed to the prospective coin buyers that HELBIZ had built and was growing a vast transportation rental platform that used smartphone apps to allow customers to rent everything from flying drone taxis to cars, bikes and scooters. The pitch, which came as the value of another popular blockchain-based coin was marching its way to $20,000, was that HELBIZ would now use similar blockchain technology to create a single method of payment for every rental: the HelbizCoin. According to the Defendants, HelbizCoin was set to become the bitcoin of all transportation, and would allegedly rise in value as people everywhere turned to it to rent vehicles on the growing Helbiz-branded platform. The class action sought the Court's assistance to enjoin Defendants from destroying the coin's Etherium smart contract, as well as to award them damages and other relief. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2021 and Judgment dated January 25, 2021, dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaints without prejudice to renewal in other jurisdictions. The appellate case is captioned as Barron v. Helbiz, Inc., Case No. 21-278, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Ryan Barron, Filippo Bulgarini d'Elci, Denis Desari, Marat Garibyan, Illia Cheherst, Rishi Khanchandani, Daniils Lebedeus, Dong Seok Lee, Tarek Rahman, and Abhishek Sikaria, for themselves and a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: mike@loevy.com Defendants-Appellees Helbiz, Inc., Salvatore Palella, Neteller (US) Inc., Skrill USA Inc., Lorenzo Pellegrino, Milos Citovek, Jonathan Hannestad, Stefano Ciravegna, Giulio Profumo, and Justin Guiliano are represented by: Robert G. Heim, Esq. TARTER, KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 216-1131 E-mail: rheim@tarterkrinsky.com - and - William Francis Dahill, Esq. DUNNINGTON, BARTHOLOW & MILLER LLP 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-8811 E-mail: wdahill@dunnington.com - and - Adam M. Bialek, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 5th Avenue New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: abialek@wmd-law.com - and - Zeev Kirsh, Esq. KIRSH, LLC 347 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 586-7517 E-mail: zeev@zeev.org HENLY LAND: Misclassified Workers Seek Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY MURDOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HENLY LAND & HOMES, INCORPORATED AND ROY L. HENLY, II, Case No. 4:21-cv-00129 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2021) seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Ms. Murdock brings this action individually and on behalf of all current and former workers (Misclassified Workers) who worked for the Defendant Henly and received a salary plus commission but were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Henly is a mobile home dealer in Sulphur Springs, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com HERITAGE COMPANY: Yasevich Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHAN YASEVICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. THE HERITAGE COMPANY, INC., and SANDRA FRANECKE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00019-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification; 2. certifying, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following class: "All employees who worked for the Heritage Company, Inc., and Sandra Franecke in Arkansas at their Sherwood, Searcy, or Jonesboro facilities on December 22, 2019;" 3. appointing Kailey Dickerson, Kathy Burdess, Katrina Grimes, Marni Chagala, Megan Fisher, Paula Gammons, Ronald Denney, Shelly Thomason, Sherri Denney, Sierra Nelson, Stephanie Dunbar, and Stephen Parnell as class representatives; 4. appointing Joshua Sanford and Daniel D. Ford of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as class counsel; and 5. approving the proposed notice of class action lawsuit and its distribution to the class. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), and, therefore, certifies the proposed class. On January 22, 2020, the plaintiffs, former employees of call centers operated by the defendant the Heritage Company, Inc., filed a putative class and collective action against Heritage and its owner, defendant Sandra Franecke, alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, as well as violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1998. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kiAmoR at no extra charge.[CC] HIGGINS AG: Onofre Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Antonio Onofre, and other similarly situated individuals v. Higgins AG LLC, Marianne Higgins, and Brent M. Higgins, individually, Case No. 8:21-cv-00311-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2021) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former employees similarly situated worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January 2018, without being properly compensated. The Plaintiff is as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee from March 01, 2017, to December 19, 2020, or 198 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired as manual labor to repair, demolish, and building nursery greenhouses. Defendant Higgins is a Florida Corporation dedicated to the designing, manufacturing, and building of metal structures such as commercial/industrial greenhouses for the Horticulture, Agriculture, and medical industries. Defendant performs its business in Florida and throughout the United States. The individual Defendants were and are now, the owners/officers and managers of the Defendants Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HOLMES COUNTY, OH: FLSA Class Status of Corrections Officers Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MONTGOMERY, et al., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TIMOTHY W. ZIMMERLY, HOLMES COUNTY SHERIFF, Case No. 5:20-cv-02267-KBB (N.D. Ohio), the Parties stipulate to and seek an order from this Court: a. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective class defined as: "All current and former Corrections Officers employed by the Defendant during the previous 3 years, who were paid on an hourly basis, worked at least 39 hours in any workweek, and were required to attend pre-shift meetings;" b. approving the form and substance of the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit to be provided to the collective class; c. approving the form and substance of the Consent to Join. This Consent Form shall be the exclusive form used by members of the collective class to join the instant litigation; and d. appointing Attorneys Greg R. Mansell and Carrie J. Dyer of Mansell Law LLC as class counsel for the conditionally certified collective class. Plaintiff Montgomery filed this action on October 7, 2020, alleging that her employer, Defendant Timothy W. Zimmerly, Holmes County Sheriff's office, failed to pay her and similarly situated individuals for all wages earned, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay them for time spent in mandatory pre-shift meetings prior to the start of their shifts, resulting in the Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime compensation. Holmes County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aVxADa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Greg R. Mansell, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 610-4134 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Greg@MansellLawLLC.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Maxwell, Esq. Matthew P. Mullen, Esq. Marcus L. Wainwright, Esq. KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO., LPA 405 Chauncey Ave. NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663 Telephone: (330) 364-3472 E-mail: mmullen@kwgd.com jmaxwell@kwgd.com mwainwright@kwgd.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Kanefsky Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by, David Kanefsky. On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on February 7, 2020, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 18, 2020, the court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss. Honeywell said, "We believe the claims have no merit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey. INSPERITY INC: Building Trades Pension Fund Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a federal securities class action suit initiated by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania. In July 2020, a federal securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The name of the case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB. On October 23, 2020, the court issued an order appointing Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust as lead plaintiff. On December 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated complaint alleging that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such other relief that may be deemed proper. Insperity said, "We believe the allegations in the action are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements." Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business solutions to enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the class action suit related to its 401(k) retirement plan has set the final approval hearing for March 5, 2021. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan participants. The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment choices. The court certified a class defined as "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017." The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper of the Plan. On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and set a bench trial, which was held from March 2, 2020 to March 13, 2020. At trial, the plaintiffs alleged damages up to approximately $146.0 million against all defendants. All parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 15, 2020. On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant informed the court that they reached an agreement in principle to settle the entire case, including a full and final release of all claims against Insperity. Insperity did not participate in the settlement discussions and will make no financial contribution to the settlement. In connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant filed a motion to extend the class period to March 31, 2019, which the court granted. The court has also granted preliminary approval of the settlement and has set the final approval hearing on March 5, 2021. Insperity said, "As a result of the uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter and the subsequent settlement agreement that, if approved by the court, will end the case with no financial contribution from Insperity, no provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statement." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Insperity, Inc. provides human resources and business solutions to enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. IOWA: Appeals Ruling in Boys State Training School Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Gazette reports that a restraining device called "the wrap" is gone. Staff at the Boys State Training School in Eldora are now using seclusion rooms only in cases when a boy is at risk of seriously harming himself or others. And the school has hired more mental health counselors. These actions were all part of a 25-point remedial plan ordered by a federal judge as part of a class-action lawsuit against the school. "We are very pleased with the steps that the state has taken so far to comply with the court's order," Harry Frischer, lead counsel at Children's Rights, said in a statement. "The wrap and windowless solitary confinement cells are a thing of the past. We hope that the school will continue to improve and meet the timetable for the reforms required by the court." The Boys State Training School, opened in 1873, is a residential school for delinquent boys ages 12 to 18. In March, U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose ruled the state training school violated students' constitutional rights by not providing adequate mental health care, using isolation as punishment and putting students in a mechanical restraint device called "the wrap," sometimes for hours at a time. Rose said there was "overwhelming evidence showing the school frequently punishes or tortures students through these tools for behavior not meeting such conditions." That decision came after a bench trial in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 by two then-students and other "similarly situated" boys of the school in Eldora. Rose appointed Kelly Dedel, a juvenile justice consultant, to monitor the remedial plan. Dedel reported this month the school is already in "substantial compliance" with seven of 25 requirements and was making progress toward the rest. The school "has developed a robust set of policies and procedures that, once fully implemented, should transform the services available to youth . . . and the tools available to staff who are charged with their care and treatment," Dedel wrote. Last month, Rose awarded nearly $5 million in attorneys fees and expenses to the plaintiffs in the case. Of that, about $2.5 million goes to Children's Rights, a New York advocacy and legal action group; $1.8 million goes to Ropes & Gray, a Boston law firm; and about $593,000 to Disability Rights Iowa, based in Des Moines. For the more than 23,000 hours the groups worked on the case, it amounts to about $214 an hour. Attorneys representing the state argued the plaintiffs' attorneys overstaffed hearings and filed excessive paperwork. Rose disagreed in her Jan. 22 order: "After careful review of the time sheets submitted by the Plaintiffs, the Court is convinced the hours requested are reasonable and were not excessively inefficient." Iowa is appealing the award. Because the lawyers from Disability Rights Iowa and Children's Rights are part of a nonprofit organization, the fees go to their organizations to replenish the budgets to advocate for more cases in Iowa and elsewhere, said Nathan Kirstein, lead counsel at Disability Rights Iowa. [GN] JEWEL-OSCO: Employees May Join Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Jewel-Osco is accused of not properly compensating its employees for the titles they were given. Jewel-Osco employees could be able to join a class-action lawsuit alleging the grocery chain denied overtime compensation to assistant store directors. The original suit was filed in May in Chicago federal court and accuses Jewel-Osco, which is the most widespread grocery chain in Chicagoland, of "misclassifying assistant store directors as salaried employees exempt from receiving overtime pay under state and federal law," according to court records. It is just one of multiple suits that have been brought against retailers suggesting they attempt to reduce labor costs by giving employees managerial titles without modifying their work responsibilities. Assistant store directors "spend the vast majority of their time performing the same duties as non-exempt employees, including helping customers, working the cash register, moving products, stocking shelves, setting and resetting displays, counting inventory, cleaning the store, and otherwise standing in as cashiers, stockers, or other hourly workers," the suit alleges, adding, "they don't perform managerial duties like hiring and firing and should be classified as hourly workers eligible to receive time-and-a-half pay when they work more than forty hours a week." Chicago resident Lisa Piazza, who worked as an assistant store director at four different Chicago Jewel-Osco stores since February 2019, originally submitted the filing, alleging she worked roughly fifty to sixty hours of work per week every week and wasn't compensated for the additional hours she put in. Piazza alleged that "comparable salaried employees with different titles" and although they "are classified as management, they nonetheless spend most of their working hours performing the same duties as employees who qualify for overtime pay, such as direct customer interaction, register duty, inventory, shelving and displays, and cleaning," according to court records. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland denied Jewel-Osco's motion to dismiss and, instead, granted the conditional certification of a class-action. Piazza's attorneys can now notify current and former Jewel-Osco employees about the lawsuit and give them a chance to join. Jason Conway, a Philadelphia attorney who is representing Piazza, estimates there could be as many as 500 to 600 additional employees affected who could be listed as plaintiffs. Eligible employees are those who worked as assistant store directors from May 28, 2017, through the date of the final judgment. The suit "can have broader ramifications across Albertsons properties," Conway said. Jewel-Osco is owned by Albertsons, which also owns Safeway, Vons and other major chains. He added, "Employers can exempt salaried employees from overtime laws if they earn more than $35,568 and they primarily perform office or nonmanual managerial work, plus exercise discretion or independent judgment in their jobs. In retail, roles such as assistant store director raise questions because those employees can end up shouldering extra work after overtime-eligible hourly workers are sent home at the end of their shifts - a burden magnified early in the pandemic, when stores were especially busy and short-staffed." Conway's law practice also has cases pending against four Kroger-owned grocery brands in other states. "These cases rarely go to trial, instead resulting in settlements after they are granted conditional collective action certification and other plaintiffs join," he said." Companies typically have not reclassified the disputed positions, sometimes resulting in more lawsuits later." Piazza's suit names as defendants Jewel Food Stores, New Albertsons, and American Drug Stores, which are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Albertsons. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gutierrez Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Louisa Gutierrez, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LOUISA GUTIERREZ, an individual, DEBBIE LUNA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC, f/k/a VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA LLC, AND DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01345-TWR-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants JJCI and Bausch for allegedly falsely and deceptively advertising the "Baby Powder" and "Shower to Shower" products, respectively. Referred to in the Fifth Amended Complaint as the "Talcum Products," the Baby Powder and STS products are used to "treat diaper rash, prevent odor, and 'provide a fresh feeling.'" The STS product is a deodorant and antiperspirant. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made misleading representations in advertising and marketing the Talcum Products. Plaintiffs state that these misleading representations led them to believe that the Talcum Products were safe and pure, when they actually contained hazardous substances such as "asbestos, asbestiform fibers, lead, asilica, and arsenic." The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dated January 22, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Raymond Hawkins, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-3156, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, February 19, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on February 26, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 22, 2021; -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter on April 20, 2021l -- Appellant's opening brief is due on June 1, 2021; -- Appellee's answering brief is due on July 1, 2021; and -- Appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief.[BN] KAOS LIMITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gorr Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOT GORR, individually and on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. KAOS LIMITED; KYLEENA FALZONE; CARSON WEST; and BENJAMIN DIEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00466 (D. Colo., Feb. 17, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gorr was employed by the Defendants as staff. Kaos Limited owns and operates chains of restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com KIMBERLY-CLARK: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Kimberly-Clark 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 class action entitled, Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., was terminated and the Court vacated the prior judgment and dismissed the case. The health care matters included Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California consumer class action relating to the sale of surgical gowns. In April 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class $3.9 in compensatory damages and $350 in punitive damages against the company. During the first quarter of 2018, the Court reduced the punitive damages award to approximately $19. During the fourth quarter of 2020, the class action was terminated and the Court vacated the prior judgment and dismissed the case. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Personal Care, Consumer Tissue, and K-C Professional. Kimberly-Clark Corporation was founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. LA PEQUENA TIENDA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuevas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JUVENAL CAMILO CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA PEQUENA TIENDA & DELI, INC.; STEPHANIE CHIMBO; and ANGEL CHIMBO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00850 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cuevas was employed by the Defendants as staff. La Pequena Tienda & Deli, Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company provides salad bars, stuffed potatoes, sandwiches, desserts, meals, and wraps. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 LEDGER TECHNOLOGIES: Seirafi Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Naeem Seirafi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ledger Technologies, Inc., Case No. 21STCV00877 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on Feb. 23, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01692 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Ledger Company -- https://www.ledger.com/ -- provides specialized consulting in crypto-currencies and blockchains & distributed ledger technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Purvi G Patel, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Bouelvard Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Phone: (213) 892-5200 Fax: (213) 892-5454 Email: ppatel@mofo.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Contreras Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Contreras, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-20577 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2021) is a class action for actual, statutory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees brought against LexisNexis under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of this process, LexisNexis uses a largely automated and systematic procedure to gather and report derogatory public records in police reports used by auto insurers to make underwriting determinations. The Plaintiff contends that LexisNexis does not have adequate procedures to filter that information; for example, it does not confirm identities by checking middle names, street addresses, Social Security number or driver's license numbers. These tainted reports are not presumptively shared with consumers who thus have no automatic way of knowing that the information used by their auto insurers to set premium and determine insurability is wrong. And once a mistake is made, there is a cascading effect, as other entities -- such as successive auto insurers -- rely on the original mistake. LexisNexis's process failure violates 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(b) because LexisNexis has not implemented reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports that it furnished regarding Contreras and the putative class members, the Plaintiff adds. Though publicly available, LexisNexis does not double-check a person's identity by making sure the person has the correct Social Security number, address, middle name and driver's license. And this can cause significant trouble for class members. The named Plaintiff's story is representative of the class experience. On January 17, 2020, a person with the same name as the son of the named Plaintiff was involved in a car accident in Arizona. The accident report identifies the driver's age, lists his middle initial, provides his driver's license number. All of those data pieces are different from the son of the named Plaintiff. The person with the same name as Plaintiff's son was issued three citations arising out of the accident. On June 22, 2020, 2019, the Plaintiff' renewed his automobile insurance with Progressive Direct Auto for six months. It ascribed the person with the same name as the named Plaintiff's son's accident to the named Plaintiff and to his son, and increased his monthly premium by $256. The Plaintiff investigated and was told that the incorrect data was supplied to Progressive by LexisNexis through a consumer report that LexisNexis provided, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Jessica L. Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP 100 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 3112 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 E-mail: service@advocacypa.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com LORNA JANE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorna Jane USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Young, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Lorna Jane USA, Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00328-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lorna Jane -- https://www.lornajane.com/ -- offers a wide range of women's workout clothes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com LUNA CUISINE: Templos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Templos and Humberto Vargas, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Luna Cuisine Inc. d/b/a Rice K, Gold Gong Inc. d/b/a Rice K, and Xiu Chen, Case No. 1:21-cv-00694 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2021) seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated are current and former employees of the defendants. The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com LYFT INC: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Final Ruling in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, stayed the case, IN RE LYFT, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 4:20-cv-09257-HSG (N.D. Cal.), until the Court enters final judgment or issues a ruling on any motions for summary judgment filed in In re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ("Federal Class Action") whichever is earlier. Plaintiffs Vishal Mehta, Yao Hong Kok, and Ron Chenoy, each filed putative stockholder derivative actions on Sept. 30, 2020, Dec. 21, 2020 and Dec. 21, 2020, respectively, on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lyft against Individual Defendants John Zimmer, Logan Green, Brian Roberts, Prashant (Sean) Aggarwal, David Lawee, Hiroshi Mikitani, Ann Miura-Ko, Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Jonathan Christodoro, Ben Horowitz, and Valerie Jarrett. On Jan. 4, 2021, the Court consolidated the Plaintiffs' respective derivative actions into the captioned derivative case. An earlier-filed and factually related securities class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Federal Class Action, in which the plaintiff asserts federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (all of whom are the Defendants in the Consolidated Derivative Action); There is substantial overlap between the facts and circumstances alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Action and the Federal Class Action. On Jan. 21, 2021, the Court entered an order relating the Consolidated Derivative Action to the Federal Class Action. The Parties have met and conferred concerning the most efficient manner in which to litigate the derivative claims in the Consolidated Derivative Action and agree that resolution of the claims in the Federal Class Action may help inform the manner in which the Consolidated Derivative Action proceeds. In an effort to proceed in the most efficient manner, they agree that the Consolidated Derivative Action should be stayed. Accordingly, they stipulated, through their respective counsel of record and subject to the approval of the Court, that in order to facilitate the efficient prosecution of the action, (i) the Consolidated Derivative Action will be temporarily stayed in its entirety (including all discovery) until the Court enters final judgment or issues a ruling on any motions for summary judgment filed in the Federal Class Action, whichever is earlier; and (ii) any previously scheduled hearings or deadlines, including the deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the Consolidated Derivative Action are vacated. Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, Judge Gilliam so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3u98zj9k from Leagle.com. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Menlo Park, California, Colleen C. Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- in San Diego, California, Attorneys for Defendants Lyft, Inc., Logan Green, John Zimmer, Brian Roberts, Prashant (Sean). Aggarwal, Jonathan Christodoro, Ben Horowitz, Valerie Jarrett, David Lawee, Hiroshi Mikitani, Ann Miura-Ko, and Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C., Robert C. Moest -- rmoest@gmail.com -- in Santa Monica, California, Timothy Brown, Oyster Bay, NY, LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Adam Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- San Francisco, CA, Gregory M. Nespole -- gnespole@zlk.com -- New York, New York Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. MAHONING COUNTY, OH: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Youngblood Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled HELEN YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3877 (6th Cir.), he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the case. Ms. Youngblood asserts that the Defendants' hiring practices were discriminatory. On behalf of a putative class of persons eligible for employment or advancement at the Mahoning County Department of Job and Family Services, Youngblood raises due process and equal protection claims under the Constitution, as well as a Title VII disparate impact racial discrimination claim. Youngblood, in her individual capacity, also asserts a violation of the Ohio Whistleblower Protection Act, claiming that the Defendants retaliated against her when she reported her concerns about the Department's hiring practices. Ms. Youngblood is an African American employee of the Mahoning County Department of Job and Family Services, a subdivision of the State of Ohio. She also serves as an official representative of the relevant collective bargaining unit. She alleges that, during a 60-month period, the director of the Department of Job and Family Services made a series of promotional appointments without first posting the positions and hired individuals who did not have the necessary qualifications. According to her, this is part of a pattern of "cronyism, patronage, and racial discrimination" in the Department's hiring practices--one that disproportionately impacts Black employees, who "are less likely to have the political and patronage network available to enable them to receive such preferential treatment." In August 2017, Youngblood brought a putative class action against the Department and the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners asserting that the hiring practices were actionable "under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause." The complaint alleged only that promotional appointments were made without prior posting; that those who were promoted were unqualified; and that such practices were a custom in the county and violated the "federally protected property interests" of Youngblood and the putative class. After the Defendants moved to dismiss, Youngblood moved for leave to file an amended complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The district court granted Youngblood's motion. The complaint added an equal protection claim but offered no new factual allegations--only the conclusory assertion that the allegedly unlawful hiring practices were racially discriminatory. The Defendants again moved for dismissal. While the motion to dismiss was being briefed, the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, and the Court closed the case. In early 2019, Youngblood filed the complaint in the case, which was based on the same alleged misconduct as that in the 2017 case. She expanded the class period and named new Defendants: Robert Bush, the director of the Department who made the hiring decisions at issue here, and Melissa Wasko, a program administrator. In addition to the previously asserted due process and equal protection claims, Youngblood also raised a racial discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., and one claim she characterizes as respondeat superior (to hold the Commissioner Defendants and Mahoning County liable for the alleged discrimination). Youngblood also separately raised an individual claim against Bush and Wasko under the Ohio Whistleblower Protection Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 4113.52. Specifically, she claimed that after she alerted Bush and Wasko that she believed the Department had violated Ohio law, they responded by "engaging in an unlawful campaign of intimidation, disciplinary action and retaliation against her." Youngblood's complaint offered no additional details about the hiring practices. Relying "on information and belief," Youngblood alleged only that the director of the Department made promotional appointments without prior posting and hired unqualified recipients, which disadvantaged similarly situated Black employees. She provided no information about the employees who were hired under these practices or their qualifications. Nor did she identify the eligible Black employees who were disproportionately impacted by the Department's hiring practices. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Throughout its opinion, the court emphasized that the complaint was scant and devoid of factual allegations. It denied Youngblood's request to amend her complaint because she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint or explain how she could cure any pleading deficiencies. Youngblood appeals, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her whistleblower claim and that she should have been permitted to amend her complaint. The appeal primarily concerns two discrete questions: (1) whether Youngblood can avail herself of whistleblower protections under Ohio law, and (2) whether the district erred by denying Youngblood leave to amend her complaint. The Sixth Circuit holds that the district court correctly held that Youngblood did not qualify as a whistleblower under Ohio law. Youngblood neither alleged that she reported the type of offense covered by the Ohio Whistleblower Protection Act nor that she did so in writing. Her failure to do so means she did not strictly comply with the statute's provisions and therefore cannot avail herself of its protections. The district court also acted well within its discretion when it did not permit Youngblood to amend her complaint because she had failed to show how she could cure her pleading deficiencies. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qjg2dzhb from Leagle.com. MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Over OK'd Damage Class Settlement Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the district court's order granting approval of the damage class settlement, is pending. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services, resulting in merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of Mastercard and Visa credit and debit cards. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the IPO) and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to business practices (the "Rules Relief Class'). The court appointed separate counsel for each class. In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. The time period during which Damages Class members were permitted to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended in July 2019 with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The district court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2019. The district court's settlement approval order has been appealed. Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations with a number of the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements and/or agreements in principle to settle a number of these claims. The Damages Class settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief Class are ongoing. In December 2020, the Rules Relief Class filed a motion for class certification. Briefing on summary judgment motions in the Rules Relief Class and opt-out merchant cases was completed in December 2020. Mastercard said, "As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $783 million and $914 million, respectively, as a reserve for both the Damages Class litigation and the opt-out merchant cases. As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, Mastercard had $586 million and $584 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the Damages Class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet. The reserve as of December 31, 2020 for both the Damages Class litigation and the opt-out merchants represents Mastercard's best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the Damages Class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur." Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Appeals in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Rejected ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that all appellate courts have rejected the objectors' appeals, except one of the appeals, the objectors have until April 2021 to request an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the other suits. In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each Canadian province. Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval orders. All appellate courts have rejected the objectors' appeals. In one of the appeals, the objectors have until April 2021 to request an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. For the remainder of the appeals, the Supreme Court has previously denied such requests. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motions for class certification filed in the ATM Surcharge Fees suits remain pending. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1 billion in damages against all of the defendants. Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the plaintiffs' liability and damages claims and has opposed class certification. Briefing on class certification is complete. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shift Fraud Liability Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that substantive expert discovery is ongoing in the class action suit involving conspiracy to shift fraud liability In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover, EMVCo and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift'), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation. In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification. In January 2021, the Network Defendants' request for permission to appeal the district court's certification decision to the appellate court was denied. The case is proceeding with substantive expert discovery. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the magistrate judge serving on the district court issued a decision recommending that the district court judge deny plaintiffs' class certification motion. Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank (FAB). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In June 2018, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services. In December 2019, the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received via e-mail. As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in January 2020. In January 2021, the magistrate judge serving on the district court issued a decision recommending that the district court judge deny plaintiffs' class certification motion. The plaintiffs have the opportunity to file objections to this decision with the district court judge. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MDL 2885: Earplug Product Liability Row Transferred to N.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In case, "In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2885, the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring five actions pending in the District of Minnesota to the Northern District of Florida and assigned to Judge Casey Rodgers for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions in MDL No. 2885 arise out of common allegations that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Plaintiffs in the MDL No. 2885 actions also allege that defendant Aero falsified test results for the earplugs and used modified fitting instructions that provided more protection to users, but that those instructions were not disclosed to plaintiffs. Like plaintiffs in the MDL No. 2885 actions, plaintiffs in the actions allege that the flanges on Combat Arms earplugs fold back when used as instructed, loosening the seal in the ear canal of the user. The panel says that these actions thus squarely fall within the ambit of MDL No. 2885. Plaintiffs in these actions allege only a failure-to-warn claim, while most MDL No. 2885 actions also bring a claim for design defect. But Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims are similar to those alleged in the MDL No. 2885 actions, thus these actions share factual and legal questions with the MDL No. 2885 actions concerning the adequacy of the insertion instructions, the different insertion method allegedly used during testing, and the allegation that when the earplugs were inserted as instructed, they did not work properly. A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/2P4m1AT. MDL 2913: JUUL Labs Product Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- In case, "In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2913, the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring one action pending in the Southern District of New York and three in the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These actions allege that JUUL has marketed its nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, its marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes and JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors and promotes nicotine addiction. The panel says that these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2913 and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs in the three Southern District of Texas actions argue that removal of their actions to federal court was improper and the transferor court should decide their motions for remand to state court. Defendants and Plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York oppose transfer because, in addition to allegations regarding Plaintiff's use of Juul products, the action also involves the use of two different electronic nicotine delivery systems. A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3aWTkyv. MICHAEL FAUST: B.K. Settlement Deal Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.K. by her next friend Margaret Tinsley, et al., v. Michael Faust, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00185-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn O. Silver entered an order granting the joint motion for final approval of the settlement agreement and attorneys' fees. -- The Court incorporates the express terms of the Settlement Agreement into this order, enters it as a final judgment and order of the Court, adopts the Settlement Agreement as an injunctive order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), and orders the parties to comply with its terms; and -- By agreeing to settle this lawsuit, the Defendants do not admit, and specifically deny, any and all liability in this lawsuit. The Defendants are ordered to pay Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the amount of $6,500,000. The Court said, "The trial previously set for three weeks after the date of the final approval hearing is vacated. This action is dismissed with prejudice; however, the Court retains jurisdiction over this action to enforce the Settlement Agreement and consider all matters arising under it." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qSYVv9 at no extra charge.[CC] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Coss FDCPA Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Adrian Coss v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00748 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2021). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. Established in 1953, MCM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MINNESOTA: Larsen Files Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Minnesota, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Larsen, Joseph Goodwin, Guy Greene, Terry L. Branson, August Kingbird, Mark Wallace, Austin Black Elk, Michael Perseke, Chester Grauberger, Darrin Dotson, Dezeray Roblero-Barrios, Ernesto Longoria, Joseph Delle, Danny Stone, Matthew Wong, Leslie Tallman, Robert Suddeth, Allen Pyron, Anthony Garnett, Donald Hill, Paul Knutson, Joshua Brundy, Julian Caprice, David McGuire, Robert Smith, Shawn Fletcher, David Hamilton, Jacquard Larkin, Raymond Semler, Shawn Jamison, Roland Brant, Aaron Hayes, Anthony Green, Kevin Nelson, Richard Fageroos, Max Ortega, Dan Wilson, Michael Rogers, Jose Gutierrez, Sean Brinkman, Thomas Bolter, Jeremy Bilder, Brent Nielsen, Christopher Sime, Kevin Karsjen, Cormell Williamson, Jeremy Asher, and all others similarly situated v. State of Minnesota; Minnesota Department of Human Services; Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Minnesota Attorney General's Office; Minnesota Department of Corrections; Minnesota County's Health and Human Services (i.e Anoka County Health and Human Services Director; Ramsey County Health and Human Services Director; Sherburne County Health and Human Services Director; St. Louis County Health and Human Services Director; et al.); Tim Walz (Governor - State of Minnesota; Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner - Minnesota Department of Human Services); Nancy Johnston, (Executive Director Minnesota Sex Offender Program - Minnesota Department of Human Services); Marshall Smith (Department of Health Systems Chief Executive Officer - Direct Care Treatment - Minnesota Department of Human Services); Keith Ellison, (Attorney General - State of Minnesota); Dr. Elizabeth Peterson, (Associate Clinical Director - Psychological Services Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program); Dr. Crystal Leal, (Psychological Services Unit 1-C, Minnesota Sex Offender Program); Peter Puffer, (Clinical Director - Chief Executive Officer III - Minnesota Department of Humand Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program); Kevin Moser, (Operations Director - Chief Executive Officer III - Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program); Paul Schnell, (Commissioner - Minnesota Department of Corrections); unknown number of John Does and Jane Does; sued in their individual and official capacities, Case No. 0:21-cv-00568-PJS-HB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement for the Civil Rights Act. Minnesota is a midwestern U.S. state bordering Canada and Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes.[BN] The Plaintiff is appear pro se. MOLEX LLC: Joint Bid to Hold Rule 23 Hearing Remotely Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA GROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. MOLEX, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00355-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. allowing the March 5th final fairness hearing in this action to be conducted remotely by either videoconference or teleconference; and 2. direcitng the Plaintiff's Counsel to provide the information needed to join the videoconference or teleconference to all class members who request to be excluded from the settlement and to any who may object to the settlement. Molex is a manufacturer of electronic, electrical and fiber optic connectivity systems. Molex offers over 100,000 products, across a variety of industries including data communications, medical, industrial, automotive and consumer electronics. A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3upznIj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. -- Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891–6000 E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com The Defendant is represented by: A. Craig Cleland, Esq. Elizabeth S. Washko, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 191 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 4800 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 881-1300 Facsimile: (404) 870-1732 E-mail: craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com liz.washko@ogletree.com MOLSON COORS: Consolidated Colorado Suit Concluded -------------------------------------------------- Molson Coors Beverage Company 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 consolidated putative class action suit in Colorado has been concluded. On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed substantially similar putative class action complaints against the Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District Court, and subsequently was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019. On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the strength of the company's financial condition and internal control processes related to financial accounting. The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to inflate the price of the company's common stock. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and the company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020. Oral argument on the motion occurred on October 28, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and the deadline to appeal has passed. This case is now fully resolved and closed. Molson Coors Beverage Company is a multinational brewing company, formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada, and Coors of the United States. On December 31, 2019, the Company's reporting segments included: MillerCoors LLC, operating in the United States; Molson Coors Canada, operating in Canada; Molson Coors Europe (Europe segment), operating in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, the Republic of Ireland, Romania, Serbia, the United Kingdom and various other European countries; and Molson Coors International operating in various other countries. MPC HOLDINGS: Seeks March 5 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS MORRIS v. MPC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PLATTE RIVER INSPECTION SERVICES, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840-CMA-NYW (D. Colo.), the Defendant Platte River asks the Court for an order granting its unopposed motion to extend time to respond to the plaintiff's renewed expedited motion for conditional certification and notice to putative class members, up to and including March 5, 2021. On January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Expedited Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members. On February 2, 2021, the Court, sua sponte, issued an order striking Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members, for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1. On February 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Renewed Motion. PRIS' current deadline to respond to the Renewed Motion is February 23, 2021. The Defendant is an innovative solutions provider in the oil and gas industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uyRnQE at no extra charge.[CC] The attorneys for the Defendant MPC Holdings, are: Nathan A. Schacht Mark D. Temple, Esq. Paul M. Knettel, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 E-mail: nschacht@bakerlaw.com mtemple@bakerlaw.com pknettel@bakerlaw.com NEOS THERAPEUTICS: Tkatch Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote --------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIA TKATCH, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NEOS THERAPEUTICS, INC., ALAN HELLER, BRYANT FONG, GERALD MCLAUGHLIN, JAMES ROBINSON, GREG ROBITAILLE, JOHN SCHMID, LINDA M. SZYPER, AYTU BIOSCIENCE, INC., and NEUTRON ACQUISITION SUB, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01187 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2021) is a stockholder class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Neos, against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Individual Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Aytu Bioscience on an unfair process for an unfair price and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on an all stock proposed transaction valued at approximately $44.9 million. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a December 10, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Neos will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, a subsidiary of the Aytu. Neos public stockholders will receive, in exchange for each share of Neos common stock they own, 0.1088 shares of Aytu. This implies a per share value of $0.74 for Neos based on Aytu's closing price on December 9, 2020 of $6.84 per share. The transaction will result in NEOS stockholders owning only approximately 30% of the fully diluted common shares of Aytu. Thereafter, on January 27, 2021, Aytu filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the Registration Statement) with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. The dubious nature of the Proposed Transaction is laid bare considering the existence of sharp price fluctuations of Aytu common stock since the announcement of the deal. Here, the Merger Consideration is comprised entirely of Aytu common stock exchanged at a fixed exchange ratio of 0. 1088 which means that Neos stockholders will receive 0. 1088 shares of Aytu common stock as a portion of the Merger Consideration in exchange for each of their Neos shares, regardless of Aytu's stock price at the close of the transaction. Thus, the consideration payable to Neos' stockholders is not insulated from fluctuations in Aytu's stock price, and stockholders are left in the precarious position of not knowing whether the consideration payable to them will decline further. The fact that the Proposed Transaction does not guarantee Neos' public stockholders protection from fluctuations in Aytu's price share price seems to be of no concern to the Defendants, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that in approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by agreeing to sell Neos without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances; and engineering the Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves and/or the Aytu without regard for Neos' public stockholders. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington and has been a Neos stockholder. Defendant Neos, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes products for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using its drug delivery technology platform. Neos is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business at 2940 N. Hwy 360, Grand Prairie, TX 75050. Shares of Neos common stock are traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol "NEOS."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 741-4977 Facsimile: (516) 741-0626 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com NEW YORK CITY: Court Certifies Class in Clark & Aziz Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMILLA CLARK and ARWA AZIZ, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, and TURNING POINT FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:18-cv-02334-AT-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order certifying a class consisting of: "all persons who were required to remove religious head coverings for post-arrest photographs while in New York City Police Department (NYPD) custody." The Court said, "The Defendant does not dispute that a class action would be superior. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a class action is the most efficient means of resolving these claims. The Plaintiffs, therefore, have met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)." The Plaintiffs, Jamilla Clark, Arwa Aziz, and Turning Point for Women and Families, bring this action for damages against the, alleging that the NYPD) policy requiring all arrested individuals to have their photograph taken without a head covering violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and New York law. On January 9, 2017, Jamilla Clark was arrested for violation of an order of protection. Clark informed the arresting officers that, as a practicing Muslim, she could not come into physical contact with men and was required to wear her hijab -- a garment worn by many Muslim women that covers the ears, hair, and neck, but leaves the entire face exposed -- at all times. Clark uses a hijab because she believes her faith dictates that no man outside of a woman's immediate family should see her uncovered hair, head, and neck, the Plaintiff contends. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MrvHVj at no extra charge.[CC] NIKE INC: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 12 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CAHILL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order regarding revised litigation deadlines as follows: Litigation Deadline Date Fact Witness Depositions Close March 26, 2021 The Plaintiffs' Expert Reports Due: May 10, 2021 Nike to conduct expert discovery May 11, 2021 to July 5, 2021 Nike's Expert Reports: July 6, 2021 The Plaintiffs to conduct expert discovery July 7, 2021 to Aug. 30, 2021 The Plaintiffs' Expert Reply Reports Due: Aug. 31, 2021 Motion for Class Certification Oct. 12, 2021 Opposition to Class Certification Dec. 14, 2021 Reply to Class Certification Jan. 28, 2022 Nike, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is engaged in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services. The company is headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bxT6gn at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs, are: Laura Salerno Owens, Esq. David B. Markowitz, Esq. Harry B. Wilson, Esq. Anna M. Joyce, Esq. Chad A. Naso, Esq. Anthony Blake, Esq. MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-3085 Facsimile: (503) 323-9105 E-mail: LauraSalerno@MarkowitzHerbold.com DavidMarkowitz@MarkowitzHerbold.com HarryWilson@MarkowitzHerbold.com AnnaJoyce@MarkowitzHerbold.com ChadNaso@MarkowitzHerbold.com anthonyblake@markowitzherbold.com - and - Laura L. Ho, Esq. Barry Goldstein, Esq. James Kan, Esq. Byron Goldstein, Esq. Katharine L. Fisher, Esq. Mengfei Sun, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com bgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com kfisher@gbdhlegal.com msun@gbdhlegal.com - and - Craig Ackerman, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 1180 S Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN LAW 2522 North Proctor Street, #387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 503-1672 Facsimile: (253) 276-0081 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com The Attorneys for Nike, Inc., are: Daniel Prince, Esq. Zach P. Hutton, Esq. Felicia A. Davis, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 E-mail: danielprince@paulhastings.com zachhutton@paulhastings.com feliciadavis@paulhastings.com - and - Amy Joseph Pedersen, Esq. Kennon Scott, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 Facsimile: (503) 220-2480 E-mail: amy.joseph.pedersen@stoel.com kennon.scott@stoel.com NOBLE ENERGY: Bids to Junk Boulter Suit Granted Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and KERR-McGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-861-WJM-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted: (i) Defendant Noble's Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) Defendant Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore ("KMOG")'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, In the Alternative, Motion to Stay Proceedings. On April 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs, a group of royalty owners, filed the Complaint, alleging on behalf of themselves and three purported classes, that Noble and KMOG have underpaid oil royalties under several decades-old oil and gas leases in Colorado. The Plaintiffs allege the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC are lessors under lease agreements in which Noble is the lessee. Since April 1, 2014, Noble has allegedly consistently deducted from the market price of the oil various costs related to transporting the oil from the well to a transportation pipeline, tariff costs within the transportation pipeline, and various self-described "other costs" related to transporting the oil to a delivery point where the oil has been sold to third parties for a market price. Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC claim that Noble has materially breached its royalty payment obligations by deducting these post-production costs from the market price of the oil in the calculation of royalties paid to them and the Noble Class, causing them damages. Based on these allegations, Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC, on behalf of the Noble Class bring two claims against Noble: breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The allegations against KMOG are similar. Mike Boulter and Ralph Nix Produce are lessors under lease agreements in which KMOG is the lessee. Since April 1, 2014, KMOG has allegedly consistently deducted from the sales price of the oil, various costs related to transporting the oil from the well to a transportation pipeline and various self-described "other costs" related to transporting the oil to a delivery point where the oil has been sold to third parties for a sales price. The costs which KMOG allegedly improperly deducted from the selling price (equivalent to the market price) of the oil include costs which KMOG describes as gathering, transportation, and other deductions. Mike Boulter and Ralph Nix Produce allege that the deduction of these costs is not permitted under the royalty provision, and KMOG has materially breached its contractual obligations to them and Kerr-McGee Subclass I under the leases by taking such deductions, causing them damages. Based on these allegations, Mike Boulter and Ralph Nix Produce, on behalf of the Kerr-McGee Subclass I, bring two claims against KMOG: breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Barclay Farms is a lessor under a lease agreement in which KMOG is the lessee. Since April 1, 2014, KMOG, in its calculation of royalties paid to Barclay Farms on oil sales subject to the lease agreement, has consistently deducted from the market price of the oil various costs related to transporting the oil from the well to a transportation pipeline and various self-described "other costs" related to transporting the oil to a delivery point where the oil has been sold to third parties for a market price. The costs which KMOG allegedly improperly deducted from the market price of the oil include, but are not limited to, costs which KMOG describes as gathering, transportation, and other deductions. Barclay Farms alleges that the deduction of these costs is not permitted under the royalty provision, and KMOG has materially breached its contractual obligations to it and Kerr-McGee Subclass II under the leases by taking such deductions, causing them damages. Based on these allegations, Barclay Farms, on behalf of the Kerr-McGee Subclass II, brings two claims against KMOG: breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Before the Court are: (1) Defendant Noble's Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Defendant KMOG's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed responses. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the Act and that it is the COGCC's responsibility--not the Court's--to determine in the first instance whether a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the payer and the payee exists. By filing the lawsuit in federal court without first bringing their case before the COGCC, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. In any event, the Defendants argue that no bona fide dispute exists in the case, such that the COGCC has jurisdiction to decide the case. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants ignore certain pertinent cases relating to the COGCC's jurisdiction. For example, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants ignore Grynberg v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 7 P.3d 1060 (Colo. App. 1999), which they contend holds that the COGCC does not have jurisdiction to decide contractual disputes involving a producer's deduction of post-production costs, and that royalty owners who have such a contract dispute are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies with the COGCC. Judge Martinez finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies based on: (1) the clear language of the Act providing that the COGCC determines whether a bona fide dispute exists which divests it of jurisdiction; and (2) the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated it would be futile to bring their case before the COGCC. As a result, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. The Judge holds that the statutory language of the Act could not be clearer. Under the Act, the COGCC "shall determine whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the interpretation of a contract defining the rights and obligations of the payor and payee." Only in the event that the COGCC finds that such a dispute exists does it decline jurisdiction. At that point, "the parties may seek resolution of the matter in district court." Therefore, it is clear that the COGCC has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether there is a bona fide dispute. The Plaintiffs' contention that it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the COGCC would not exercise jurisdiction over their royalty underpayment claims" is unavailing. As an initial matter, the Judge notes that the parties dispute whether there is a bona fide dispute regarding the interpretation of a contract. To resolve the disagreement between the parties on this point would require him to invade the province of the COGCC. This he will not do. To support their argument that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the COGCC would not exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants, the Plaintiffs rely on certain cases which the Judge finds do not support their position. The Judge emphasizes that his decision is not intended to prejudge one way or another as to whether the COGCC or a court of law has jurisdiction over this dispute. Instead, with the Order, he merely adheres to the provision of the Act granting the COGCC authority to determine whether a bona fide dispute exists which divests it of jurisdiction. Depending on what decision the COGCC reaches, consistent with the Act, the parties very well may seek resolution of the matter in district court. For these reasons, Judge Martinez granted Defendant Noble's Motion to Dismiss. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against Noble without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Judge also granted KMOG's Motion to Dismiss. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against KMOG without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Defendants will have their costs upon compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. The Clerk will terminate the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/v3npp8tm from Leagle.com. O.J. SMITH: Court Approves Class Notice in Gonzalez Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. O.J. SMITH FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP, INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. MCDANIEL, SANDRA W. McDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00086-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants the joint motion to approve notice to class action members and to approve method for distributing notice. The Joint Motion is filed by the named Plaintiffs and Defendants Boseman Farms, Inc., Joel M. Boseman, and Jean J. Boseman. The named Plaintiffs are MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ, ISAAC GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER VARELA CUELLAR, RUBEN DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON, JORGE BAUTISTA SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO, ERIC JACINTO WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO BAUTISTA CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ CRUZ, SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO ANTONIO MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ. In support of their Joint Motion, the Parties have filed a stipulated notice and method of distribution. The proposed content and method of distribution for that notice appear to be reasonably calculated to provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances of the case. Judge Flanagan finds that the proposed Notice to Class Action Members of Settlement and Deadline to Make Claims is both a neutral and comprehensive document that fairly apprises the Plaintiff Class Members of (i) the nature of the litigation, (ii) outlines how the class members can make a claim from the settlement fund, and (iii) explicitly states the deadlines by which class members need to make a claim. The Notice also provides the Plaintiff Class Members with an opportunity to obtain any necessary further information from the Class Counsel and provides that Plaintiff Class members may contact the Class Counsel with questions about the lawsuit or Notice. The Judge therefore formally approves the content of the Notice attached to the Joint Motion, as well as the method of distribution for the Notices to the class action members set out in the Joint Motion. The Notice will be distributed to the members of the class previously certified by the Court within 30 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pelfuo7 from Leagle.com. OHIO: Guardians' Medicaid Act Claims in Ball Suit Survive Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN KASICH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division: (i) granted the unopposed Motion for Leave to File as Amicus Curiae filed by VOR, Inc.; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities, the State of Ohio, and the Governor of Ohio. The case involves two groups of individuals with developmental disabilities who are not satisfied with Ohio's administration of its developmental-disability system. One group, the Plaintiffs and Disability Rights Ohio, filed the case alleging that Ohio's system violates federal law because it is allegedly too reliant on Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") at the expense of integration into the community for disability services. The other group, who intervened as representatives of individuals who prefer institutional care in ICFs ("Guardians"), allege that Ohio's system violates the same federal law because it is fails to inform people of the ICF choice, leaving them only the option of community based care through waivers or wait lists for those waivers. The Defendants frame the general issue before the Court as follows: The Defendants agree that the Guardians should have a voice in the case. Guardians hold reasonable and firmly-held beliefs that ICFs) are the best places for their loved ones. But that does not mean Guardians have their own federal claims against State Defendants. The Defendants have all, therefore, moved for dismissal of the Guardians' claims. On March 31, 2016, Disability Rights Ohio filed the case on behalf of six individually named Plaintiffs ("Individual Plaintiffs") and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo, seeking declarative and injunctive relief against and the Directors of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities. The Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's administration, management, and funding of its service system for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities such as themselves put them at serious risk of segregation and institutionalization in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as interpreted by the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). They also moved under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ("Medicaid Act"), 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.. The Defendants filed motions for dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. The Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities ("County Boards") moved to intervene, which was opposed by Plaintiffs. After full briefing, the Court permitted the County Boards to intervene, adding them to the existing Defendants. The Guardians, representing individuals who prefer institutional care in ICFs also moved to intervene. The Defendants supported the Guardians' request to intervene, but only for the purpose of opposing the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. The Plaintiffs opposed intervention. The Court granted intervention to the Guardians in July 2017. VOR moved to intervene to support the Guardians' opposition to class certification, which the Court granted after full briefing. The Individual Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moving for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants opposed class certification, as did the County Boards, VOR, and the Guardians. The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, certifying a narrower class than requested. The Guardians filed a Third-Party Complaint with Crossclaims against all the Defendants (the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards). The Guardians allege that Ohio has systematically denied ICF services, by failing, in their view, to assure that individuals who qualify for ICF services are informed of that qualification so that they may be provided that ICF service if they so choose. The State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards, all moved for dismissal of the Guardians' crossclaims. VOR has moved for leave to file as amicus curiae for the purpose of opposing the Defendants' requests for dismissal. The Guardians and VOR opposed the motions to dismiss, and the Defendants filed replies. At the request of the parties, the Court stayed decision on the motions to dismiss so that all parties could engage in settlement negotiations. Following extensive settlement negotiations, all parties entered into a settlement as a complete and final resolution of all matters. The Court granted the unopposed request of the Plaintiff Class, the Defendants, and the County Boards for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement on Oct. 18, 2019. The following month, the Guardians withdrew from their agreement to settle. On Dec. 17, 2019, the Court held a Fairness Hearing on the Proposed Final Settlement Agreement. Following the Fairness Hearing, the Court suggested modifications to the Settlement Agreement to alleviate the concerns of those whose interests are aligned with the Guardians and offered all parties the opportunity to respond to the proposed modifications, which they all did. After review of the briefing, it approved the Settlement Agreement with the proposed modifications. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants moved for certification of the Final Approval Order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Guardians opposed the request. The Court granted the request for Rule 54 certification and entered judgment on the claims brought by the Plaintiffs. At the parties' request, the Court vacated the stay on the motions to dismiss of the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards. The Court also permitted the Guardians to file a surreply. The motions are now ripe for review. Judge Sargus (i) granted the unopposed Motion for Leave to File as Amicus Curiae filed by VOR; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Ohio County Boards, the State of Ohio, and the Governor of Ohio. Specifically, he granted all the Defendants' requests for dismissal of the Guardians claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and denied their request for dismissal of the Guardians' claims under the Medicaid Act. The Defendants move for dismissal of both the Guardians' claims under the Medicaid Act, arguing that neither (a) the free choice provision nor (b) the reasonable promptness provision provide for a private right of action. The Judge finds that the Medicaid Act requires Ohio to provide information about all of the services available, allow choice between waiver services and ICFs, and provide ICF services if that is the choice made by the individual or his or her guardian. There is no dispute in the record before the Court that there are ICF beds available. Thus, there is no indication that enforcement of the provision of the Medicaid Act at issue will prevent Ohio from balancing all of the different interests in this complex field. Moreover, the Judge does not agree that the law allows for the Guardians to direct how Ohio transmits the information about the ICF choice. If it is shown that Defendants are providing the ICF information and that the ICF beds are therefore empty by the choice of those individuals who qualify for services, then the claims have no merit. If, however, the Guardians show that the Defendants are not providing information about the ICF choice, the Defendants will be ordered to comply with the law. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yqxyjo6o from Leagle.com. ONTEL PRODUCTS: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Martin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued Stipulated Protective Order in the case, PAUL MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-08158-DSF-PVCx (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Martin alleges that he was confused by one of Defendant Ontel's websites, and as a result of this confusion he purchased two of the Defendant's Artic Air Ultra products instead of one. He also alleges that, because he was confused by the website, he purchased shipping insurance that he did not want. The Plaintiff alleges that other Ontel websites through which it sold other products contain substantially similar representations. It is a putative class action. Given these legal issues and factual allegations, and given that it is a putative class action, the action may involve the production of the contact information of third-party consumers who purchased products from Ontel. The action will also likely involve the production of Ontel's sales figures, including the unit number and dollar value of such sales for various products of Ontel. This information is proprietary to Ontel, not publicly available, and if it were publicly disseminated would cause competitive harm to Ontel, as its competitors would have a detailed window into its sales figures for various products and could potentially use that information to undercut Ontel, or otherwise compete with it. Other discoverable information may include confidential marketing strategies of Ontel, and information regarding its internal business-making processes that would also result in competitive harm to Ontel if it were publicly disclosed. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of the case. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as Confidential or maintained pursuant to the protective order used or introduced as an exhibit at trial becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. Accordingly, the terms of the protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's Scheduling Order. If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under the Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound." After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. "All Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order as set forth. Any violation of the Order may be punished by appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Protective Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/1lpakrld from Leagle.com. PAPA JOHN'S: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Thomas, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Papa John's International, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-00411-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. certifying this action as a class action, and designating Thomas as the representative of the following class: "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked at any of the Papa John's Pizza locations owned/operated by It's Only Pizza, Inc., It's Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It's Only Downtown Pizza II Inc., It's Only Papa's Pizza LLC, Michael Hutmier, and/or James "Chip" Phelps in Ohio at any time from June 16, 2014 to present;" 2. affirming his selection of counsel by appointing Biller & Kimble, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and 3. permitting him to send notice of this lawsuit to putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2). Plaintiff Thomas worked for Defendants at one of their Cincinnati-area Papa John's Pizza locations. The Plaintiff alleges that each of Defendants' Papa John's stores adheres to a compensation policy that results in illegal underpayment to their delivery drivers. First, the Defendants pay each of their delivery drivers minimum wage or tipped minimum wage. Second, the Defendants require their delivery drivers to provide cars to use to deliver their pizzas. Third, the Defendants do not adequately reimburse the delivery drivers for using those vehicles, resulting in the Defendants underpaying the drivers. Additionally, the Defendants unlawfully deduct the cost of uniforms from delivery drivers' wages, the Plaintiff contends. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bxPYB8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. Erica F. Blankenship, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com eblankenship@billerkimble.com PB WEALTH: Bautista Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Due to Time-Shaving ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROMAULDO BAUTISTA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. PB WEALTH INC., d/b/a SENN THAI COMFORT FOOD 9 SANN INC., d/b/a SENN THAI COMFORT FOOD PRASNEEYA PRADITPOJ, SUPHANG UTHAISANGSAKUL, and WALAILUK MURRAY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01201 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, including delivery person, cooks, waiters, runners, bussers, food preparers, cashiers, counter persons, and cleaning persons employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been and are similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have been and continue to be subjected to the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules -- all of which have culminated in a willful failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including overtime premium at one-and-one half times their base hourly rates for each hour worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants operate restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or "the Company") (NYSE:PEN) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Penumbra's Jet 7 Xtra Flex suffered from known design flaws that made the product unsafe. The Company did not properly address the risk of serious injury or death caused by the use of Jet 7 Xtra Flex despite such incidents having already occurred. Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Penumbra, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Agreement Entered with Direct Purchaser Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride 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 27, 2020, that the company announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class in the purported federal class action suit styled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, which is subject to court approval. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company (PPC) and 19 other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and January 15, 2021, 61 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. Subsequent amendments to certain complaints added allegations of price-fixing and bid-rigging on certain sales, which have been stayed by the Illinois Court pending resolution of the original supply reduction conspiracy. On August 28, 2020, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order through trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related expert reports proceeding from October 30, 2020 to May 6, 2021, the close of all merits fact discovery on June 11, 2021, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding from July 2, 2021 to February 22, 2022. The Illinois Court has set a trial date of October 17, 2022. On January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, which is subject to court approval. Pursuant to this agreement, PPC agreed to pay the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class $75.0 million, which PPC recognized as an expense during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) 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 27, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the putative class action suit initiated by Patrick Hogan remains pending. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of the company's stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's Securities and Exchange Commission filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (2) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages. On April 4, 2017, the Colorado Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Colorado Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Colorado Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Colorado Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against the same defendants, based in part on the Indictment. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2020, and defendants filed their reply on September 20, 2020. The Colorado Court's decision on the motion to dismiss is pending. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Grower Litigation in Oklahoma Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride 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 27, 2020, that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the transfer of all cases to the Oklahoma Court for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against the company PPC and four other producers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017 for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction. On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the pending Rule 12 motion, and lifted the stay on discovery. The case is currently in discovery. On October 6, 2020, the Oklahoma plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking consolidation of a series of copycat complaints filed in September and October 2020 in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Colorado, the District of Kansas, and the Northern District of California. On December 15, 2020, the JPML ordered the transfer of all cases to the Oklahoma Court for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Principal Life continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Frederick Rozo. On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life and the company. The company was later dismissed as a defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with a general account guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed Income Option (PFIO). On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the PFIO contracts. On September 25, 2018, the district court granted Principal Life's motion for summary judgment. On February 3, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded the case back to the district court. A bench trial was held before the district court November 3-10, 2020. The court has not yet issued a decision. Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case. Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment management company offering retirement services, insurance solutions and asset management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Can't Enforce Final Judgment Against Tierney ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion to enforce the Final Order and Judgment issued in the case, IN RE THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 95-4704 (ES) (D.N.J.), against Plaintiffs Nicole Tierney, John Tierney, and Virginia Tierney, and enjoin the Plaintiffs from pursuing an action against it that is currently pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The case stems from a large group of policyholders' claims that the Defendant engaged in a systematic fraudulent marketing scheme in which its agents wrongfully induced policyholders to purchase certain Prudential life insurance policies. The Class Action is In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 962 F.Supp. 450, 473-74 (D.N.J. 1997). On March 17, 1997, the Court entered (as amended on April 14, 1997) a 152-page Final Order and Judgment, whereby the Court, inter alia, certified a class for settlement purposes (the "Settlement Class") and approved the proposed settlement between the Settlement Class and Defendant. The Settlement Class consisted of the following: "All persons who own or owned at termination an individual permanent whole life insurance policy issued by Prudential or any of its United States life insurance subsidiaries during the Class Period of Jan. 1, 1982 through Dec. 31, 1995 (the Policy or Policies), except as specifically described below (Policyholders), and have not timely excluded themselves from participating in the Settlement." The Settlement provided for an alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") process, through which the Class Members could file claims with Defendant and potentially obtain either full rescission and restitution, or full benefit of the bargained-for relief. In exchange, the Final Order and Judgment prohibited all the Class Members, or those acting on their behalf, from participating in litigations in any jurisdiction, if such suits involve claims covered by the Class Settlement. The Third Circuit subsequently held that the claims released by the Settlement included specifically pleaded claims, as well as unpleaded claims based on "the same factual predicate or nucleus of operative facts" as alleged in the Class Action, "i.e., deceptive sales practices and misrepresentations." Finally, as part of the Final Order and Judgment, the Court retained exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters relating to administration, consummation, enforcement and interpretation of the Stipulation of Settlement and of the Final Order and Judgment, and for any other necessary purpose. On Oct. 17, 2018, Nicole Tierney, on behalf of herself and as executrixes of the estates of her father and mother, John Tierney and Virginia Tierney, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey ("State Action"). The Complaint asserts three claims against the Defendant: breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"). The Plaintiffs allege that, subsequent to the deaths of John Tierney and Virginia Tierney, Nicole Tierney discovered that John Tierney was the owner and insured of Policy 73 340 684 ("Term Policy"), which insured the life of John Tierney in the amount of $350,000 and named Virginia Tierney as the beneficiary. During her attempts to make a claim for the benefits covered under the Term Policy, Nicole Tierney was informed by the Defendant that, on Dec. 2, 1986, the Term Policy was converted to a new policy, Policy 73 943 441 ("Whole Life Policy"), which was then surrendered for its cash value on April 7, 1994. She was told that, while the Whole Life Policy insured John Tierney, its owner and beneficiary was a company named Delaware Farms, Inc. The Plaintiffs believed that John Tierney owned one third of Delaware Farms at the time that the alleged conversion occurred and was listed as the president of the company. The Defendant informed Nicole that, because the Term Policy was converted to the Whole Life Policy and the Whole Life Policy was surrendered for cash value, neither policies provided any life insurance protection and neither had any cash value. In their State Action, the Plaintiffs allege that "but for the Defendant's fraudulent actions and unconscionable practices, the Term Policy would have been in effect at the time of John Tierney's death, and Virginia Tierney, his wife and beneficiary, would have been entitled to money owed pursuant to the coverage and death benefits provided by the Term Policy." They continue that the Defendant failed to perform and materially breached the contract when it fraudulently converted the Term Policy and by wrongfully failing to pay benefits owed"; "breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in conduct calculated to further its own economic interests at the expense of the Plaintiffs; and violated the NJCFA through its unconscionable commercial practice, including "false promises," "affirmative misrepresentations," "knowing omissions," and "act of deception." In response to the State Action, the Defendant moves to enforce the Final Order and Judgment issued by the Court on March 17, 1997. The Defendant alleges that, because the Plaintiffs failed to timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class and their state claims are based on or relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the claims and causes of action in the Class Action, the Court should enjoin the Plaintiffs from proceeding with the State Action. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition, to which the Defendant replied. On Dec. 16, 2019, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the Plaintiffs, by asserting claims against the Defendant, acted on behalf of or in privity to any Class Member. The Defendant submitted its supplemental briefing on Jan. 10, 2020, to which the Plaintiffs responded. In their initial briefs, the parties do not dispute that the Whole Life Policy was a Class Policy and that, as a result, the owner of the Whole Life Policy, Delaware Farms, was a Class Member. The parties also agree that the Plaintiffs are not Class Members. But they disagree, however, whether the Plaintiffs are nonetheless precluded from asserting the claims against the Defendant. The Defendant argues that, because the Final Order and Judgment prohibits claims arising from policies "sold in connection with, or relating in any way directly or indirectly to the sale or solicitation of" the class policies, the Plaintiffs' claims surrounding the conversion to the Whole Life Policy are "squarely within and barred by" the Final Order and Judgment. Then Plaintiffs insist that they are not Class Members and, thus, are not bound by the Final Order and Judgment. They also argue that they are not claiming benefits on behalf of Delaware Farm. Indeed, they argue that they are not even seeking to enforce Delaware Farms' Whole Life Policy because they "never admit or concede" that the Term Policy was properly converted. Judge Salas opines that to invoke the Court's jurisdiction to enforce its Final Order and Judgment, the Defendant must show that (i) the Plaintiffs' state claims "arise[from the same nucleus of operative facts" as the claims settled in the Class Action; and (ii) the Plaintiffs were Class Members or acted "on behalf of or in concert or participation with" a Class Member. By arguing that the Plaintiffs necessarily seek to assert rights on behalf of Delaware Farms because "the alleged sales practices are in fact the very same type of deceptive practices as those at issue in the Class Action that resulted in the Final Order and Judgment," the Defendant conflates the two requirements it must establish to enjoin the Plaintiffs' State Action. To the extent that the Defendant is correct that the claims asserted against it "belong exclusively to one or more Class Members," which the Plaintiffs are not, the Judge holds that that argument may be relevant in the State Action in support of a dispositive motion but it does not support Defendant's motion to enforce the Final Order and Judgment against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, as non-Class Members asserting claims on their own behalf, are not precluded by the Court's Final Judgment and Order under the basic principles of preclusion. Moreover, while relying on more than a dozen opinions issued in the case, the Judge finds that the Defendant fails to identify any time in which the Court enforced the Final Order and Judgment against a non-Class Member or someone who did not act on behalf of a Class Member. While the Court and the Third Circuit have interpreted the Released Transactions to include claims arising from transactions directly or indirectly that led to the sale of Class Policies, the Final Order and Judgment's preclusive effect extends only to the "Class Members, as well as their heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns." Finally, the Judge holds that the Defendant fails to show that the Final Order and Judgment binds the Plaintiffs because they are in privity with Delaware Farms. As the Court discussed in its Dec. 16, 2019 Order, "a well-established exception to the collateral estoppel bar exists when the nonparty is in privity with someone who was a party to the prior suit." In its supplemental brief, the Defendant does not address whether Delaware Farms "is a virtual representative of" the Plaintiffs in the Class Action. Instead, it merely argues that John Tierney "acted on behalf of and as a representative of Delaware Farms" with respect to the various pre-litigation transactions involving the Term Policy and the Whole Life Policy. In so arguing, the Defendant fails to address the pertinent relationship--that is, whether Delaware Farms, as a Class Member, was a representative of John Tierney, Virginia Tierney, and Nicole Tierney; not the other way around. Because the parties agree that the Plaintiffs are not Class Members, and because the Defendant fails to show that the Plaintiffs were in privity with or seek to assert their claims on behalf any Class Member, Judge Salas concludes that the Plaintiffs are not bound by the Final Order and Judgment. Therefore, she denied the Defendant's Motion. An appropriate Order accompanies her Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/j76i7wiq from Leagle.com. QUANTUM GLOBAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PANIANI TAAFUA v. QUANTUM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-06602-VKD (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees and costs: The proposed amended settlement covers the period October 30, 2013 to December 31, 2018, on behalf of the following class: "all individuals who applied for employment with and/or were employed by Defendant in the United States and were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Defendant or caused to be procured by Defendant through third-party consumer reporting agency First Contact HR during the Class Period." The settlement is non-reversionary and contemplates a release of claims in return for a total payment of $174,980, from which $15,592 2 in estimated administrator expenses, $41,967.33 in attorney's fees, $1,993.72 in costs, and a $3,500 service award will be deducted before the remaining $111,926.95 is distributed to the class, which has 1,040 members. The settlement contemplates that 13% of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to class members whose claims fall outside the two-year statute of limitations period 5 and 87% will be distributed among those whose claims are unquestionably timely. Individual payments will be made on a pro rata basis, depending on the number of reports that were obtained for a given class member. Any unclaimed funds will be given as a cy pres award to the Education Fund of the National Association of Consumer Advocates ("NACA"). The Plaintiff Paniani Taafua filed this action for himself, and on behalf of a putative class, for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), based on a disclosure form used by his former employer, Quantum Global Technologies, LLC (QGT), that reportedly included an extraneous liability waiver. Mr. Taafua claims that QGT required him, and all prospective employees, to sign a standard company form authorizing QGT to obtain a consumer report from third party First Contact HR to verify an applicant's background and experience. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r0MGN9 at no extra charge.[CC] RADNET INC: Class Status Filing Deadline Extended to March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOREEN PFEIFFER, JOSE CONTRERAS, SUSAN WRIGHT ANNABELLE GONZALES, DONNA HOROWITZ, KELLY LANCASTER, and DEBRA PALMER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. RADNET, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-09553-RGK-SK (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting stipulation requesting clarification on the plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification and/or to extend deadline for filing motion for class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification is extended to March 19, 2021, Judge Klausner says. RadNet is an American radiology firm. The company operates outpatient diagnostic imaging centers. RadNet is the largest provider of outpatient imaging services in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OXKcRs at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Pullover Sweater Isn't 100% Pima Cotton, Carter Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Donna Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01202 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021) alleges that the Defendant has violated the Textile Act and its accompanying Rules and Regulations by failing to affix an accurate and truthful fiber content tag to the Product, failing to accurately and truthfully disclose the fiber content on the label of the Product, and failing to maintain required records substantiating the fiber content of the Product at each stage of the manufacturing process. Since at least 2013, the Defendant has manufactured (or caused others to manufacture on its behalf), marketed, distributed and sold at its New York retail locations and by third parties a Polo Ralph Lauren V-Neck Pullover Sweater "100% Pima Cotton" (the "Product"). The identification and fiber content tags are regulated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the regulations implementing the Textile Act, 16 CFR Part 303. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was induced to buy the Product by the words "Pima Cotton" on the product tag and the label sewed into the sweater and the fiber content tag stating "100% Pima Cotton." A test performed by TexTest, an independent, nationally recognized laboratory found that the Product is actually only composed of less than 7 % Pima Cotton, not "100% Pima Cotton" as Defendant claims. Because the true and accurate fiber content is different than that disclosed on the fiber content tag and the label, the Product is misbranded as a matter of law, and manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, or selling the Product is "an unfair and deceptive act or practice" and an "unfair method of competition" as a matter of law, the Plaintiff contends. Ralph Lauren is a publicly traded United States holding company with global and domestic subsidiaries manufacturing, directing others to manufacture for hire, importing, marketing and selling a wide range of merchandise, including apparel, home furnishing and other consumer goods. The Defendant is a global leader in the design, marketing, and distribution of premium lifestyle products in five categories, such as apparel, accessories, home, fragrances, and hospitality. The Defendant sells these products at its Ralph Lauren Men's Flagship Store located at 867 Madison Ave, New York, department store chains such as Macy's and Bloomingdale's, its catalogs, its website and those of third-parties and its wholly-owned outlet stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W 93rd St Floor 16 New York NY 10025-7524 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Joel Oster, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBENSTEIN 4000 North Ocean Drive East Tower 201 Singer Island, FL 33404 REGENCY GP: Wins Judgment on Merger Issues in Dieckman Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ADRIAN DIECKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENCY GP LP and REGENCY GP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 11130-CB (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion resolving merger-related claims and awarding judgment in the Defendants' favor. The post-trial opinion resolves two claims brought on behalf of a class of limited partners of Regency Energy Partners LP against its general partner for breach of Regency's limited partnership agreement arising from a unit-for-unit merger pursuant to which Energy Transfer Partners L.P. ("ETP") acquired Regency for approximately $10 billion in a transaction that closed in April 2015 ("Merger"). At the time of the Merger, Regency and ETP were both controlled by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ("ETE"). The parties' dispute concerns two types of contractual claims. The first is for breach of an express provision of the LP Agreement. The second is for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the LP Agreement. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed his original complaint, asserting four claims on behalf of a class of Regency common unitholders as of the date of the Merger. On May 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, reasserting four claims. Count I asserted that the General Partner breached the express terms of the LP Agreement "because the Merger was not, and the General Partner did not believe that the Merger was, in the best interests of the Regency Partnership (including its limited partners)." Count II asserted that the General Partner breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the LP Agreement. Count III asserted that ETP, EGP, ETE, and the members of the General Partner's board aided and abetted a breach of the LP Agreement. Count IV asserted that those same defendants tortiously interfered with the LP Agreement. Before trial, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment that the transaction failed to satisfy two safe harbors in Regency's partnership agreement that, if either had applied, would have precluded judicial review of the Merger. The failure to satisfy both safe harbors stemmed from the same problem--the appointment of Richard Brannon to a conflicts committee of Regency's board while he was serving on the board of another entity controlled by ETE, Sunoco LP. According to the Memorandum Opinion, the appointment violated a bright-line prohibition in Regency's partnership agreement delineating the qualifications to serve on the conflicts committee. Had Brannon resigned from the Sunoco board before joining Regency's conflicts committee, which was the plan, the prohibition would not have been violated. But implementation of the plan was badly mishandled. At trial, the Plaintiff contended that the general partner breached an express provision of the partnership agreement requiring that the Merger be fair and reasonable to the partnership and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the partnership agreement. The latter claim focused mostly on Brannon's appointment to the conflicts committee. Relying on an expert who compared (i) the value of Regency's units based on a discounted cash flow analysis using a dividend discount model ("DDM") to (ii) the value of the Merger consideration (0.4124 of an ETP unit for each Regency unit) using ETP's closing stock price, the Plaintiff sought over $1.6 billion in damages. Having considered carefully a mountain of evidence presented during a five-day trial, the Court finds that the Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor. Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard notes that there are many legal issues and factual questions addressed in the Opinion, but three fundamental conclusions drive this outcome. First, notwithstanding the problems associated with Brannon's appointment to the conflicts committee, the Defendants demonstrated that the Merger was fair and reasonable to Regency and its unitholders. Second, the Plaintiff failed to prove that the general partner acted in bad faith or engaged in willful misconduct or fraud so as to avoid a provision in the partnership agreement exculpating the general partner from monetary damages. Third, the Plaintiff failed to prove damages. The apples-to-oranges analysis of the Plaintiff's valuation expert--comparing DDM-to-market--was unreliable and every DDM-to-DDM or market-to-market scenario yielded no damages, the Judge opines. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff on Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint. Each party will bear its own costs. The parties are directed to confer and submit an implementing form of final judgment consistent with this decision within five business days. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 15, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5x3zaydc from Leagle.com. Christine M. Mackintosh -- cmackintosh@gelaw.com -- Vivek Upadhya -- vupadhya@gelaw.com -- and Michael D. Bell -- mbell@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- and Edward G. Timlin -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class. Rolin P. Bissell -- rbissell@ycst.com -- and Tammy L. Mercer -- tmercer@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- John C. Wander -- jwander@velaw.com -- and Craig E. Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS LLP, in Dallas, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC. ROSS STORES: Court Junks Marshall Class Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Marshall, et al., v. Ross Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04703-PSG-PLA (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order: 1. granting the motion to dismiss; 2. granting in part and denying in part the motion to strike; and 3. denying the motion for class certification, albeit without prejudice. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of (1) the Caucasian Class, (2) the Disabled Subclass, and (3) the Associate Subclass. The Court said, "The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled Rule 23's numerosity requirement, stating "Plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts to support the conclusion that any other individual has suffered the same injury as Plaintiffs. "But the Plaintiffs allege that "online customer reviews" demonstrate that "there are many customers who have been victims to this form of arbitrary discrimination at the stores" and that more class members can be found through "complaints made directly to the stores (obtainable through discovery)." Taking these allegations as true, as the Court must when considering a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs could establish Rule 23's numerosity requirement. As such, the Court denies the motion to strike the allegations regarding the Caucasian Class. As for the Associate Subclass, Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to support the existence of such a class. The Plaintiffs do not bring an associational discrimination claim, and therefore, even if such a policy existed, the Plaintiffs could not adequately represent such a class. As such, the Court grants the motion to strike the Disabled and Associate Subclasses. The Plaintiffs does not seek leave to amend the class allegations, and therefore the Court denies leave to amend." The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action to address the alleged pattern of arbitrary discrimination at Defendant's Discount stores in Palmdale and Lancaster, California. The Plaintiffs, who are white, allege that on numerous occasions they have been denied access to the restroom at both Stores based on their race. According to the Plaintiffs, they were denied access to the restroom several times while non-white customers, including Marshall's daughter, who is Asian, were permitted to use the restroom, so long as they "remained quiet about it." A copy of the civil minutes -- general dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uz0Ffn at no extra charge.[CC] SEBA ABODE: Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines for Class Cert. Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KWEILIN WOFFORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and UDAY ROY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court for an order modifying its August 31, 2020 Order by staying the five deadlines for class certification and dispositive motion briefing pending the resolution of the Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend the complaint, as follows: 1. The Plaintiff intends to seek leave to file a second amended complaint, which would add two-opt-in plaintiffs, Tara Sears and Nicki Odell, as named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives in this matter. 2. The Plaintiff requested the Defendants' consent to this amendment on February 10, 2021, which Defendants are presently considering. 3. Because the Court's Case Management Order required amended pleadings to be filed by June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff will have to seek leave of this Court to amend the complaint, regardless of whether Defendants consent. 4. Pursuant to the Court's August 31, 2020 Order setting deadlines for class certification and dispositive motion briefing, there are five looming deadlines in this case that will be impacted by the Court's ruling on whether Plaintiff may amend, including: -- Plaintiff's class certification motion, which is due on February 15, 2021; -- Defendants' response to class certification, which is due on March 15, 2021; -- dispositive motions, which are due on March 15, 2021; -- responses to dispositive motions, which are due on April 14, 2021; and -- replies to dispositive motions, which are due on April 28, 2021. Brightstar is an American privately held corporation founded in 1997. It provides global wireless distribution and services, serving mobile device manufacturers, wireless operators and retailers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NsmnkC at no extra charge.[CC] SEBA ABODE: Court Stays Pending Deadlines for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KWEILIN WOFFORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and UDAY ROY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order granting the joint motion to stay the August 31, 2020 order deadlines for the class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Brightstar is an American privately held corporation founded in 1997. It provides global wireless distribution and services, serving mobile device manufacturers, wireless operators and retailers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dG5ai9 at no extra charge.[CC] SERCO INC: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GLASSCOCK v. SERCO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00092-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John F. Anderson entered an order denying without prejudice as moot the pending motions to dismiss, the initial motion for class certification, and the motion for extension of time. On April 27, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and on June 1, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on October 19, 2020 the defendant filed a consent motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for class certification. On February 12, 2021, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement. Serco offers intelligence, cybersecurity, capability engineering, cloud computing, business process, and performance management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dOyUcQ at no extra charge.[CC] SERVICEMASTER RESTORATION: Murie Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR MURIE, On behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SERVICEMASTER RESTORATION BY RECOVERY PROS LLC; RED CARPET RESTORATION L.L.C.; and LANECO LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02069 (D. Kan., Feb. 9, 2021) is a representative action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage-related class claims under state law by failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges that he and all other similarly situated employees of the Defendants are entitled to unpaid wages including overtime premiums for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek; and liquidated damages. According to the complaint, the Defendants' practices and policies are to willfully fail and refuse to properly pay overtime compensation due Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees who work for them. The Defendants' practices are in direct violation of the FLSA and Plaintiff seeks overtime premiums for all overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by Defendants; liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law; and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action. Plaintiff Trevor Murie is a citizen of the State of Kansas. He was misclassified as an exempt employee when, in fact, he worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee for the Defendants, performing cleaning services and other jobs as directed. Others similarly situated for the purposes of this collective and/or class action also were misclassified and, in fact, work and/or worked as hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendants, performing cleaning services and other jobs as directed. The Defendants are for-profit company registered in Kansas and operating and conducting business in Kansas and Missouri. ServiceMaster is a nationally recognized restoration company. Red Carpet specializes in the remediation of mold and removal of water damage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim J. Riemann, Esq. RIEMANN INJURY LITIGATION LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 860 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 348-3003 Facsimile: (816) 895-6351 E-mail: tim@injurylit.com - and - Timothy R. West, Esq. BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C. 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 523-2205 Facsimile: (816) 523-8258 E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com SHARKS SPORTS: Center App Blind Users Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marco SALSICCIA, Scott BLANKS, and other similarly situated individuals, v. SHARKS SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, the CITY OF SAN JOSE, and the SAN JOSE ARENA AUTHORITY, Case No. 5:19-cv-01546-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 8, 2021 for an order: 1. certifying the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class of: "all individuals who are blind and use screen readers and have used or will use the Sharks + SAP Center App, or have been deterred from attempting to use the Sharks + SAP Center App because it is inaccessible;" 2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and 3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Disability Rights Advocates, as class counsel. The San Jose Sharks + SAP Center mobile application is a key digital piece of fans' interaction with the stadium and the team. It provides hockey fans and thousands of others who enjoy events at the stadium and its sister venues a complete fan experience. For example, the mobile application offers media feeds, schedules, rosters, player stats, and standings for the Sharks and Barracuda; a ticket management platform for purchase, sale, transfer, and presentation of tickets to events at the SAP Center; the ability to skip the lines by ordering food and merchandise for pick up at in-stadium vendors; links to purchase a parking pass or view transit schedules; fan engagement opportunities to play games and win prizes; and more. Unfortunately, blind hockey fans and other blind persons who seek to enjoy events at the SAP Center have been unable to participate in that complete experience because the App is inaccessible via the assistive technology, called screen readers, that blind individuals use to access such services, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of the proposed class alleging violation of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Sharks Sports is a privately held corporation based in San Jose, California, which owns and operates a number of sports properties, most notably the San Jose Sharks of the National Hockey League. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dF6mSU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Seaborn, Esq. Meredith J. Weaver, Esq. Shira J. Tevah, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org mweaver@dralegal.org stevah@dralegal.org SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: LR Trust Balks at Merger Deal With Salesforce ----------------------------------------------------------------- LR TRUST v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEWART BUTTERFIELD, ANDREW BRACCIA, EDITH COOPER, SARAH FRIAR, SHEILA B. JORDAN, MICHAEL M. MCNAMARA, JOHN O'FARRELL, and GRAHAM SMITH, Case No. 3:21-cv-01007 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 9, 2021) is class action suit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated against Slack and the members of Slack's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Slack will be acquired by salesforce.com, inc. (Salesforce) through its wholly owned subsidiaries Skyline Strategies I Inc. (Merger Sub I) and Skyline Strategies II LLC (Merger Sub II) (the Proposed Transaction). On December 1, 2020, Slack and Salesforce issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 1, 2020 to sell Slack to Salesforce. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Slack common stock will receive $26.79 in cash and 0.0776 shares of Salesforce common stock for each share of Slack common stock they own (the Merger Consideration). Transaction is valued at approximately $27.7 billion. The complaint further states that on December 23, 2020, Salesforce filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the Registration Statement) with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Slack stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for Slack and Salesforce; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial advisors; and (iii) Qatalyst's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Registration Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In short, unless remedied, Slack's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction, the suit contends. The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of Slack. Defendant Slack is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located 25 at 500 Howard Street, San Francisco, California. The Company is the leading channel-based 6 messaging platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "WORK." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd., #725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com SLEEPY'S LLC: Hearing on Class Certification Set for May 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy's, LLC, Case No. 3:10-cv-01138-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan, entered an order that the hearing on class certification will be held on May 20, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. by telephone. A copy of the Letter order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pWjlSD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr. Esq. MARCHETTI LAW FIRM www.MarchettiLawFirm.com 317 Delsea Drive, P.O. Box 656 Sewell, NJ 08080 Telephone: (856) 824-1001 Facsimile: (267) 219-4838 E-mail: AMarchetti@MarchettiLawFirm.com SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: NYC Carpenters Sue Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SOLARWINDS CORPORATION, KEVIN B. THOMPSON, and J. BARTON KALSU, Case No. 1:21-cv-00138 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 9, 2021) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of SolarWinds common stock between October 18, 2018 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the Class Period) asserting claims against SolarWinds and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives, which arises under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, SolarWinds provides software products used to monitor the health and performance of information technology networks. The Company's most important product line is its Orion platform, which provides a suite of software tools that provide oversight of network, application, and storage resources. Throughout the Class Period, SolarWinds touted its robust security controls and commitment to prioritizing customers' security and privacy concerns. The Company also represented that it faced purported risks with regard to its cybersecurity measures. These and similar statements made during the Class Period were false and misleading, the Plaintiff says. In reality, the Company failed to employ adequate cybersecurity safeguards and did not maintain effective monitoring systems to detect and neutralize security breaches. As a result of vulnerabilities in the Company's cybersecurity protections, which were known to Defendants, SolarWinds and its customers were particularly susceptible to cyber-attacks, the Plaintiff adds. As a result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, shares of SolarWinds common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The truth began to emerge through a series of disclosures beginning on December 13, 2020, when Reuters reported that hackers had infiltrated the networks of the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments and had been monitoring the agencies' internal email communications. The report further revealed that the hackers had gained access to the networks by tampering with software updates released by SolarWinds. The following day, SolarWinds admitted that hackers had breached its network and inserted malware into software updates for its Orion monitoring products. SolarWinds further disclosed that the networks of as many as 18,000 customers may have been compromised by the maliciously coded Orion updates. As a result of these disclosures, the price of SolarWinds stock declined nearly 17%, from $23.55 per share to $19.62 per share. On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that a security researcher had warned SolarWinds in 2019 that anyone could access the Company's update server by simply using the password "solarwinds123." Thus, according to the researcher, the SolarWinds breach "could have been done by any attacker, easily." Additionally, according to another cybersecurity expert, the malicious Orion updates were still available for download days after the Company had admitted that its software had been compromised. These disclosures caused the price of SolarWinds stock to decline by nearly 8%, from $19.62 per share to $18.06 per share. On December 17, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that at least three state governments had been hacked as part of the SolarWinds breach. Moreover, the hackers used the SolarWinds intrusion to infiltrate government networks that implicated national security concerns, including the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the country's arsenal of nuclear weapons. As a result of these disclosures, the price of SolarWinds stock declined by more than 19%, from $17.60 per share to $14.18 per share. Plaintiff NYC Carpenters is a pension fund that provides financial benefits to retired carpenters and their beneficiaries. As indicated on the certification submitted herewith, NYC Carpenters purchased SolarWinds common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. SolarWinds is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its corporate headquarters at 7171 Southwest Parkway, Building 400, Austin, Texas. The Individual Defendants are executives of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald T. Drought, Esq. Frank B. Burney, Esq. MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C. Weston Centre 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1616 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 227-7591 Facsimile: (210) 227-7924 E-mail: gdroguht@mdtlaw.com fburney@mdtlaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Dixon Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. Named Plaintiffs Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard Robards were detained in St. Louis jails because they were unable to afford bail. The Defendants are the City of St. Louis, its Commissioner of Corrections Dale Glass, and its Sheriff Vernon Betts (together, the City) and several judges of the 22nd Circuit. On Jan. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserting that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive and procedural due process by detaining them after arrest without an opportunity to challenge the conditions of their release. The Plaintiffs complain that a cash bond is routinely set without an individualized determination of factors such as the ability to pay, risk of flight, danger to the public, or less restrictive alternatives. The Plaintiffs request the following forms of relief: 1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' and the class members' rights by issuing detention orders without due process; 2. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by operating a system of wealth-based detention that keeps them in jail because they cannot afford to pay monetary conditions of release, without an inquiry or findings concerning their ability to pay, the necessity of detention, and alternative release conditions; 3. A declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to an individualized hearing regarding release conditions and including: notice that financial information will be collected, and the significance thereof; an individualized determination of the arrestee's ability to pay and how much; an opportunity to be heard concerning one's ability to pay and the necessity of non-monetary release conditions, including an opportunity to present and rebut evidence and argue the issues; substantive findings by the Court on the record as to why detention is warranted and why less restrictive alternatives are insufficient; and free legal counsel; 4. A declaratory judgment that the Sheriff and Commissioner of Corrections must not enforce any order requiring secured money bail or a monetary release condition that was imposed prior to an individualized hearing and that is not accompanied by a record reflecting the foregoing procedures and findings; 5. An order permanently enjoining Defendants from operating and enforcing a system of wealth-based detention that keeps the Plaintiffs and the class members in jail because they cannot afford to pay monetary release conditions, without an inquiry or findings concerning their ability to pay, alternative release conditions, and the necessity of detention; 6. An order permanently enjoining the Defendants from operating and enforcing pretrial detention without constitutionally valid process as described above; and 7. An order directing the Sheriff not to instruct arrestees to remain silent during their hearings. Concurrent with their complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which they later withdrew after Defendants agreed to hold their bond hearings the next day in accordance with a revised version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 33.01, then scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019. This new version of the rule clarifies that a court cannot impose cash bail absent an individualized assessment of an arrestee's financial circumstances, flight risk, threat to public safety, and consideration of alternative release conditions. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants' practice of detaining arrestees who are unable to pay cash bail without an individualized hearing on their financial circumstances and the necessity of detention. They sought to enjoin Jail Commissioner Glass from enforcing any bail order operating as a de facto order of detention based on an arrestee's ability to pay, unless such order reflected a hearing on the arrestee's financial circumstances and the Court's consideration of less restrictive release conditions. On March 1, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The City Defendants asserted that they have no policy or custom of silencing arrestees in initial appearances and no authority to establish bail conditions. The Judges asserted theories of immunity and abstention. The Court denied both motions and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which vacated the injunction and remanded the case with instructions for the Court to consider whether an injunction served the public interest in comity between the state and federal judiciaries, particularly in light of the new guidance in revised Missouri Rule 33.01. Dixon v. City of St. Louis, 950 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir. 2020). On remand, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for preliminary injunction and updated the record with more recent evidence concerning the Defendants' bail hearing practices, which the Plaintiffs contend are still inadequate despite the rule change. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants filed the present motions for judgment on the pleadings. As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court's previous rulings on the Defendants' motions to dismiss constitute the law of the case. That doctrine states that a court's ruling on a particular issue should continue to govern in later stages of the same case. The Defendants counter that the doctrine does not apply here because the Eighth Circuit vacated the Court's previous injunction and, moreover, the doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders. Judge Fleissig notes that the Defendants' point is well-taken. Those portions of the Court's prior rulings denying Defendants' motions to dismiss are interlocutory and thus remain subject to reconsideration. Nonetheless, on reconsideration, she reaches the same conclusions expressed in the Court's previous order. The City advances four arguments in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings: (1) the Court lacks authority to compel City Defendants to release state arrestees; (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction to order the City Defendants to ignore bail orders issued by state Judges; (3) the Plaintiffs' claim is now moot by virtue of new Missouri Rule 33.01; and (4) the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction against future injury. The City also joins the Judges in advocating for abstention and state habeas relief. As the Court previously noted, the Plaintiffs' claims against the City Defendants are not limited to the role of enforcing the Judges' bail orders. The Plaintiffs also directly implicate the City's own conduct, alleging that sheriff's deputies instruct arrestees not to speak during their bail hearings. The Defendants do not dispute the Court's authority to enjoin their own unconstitutional actions. As such, the Judge again concludes that the Plaintiffs may maintain their claims against the City Defendants. Next, the City asserts that the case is moot now that the new Missouri Rule 33.01, providing certain constitutional safeguards sought by the Plaintiffs, is in effect. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs continue to claim that the Defendants' practices since remand still do not meet constitutional standards, while te Defendants insist that their practices are constitutionally adequate. Clearly, the controversy is live. Whether the record ultimately supports the Plaintiffs' claims is a question for another day. At this stage, however, the Judge holds that the Defendants are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the basis of mootness. Specific to the Plaintiffs' allegation that sheriff's deputies instruct arrestees not to speak at their bond hearings, the City contends that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief for hypothetical future violations. The Judge finds that the The pervasiveness of the sheriffs' alleged practice is a factual question to be resolved on a full record and not by judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the existence of a widespread pattern. And the Judge rejects the suggestion that Section 1983 offers the Plaintiffs no relief from the City's own role in denying them an opportunity to be heard, separate from the Judges. For the foregoing reasons and as further discussed in the Court's previous order denying the City's motion to dismiss, the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be denied. In support of their separate motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Judges contend that (1) the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in the interest of comity and (2) the Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. The Judge will deny the Judges' motion for judgment on the pleadings. She finds that the Judges have not shown that a tenable interpretation would resolve the present question whether the Defendants are actually providing constitutional due process in practice. The Defendants have also not persuaded the Court that the Pullman or Burford doctrines provide the proper framework for analysis here, which brings us back to Younger. And whether the record will ultimately warrant injunctive relief (subject to the Eighth Circuit's instruction) is a question for another day. At this juncture, the Judge cannot say that the Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. The Judges also argue that the Plaintiffs must seek relief through a writ of habeas corpus and not under Section 1983. In support of their position, the Judges rely on Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), where the Supreme Court held that challenges to detention cannot be brought under Section 1983 where the relief sought would necessarily lead to immediate release from confinement or the shortening of its duration. Instead, detainees must proceed through a habeas action, first in state court. The Court considered this theory in the Judges' motion to dismiss and rejected it because the Plaintiffs do not seek wholesale release; rather, they seek individualized process. For the foregoing reasons discussed in the Court's previous order denying the Judges' motion to dismiss, the Judges' motion for judgment on the pleadings will be denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Fleissig denied the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2qbtdfba from Leagle.com. ST. LOUIS, MO: Judges' Bid to Decertify Class in Dixon Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant Judges' motion to decertify the class. Named Plaintiffs David Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard Robards were detained in St. Louis jails because they were unable to afford bail. The Defendants are the City of St. Louis, its Commissioner of Corrections Dale Glass, its Sheriff Vernon Betts, and several judges of the 22nd Circuit. On Jan. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserting that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive and procedural due process by detaining them after arrest without an opportunity to challenge the conditions of their release. The Plaintiffs requested declaratory judgment stating that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' and the class members' due process rights and injunctive relief in the form of individualized bail hearings examining an arrestee's ability to pay and the possibility of non-monetary release conditions. Concurrent with their complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which they later withdrew after the Defendants agreed to hold their bond hearings the next day in accordance with a revised version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 33.01, then scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019. This revised version of the rule clarifies that a court cannot impose cash bail absent an individualized assessment of an arrestee's financial circumstances, flight risk, threat to public safety, and consideration of alternative release conditions; it further provides the right to a review hearing on the record within seven days and requires the court to make written findings supported by clear and convincing evidence. On Jan. 31, 2019, the Defendants held bond hearings for the named Plaintiffs, who appeared through counsel. At the close of those hearings, two Plaintiffs were released without bond, with other conditions. Two others did not receive any reduction in bond but were later released upon payment of bond by a third-party advocacy organization. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants' practice of detaining arrestees who are unable to pay cash bail without an individualized hearing on their financial circumstances and the necessity of detention. In April 2019, the parties agreed to submit the matter on the written record. Concurrent with their complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class comprised of "all arrestees who are or will be detained in the Medium Security Institution (the Workhouse) or the City Justice Center ("CJC"), operated by the City of St. Louis, postarrest because they are unable to afford to pay a monetary release condition." The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and thus granted their motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants filed a motion for clarification to clarify that the preliminary injunction did not apply to individuals in City custody pursuant to federal court orders or probation violation warrants. The Plaintiffs did not oppose this modification of the Court's class certification, which the Court granted. The Defendants also appealed the Court's preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit, which vacated the injunction and remanded the case with instructions for the Court to consider whether an injunction served the public interest in comity between the state and federal judiciaries, particularly in light of the state court's then-imminent procedural changes. On remand, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for preliminary injunction and updated the record with more recent evidence concerning the Defendants' bail hearing practices since the change in Missouri Rule 33.01. Shortly after the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for preliminary injunction, the Defendants filed the present motion to de-certify the class. The Defendants advance four theories in support of their motion. As an initial matter, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs continue to bear the burden to justify class certification even on the Defendants' motion for de-certification. Judge Fleissig notes that the Plaintiffs have engaged in significant discovery in the case, including individual class members' case records as well as aggregated data on the Defendants' hearing practices. She considers the record sufficiently developed for purposes of Rule 23 analysis. She will not entertain a wholesale relitigation of class certification factors previously considered but will re-examine Rule 23 criteria to extent impacted by material subsequent developments in the litigation. In that regard, the Defendants rely on a development in Eighth Circuit precedent as well as updated factual allegations in the Plaintiffs' renewed (but later withdrawn) preliminary injunction motion subsequent to the change in Missouri Rule 33.01. First, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' class definition creates a fail-safe class--i.e., one that precludes membership unless the member would prevail on the merits--which is impermissible under recent Eighth Circuit precedent published shortly after the Court's certification order. In Orduno v. Pietrzak, 932 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2019), the Circuit instructed that a fail-safe class is prohibited because it would allow putative class members to seek a remedy but not be bound by an adverse judgment because they would be determined not to be a member of the class. They assert that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is similarly flawed because it must be read either to include only those whose detention was unconstitutional or to encompass anyone who was unable to post bond for any reason. The Judge is not persuaded that Orundo warrants de-certification. The Orundo plaintiffs sought monetary damages under the DPPA, and class certification involved a predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3). By contrast, the Plaintiff class seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and is certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Thes Court did not undertake a predominance analysis in its original order of certification and need not do so now. Even assuming arguendo that Orundo constitutes a development in the Circuit, and that its reasoning bears on issues of commonality and cohesiveness under Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(2), the Judge finds no reason to revise the Court's earlier determination that the Plaintiff class members suffered the same alleged injury and seek singular relief. Next, the Defendants contend that the class should be de-certified because it no longer satisfies the requirement of commonality. They argue that the systemic nature of the relief the Plaintiffs seek does not necessarily satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) and Supreme Court precedent, because even a systemic problem can manifest in individual ways, and the Plaintiffs' pursuit of individualized bail hearings necessarily destroys commonality. The Defendants' attempt to fracture the Plaintiffs' claim into individual cases is no more persuasive now than it was at the time of certification, the Judge holds. As the Court stated in its original order, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs allege a widespread and systemic failure to individualize bail determinations in accordance with due process, and especially a failure to consider an arrestee's ability to pay. That the Defendants may foreclose or sidestep that examination in multiple ways, including some new ways arising since the remand of the case or the change in Missouri Rule 33.01, does not destroy the commonality of the claim. The authorities cited in the Defendants' brief do not direct otherwise. The Defendants also argue that the class is not ascertainable because membership would require individual, subjective determinations, supported by personal financial information, as to whether a particular arrestee was truly unable to pay bond. This argument is not based on any subsequent development in the litigation since original briefing on certification, and the Defendants failed to raise it at that time. Moreover, as a general rule, ascertainability requires less precision under Rule 23(b)(2) than under Rule 23(b)(3). Given the obvious and severe consequences of prolonged detention, the Judge agrees and accepts that an inability to pay bond is a reasonable marker of ascertainment. Finally, the Defendants contend that the named Plaintiffs cannot establish typicality and adequacy because they were long ago released and now allege, on behalf of the class, new and different injuries arising out of the Defendants' more recent practices under the revised Missouri Rule 33.01. The Judge sees no reason to revisit this argument. Further, as previously stated, she does not find the factual allegations raised in the Plaintiffs' renewed preliminary injunction motion materially different from their original allegations. The Judge is not persuaded that any recent nuances raised in the Plaintiffs' withdrawn motion for preliminary injunction (e.g., collusion between counsel, consideration of third-party payors) are so unique as to destroy typicality. She is satisfied that the named Plaintiffs' claims remain typical of the class and that the Plaintiffs continue to adequately represent class members. Judge Fleissig concludes that the Plaintiff class, as modified, continues to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. For the reasons she set forth, she denied the Defendants' motion to de-certify the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/js88efps from Leagle.com. STARK BROS NURSERIES: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stark Bros Nurseries & Orchards Co. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Stark Bros Nurseries & Orchards Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-01617 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stark Bro's Nurseries & Orchards Co. -- https://www.starkbros.com/ -- is a horticultural company based in Louisiana, Missouri, that specializes in growing and selling fruit trees to home gardeners and commercial orchardists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal STATE FARM: Whitman Seeks to Certify Washington Policy Owners Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-06025-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of Washington whose policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002 and who was subject to at least one monthly deduction;" 2. appointing himself as the Class Representative; and 3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff Whitman, and on behalf of the proposed Class of Washington policy owners, challenges the Defendant State Farm interpretation and implementation of its form universal life insurance policy -- "Form 94030." State Farm's Form 94030 life insurance policy is a "universal" life insurance contract. Unlike standard "term" life insurance, universal life insurance is designed to provide a lifetime death benefit to the insured plus an investment feature or savings component, called the "Account Value," which allows policy owners to earn interest on their accumulated premiums over time. State Farm began issuing Form 94030 universal life insurance policies in Washington in January 1994. Mr. Whitman purchased his Form 94030 Policy in Tacoma, Washington in 2001. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qXmQtw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714 7100 Facsimile: (816) 714 7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. Ronen Sarraf, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 14 Bond Street #212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 699-8890 Facsimile: (516) 699-8968 E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com ronen@sarrafgentile.com STATE FARM:Filing of Reply to Class Status Bid Extended to March 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-06025-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company's motion to amend the class certification schedule and to enlarge page limits for related briefing, as follows: 1. The Court grants a two-week extension for the Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. The deadline for Defendant's response brief is extended to March 29, 2021; 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his reply brief is also extended by two weeks to April 9, 2021; 4. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains February 16, 2021; 5. The Court grants Defendant's request to enlarge the page limits for briefs on the class certification motion to 35 pages for the opening and response briefs and 12 pages for the reply brief; 6. The parties shall address any Daubert issues related to the motion for class certification within their briefs on the class certification motion, rather than by filing separate 3 Daubert motions; and 7. The Court denies the remainder of the requests in the Defendant's motion. State Farm operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37OXUNc at no extra charge.[CC] STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Court Certifies Classes in Moorer Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELENA MOORER, v. STEMGENEX MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:16-cv-02816-AJB-AHG (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order: 1. certifying the Rule 23(b)(3) classes: -- Subclass A "All persons residing in the United States who purchased Stem Cell Therapy Treatment from StemGenex for at least $14,900 between December 8, 2013 and April 2016, after (a) visiting www.stemgenex.com when the website contained Patient Satisfaction Ratings, and seeing the Patient Satisfaction Ratings without the disclaimer; and/or (b) receiving an email from StemGenex with Patient Satisfaction Ratings, and seeing the Patient Satisfaction Ratings without the disclaimer;" and -- Subclass B "All persons residing in the United States who purchased Stem Cell Therapy Treatment from StemGenex for at least $14,900 between April 2016 and March 2017, or when the information was no longer on the website or being used in emails or advertising materials, after (a) visiting www.stemgenex.com when the website contained Patient Satisfaction Ratings, and seeing the Patient Satisfaction Ratings with the disclaimer; and/or (b) receiving an email from StemGenex with Patient Satisfaction Ratings, and seeing the Patient Satisfaction Ratings with the disclaimer;" 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jennifer Brewer and Alexandra Gardner as class representatives of Subclass A, as they both received treatment prior to April 2016; 3. directing the Plaintiffs to submit a class representative(s) for Subclass B for the Court's approval within three weeks of this Order; 4. appointing the Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel, collectively, they are Elizabeth Banham, Janice Mulligan, Brian Findley, Harvey Berger, Timothy Williams, and Stephanie Reynolds; and 5. directing the parties to meet and confer, and to submit to the Court an agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise individual members of, among other things, the nature of the action, the relief sought, the right of class members to intervene or opt out, and the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). The parties must also jointly submit a plan for dissemination of the proposed notice. The proposed notice and plan of dissemination must be filed with the Court on or before March 10, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37HWeF6 at no extra charge.[CC] SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Phelps Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTY PHELPS and MIRANDA EVANS, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, v. SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. authorizing their claims to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for overtime violations; 2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide the Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members; 3. providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with all of the Defendant's currently employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, be prominently posted at the facilities where putative class members work, and be mailed and emailed to the putative class members so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; 4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date, this Motion is fully briefed; and 5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. The Defendant manufactures rubber and related products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MifW2K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, 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 SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Viracta Merger Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 12, 2021, that the company is facing multiple actions including putative class action suit, related to its merger with Viracta Therapeutics, Inc. on November 29, 2020, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the Merger Agreement) with Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Sol Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunesis (Merger Sub), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Viracta, with Viracta surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunesis (the Merger). On January 8, 2021, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Sunesis in connection with the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta. The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and captioned James Mooney v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00182 (N.D. Cal.). The Mooney Ccomplaint names as defendants Sunesis, Merger Sub, Viracta and the members of the Sunesis board. The Mooney Ccomplaint alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the members of the Sunesis board, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Sunesis, Viracta and Merger Sub, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Sunesis board. The plaintiff contends that the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta is unfair and undervalues Sunesis, and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed on December 22, 2020 omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. The Mooney Ccomplaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, rescission or rescissory damages, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. Additional complaints were filed against Sunesis and the Sunesis board on January 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 29, 2021 (captioned Hajdini v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00359 (S.D.N.Y.); Blomquist v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00225 (E.D.N.Y.); Ciccotelli v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00406 (S.D.N.Y.); Zivan v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00478 (S.D.N.Y.); Rond v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00531 (S.D.N.Y.); Wheeler v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00511 (N.D. Cal.); Kubicek v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00710 (N.D. Cal.); and Sabina v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y.)). The Ciccotelli and Sabina complaints additionally assert claims against Viracta and the Merger Sub. All of the complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Hajdini complaint additionally asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board and interim CEO of Sunesis. All complaints seek injunctive and declaratory relief. The defendants believe the Ccomplaints is are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them it. Additional lawsuits may be filed against Sunesis, Merger Sub, Viracta, and/or the Sunesis directors in connection with the merger and the S-4. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule therapeutics for oncology, inflammatory diseases and other unmet medical needs. The company is advancing two proprietary oncology product candidates intended for the treatment of cancer. The company is based in South San Francisco, California. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Initially OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial 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 court entered an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement in the consolidated Campbell and Neal putative class suit. The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as a result of phone calls made by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without specifying an aggregate amount. Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank. Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank as an additional defendant. On October 2, 2020, Synchrony entered an agreement to resolve the Campbell and Neal lawsuits, which had been consolidated before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, on a class basis. On October 19, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement. Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range of credit products through programs it has established with a group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary, Bank. The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary Appeals Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial 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 appeal in the class action suit headed by Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool is still pending. On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1, 2017 note offering. The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional Company officers, the Company's board of directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering. The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al. On March 26, 2020, the District Court recaptioned the case In re Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation and on March 31, 2020, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range of credit products through programs it has established with a group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary, Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss Kingston Ash Spill Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that company's motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the 2008 Kingston Ash Spill is pending. On November 7, 2019, a resident of Roane County, Tennessee, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Jacobs and the company in the Eastern District. The complaint alleges that the class representative and all other members of the proposed class were damaged as a result of the 2008 ash spill at Kingston and the resulting cleanup activities. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) TVA was negligent in its construction and operation of the Kingston CCR facility, (2) TVA and Jacobs failed to take proper measures to mitigate environmental and health risks during the cleanup response, and (3) TVA and Jacobs misled the community about health and environmental risks associated with exposure to coal fly ash. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the defendants to establish a blood testing program and medical monitoring protocol and to remediate damage to the properties of the proposed class. On April 22, 2020, TVA and Jacobs moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court has not yet ruled on this motion. Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation, produces electricity. The Company provides power to large industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9 million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's power system is self-financed. The company is based in Knoxville, Tennessee. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss LPC Customer Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Local Power Company (LPC) customer, is pending. On June 9, 2020, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia, by a Local Power Company customer (LPC customer), asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit alleges that the customers of the company's LPCs are third-party beneficiaries under TVA's wholesale power contracts with its LPCs and that TVA’s rate changes dating back to 2010 violate Section 11 of the TVA Act. Section 11 of the TVA Act establishes the broad policy that TVA power projects shall be considered primarily for the benefit of the people of the Tennessee Valley and that service to industry is a secondary purpose to be used principally to secure a sufficiently high load factor and revenue returns to permit domestic and rural use at the lowest possible rates. The remedies requested include an injunction prohibiting TVA rate changes that violate Section 11, monetary damages, and repayment of rates charged in violation of Section 11. TVA filed a motion to dismiss the case on November 9, 2020, and filed a supplemental motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020, in response to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff. Oral argument on the motion is scheduled for February 18, 2021. Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation, produces electricity. The Company provides power to large industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9 million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's power system is self financed. The company is based in Knoxville, Tennessee. THREE LIMES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Three Limes, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Three Limes, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01604 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Three Limes Inc., doing business as The Purple Carrot -- https://www.purplecarrot.com/ -- operates as an online food retailer. The Company offers plant-based meals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TIM ABLES: Faces Main Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH MAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIM ABLES TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00052 (E.D. Tex., February 18, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a truck dispatcher, asserts that the Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees seeking all unpaid overtime from the Defendant as well as liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses. Tim Ables Trucking Company, LLC provides frac sand transportation across the greater East Texas area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 596-7100 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com TONY PARKER: Court Tosses Green, et al. Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN GREEN, ANTHONY HERVEY, JAMES JONES, KENDRICK MERRITT, NATHANIEL WILMOTH, THOMAS PRUITT, and JEFFREY COFFEY, v. TONY PARKER, F/N/U SELLERS, AND TAUREAN JAMES, Case No. 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. entered an order: 1. denying motion to certify class; 2. denying motion for reconsideration; and 3. granting motion for extension of time to amend. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' Certification Motion falls far short of meeting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)'s prerequisites to class certification, which renders unnecessary any discussion of Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements. In the January 8, 2021 Order, the Court directed the Clerk to "remove 'Tennessee Prisoners' as plaintiffs, as this matter was neither filed as, nor certified as, a class action." On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action because "there is more than two plaintiffs with all the same common facts." Their Certification Motion offers no basis for class certification, and the record itself suggests to the Court no plausible basis for certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pWzCat at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: March 30 Hearing Set in Damages Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Rucha Desai, Esq. -- rdesai@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on March 30, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether a damages class action, is permitted by Article III of the Constitution or Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the majority of the class has suffered no actual injury. Notably, this is the first time the Supreme Court will apply the rulings of Spokeo, which held that a plaintiff "cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation," to an entire class. The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision will have significant implications on defenses to class actions, and could possibly expand liability for companies most often entangled in class actions with plaintiffs that have tenuous claims based only on statutorily created rights of action. The facts of the case are straightforward: when he was trying to buy a car in 2011, Sergio Ramirez found out he was incorrectly put on a "terrorist list" by TransUnion LLC ("TransUnion"), a credit reporting agency. After ultimately rectifying the error, Ramirez sued on behalf of himself and 8,184 other TransUnion users who had also been incorrectly designated; Ramirez alleged that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act "by placing the false [Office of Foreign Asset Control] alerts on their credit reports and later sending misleading and incomplete disclosures about the alerts." A jury found in favor of the class, and awarded each class member $984.20 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages. TransUnion appealed, in part because the class members (besides Ramirez) lacked standing. The Ninth Circuit held that "each member of a class certified under Rule 23 must satisfy the bare minimum of Article III standing at the final judgment stage of a class action in order to recover monetary damages in federal court." The Ninth Circuit also held that each class member did in fact have the requisite standing to obtain damages, even though about three quarters of the class members did not have their reports disclosed to third parties; rather, the court found standing only because TransUnion violated those class members' statutory rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnion filed a writ of certiorari, and on December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted its petition. The Supreme Court's ruling would make it particularly difficult for large companies subject to a variety of laws and regulations to defend against class actions. Google, eBay, along with several other technology companies and associations, have filed a brief in support of TransUnion, arguing that the services they provide "are often target for claims under federal and state laws that confer private rights of action and contain statutory damages provisions similar to the provisions in the . . . [FRCA] . . . includ[ing] the Wiretap Act, . . . the Stored Communications Act, . . . the Video Privacy Protection Act, . . . and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act." A ruling in TransUnion's favor could aid these companies in defending against damages claims based only on statutory violations. The Supreme Court's decision could also affect the settlement process inherent in the litigation of class actions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses filed an amicus brief arguing that affirming the Ninth Circuit's holding "would embolden [enterprising] lawyers to seek out atypical clients in order to leverage their uniquely sympathetic experiences into a multi-million-dollar damages award or settlement -- all based on technical statutory violations." In their view, upholding the lower court's ruling would encourage settlements even more so than class actions already do. Plaintiffs' counsel and defense attorneys alike will certainly be tuning into oral argument on March 30, and awaiting the Supreme Court's decision with bated breath. [GN] TRAVEL INSURED: Edelson Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travel Insured International, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Louis B. Edelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Travel Insured International, Inc., United States Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00323-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Travel Insured International -- https://www.travelinsured.com/ -- is a travel insurance provider offering domestic and international trip protection products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com TREEHOUSE FOODS: Pandemic Concerns Postpone MPERS Suit Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, 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 any in-person mediation in Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. has been postponed due to the ongoing COVID-19 concerns. On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these litigations. The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's consideration. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018. On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The motion was granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged in mediation but failed to resolve the dispute. On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9. Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class certification brief on May 17, 2019. On February 26, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. Defendants then filed a petition for permissive appeal of the class certification order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2020. After ordering lead plaintiff to file a response, the court denied the petition on May 4, 2020. On December 16, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the case schedule by 90 days. This agreed motion was granted on December 25, 2019. At a status conference on March 10, 2020, the parties informed the court that they intended to engage in a second mediation and the court extended then-upcoming deadlines under the case schedule, pending a further status report from the parties regarding the extent of the stay needed to facilitate mediation. The court subsequently issued multiple general orders as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, which together postponed all case deadlines for a total of 77 days. On June 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint status report informing the court that mediation had been scheduled for July 9, 2020. The next day, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of mediation. Any in-person mediation was thereafter postponed due to ongoing COVID-19 concerns. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties. On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to dismiss in February 2018. The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018, respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and deferred. There is no set status date in Lavin at this time. Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13, 2019, and is now deferred. In Wells, the plaintiffs have notified the court that they intend to move to modify the deferral order to lift the stay. Plaintiff's motion is due February 8, 2021, and briefing is to be completed by March 20, 2021. A status hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2021. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, 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 has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the plaintiffs in Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities in California. The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the Company of $9.0 million. The preliminary understanding reached with the Negrete plaintiffs involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may continue through 2021. As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a $9 million liability as of December 31, 2020. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. TRICIDA INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 16 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Tricida, Inc. ( TCDA) between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=tricida-inc&id=2556 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the March 8, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that- Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] TRU TOP: George Wolchko Suit Wins Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as George D Wolchko v. Tru Top Offer LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02506-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes United States Distentered an order: 1. certifying Lead Plaintiff George D. Wolchko to represent the plaintiff class defined as: "all persons within the United States who received an unsolicited call or voicemail from 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;" 2. appointing Jonathan A. Dessaules and Jesse Vassallo Lopez of Dessaules Law Group as class counsel for the Class representative in this litigation, in their individual and representative capacities, and for the Class; and 3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and allowing the case to proceed as a class action. Tru Top Offer is a real estate investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Msu4qr at no extra charge.[CC] TRUFFA PIZZERIA: Court OK's Ruiz Bid for Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY RUIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TRUFFA PIZZERIA & WINE ROOM CORP. d/b/a COCINA CHENTE MEXICAN CUISINE, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08645-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: 1. granting the motion for conditional certification; 2. approving the proposed court-facilitated notice to the collective, with the additional language requested by the Court; and 3. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for discovery of the contact information of the collective. The Plaintiff was employed from or about July 24, 2017 until May 1, 2020, as a cook at Cocina Chente Mexican Cuisine, a Mexican restaurant run by the Defendants. He alleges that throughout the majority of his employment with the Defendants, he was regularly scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week without a meal break and between five and six days per week. He also alleges that he was paid a flat weekly salary that was not inclusive of overtime and that was always paid in cash. He also alleges that he was often asked to perform duties off the clock, before and after his scheduled work shift, that Defendants never discussed overtime compensation or overtime work with him, and that he never received any written record of his regular and/or overtime hours worked. On October 16, 2020, he brought this action asserting claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3snxtpD at no extra charge.[CC] U.S. XPRESS: Stein Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEWIS STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00098-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.,), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on behalf of: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Class A common stock of USX pursuant to and/or traceable to the Offering Documents filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and who were damaged thereby;" Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate families, the officers and directors and affiliates of the Defendants, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Deirdre Terry, Charles Clowdis, and Bryan Robbins as class representatives; and 3. appointing the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as class counsel. The Court said, The Plaintiffs argue that the large number of dispersed investors alleging a singular course of wrongful conduct makes this case well-suited to class adjudication. Indeed, class adjudication of this matter is undeniably superior to thousands of dispersed small actions relating to the same Offering Documents, and no foreseeable management difficulties otherwise militate against a class action under these conditions. Moreover, the Defendants do not oppose certification on superiority grounds. Accordingly, superiority is satisfied. According to the Plaintiffs, the amended registration statement and final prospectus (the Offering Documents) that the Defendants prepared for the IPO misrepresented or omitted several categories of material information. This lawsuit commenced in April 2019, asserting that the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions violated federal securities law. USX is a publicly-traded trucking company headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee. On June 14, 2018, USX began an initial public offering (IPO) of 16,668,000 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $16 per share. The Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stephens, Inc., WR Securities LLC, and Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc. served as underwriters. The IPO yielded $245.2 million in net proceeds after underwriting discounts, commissions, and offering expenses. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff Robbins purchased 50 shares of USX common stock at a price of $16.392 per share. On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff Clowdis purchased 100 shares of USX common stock at a price of $16.51 per share. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3urBLOQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED INSURANCE: Reply Brief for Class Cert. Bid Due March 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order granting United's motion for extension of time to file a response brief as follows: 1. United's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to Friday, February 26th, 2021; and 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply brief in support of her motion for class certification is extended to Friday, March 12, 2021. United Insurance Company of America was founded in 1990. The company's line of business includes the underwriting of life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qPuztz at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of JOP Class Cert. Bid Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled J.O.P., et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01944-GJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 4, 2021, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion: -- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel; -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction; -- granting the Joint Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Schedule; and -- granting the Joint Motion for Entry of Parties' Proposed Protective Order. The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a group of undocumented immigrants, who entered the United States as unaccompanied children, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, brought the action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and several of its officials and components. Specifically, Plaintiffs J.O.P. (by and through next friend, G.C.P.), M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., and K.A.R.C. filed a Complaint on July 1, 2019, against DHS, its then-Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), and USCIS' Acting Director Kenneth Cuccinelli, alleging that a change in the Defendants' policy with respect to asylum applications filed by unaccompanied alien children violated the APA and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On July 1, 2020, USCIS issued a letter to K.A.R.C. granting him asylum. The Plaintiffs allege that the government unlawfully modified policies governing treatment of asylum applications by unaccompanied immigrant children ("UACs") in a May 2019 Memorandum. On Aug. 2, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining enforcement of the May 2019 Memorandum, and on Oct. 15, 2019, granted the Plaintiffs' consent motion, converting the Order into a preliminary injunction. The appellate case is captioned as J.O.P. v. DHS, Case No. 21-1187, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, February 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees J.O.P., M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., K.A.R.C., E.D.G., and L.M.Z., on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian Timothy Burgess, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 E-mail: bburgess@goodwinlaw.com - and - Michelle Natalia Mendez, Esq. CATHOLIC CHARITIES IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES 924 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-0000 Telephone: (202) 772-4342 E-mail: mmendez@cliniclegal.org Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; TRACY RENAUD, in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services; ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U. S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and TAE D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, are represented by: Matthew Adam Haven, Esq. Vickie Elaine LeDuc, Esq. Allen F. Loucks, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 36 South Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 UNITED STATES: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE ANN WILKIE PELTIER, et al., v. SCOTT DE LA VEGA, Acting Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03775-TFH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge THOMAS F. Hogan entered an order: 1.conditionally certifying a class (for settlement purposes only) consisting of individuals defined as: "(a) all Original Individual Beneficiaries of the Pembina Judgment Fund 1964 and 1980 Awards, defined as: (i) the 21,268 individuals determined by the United States Department of the Interior, pursuant to the 1971 Distribution Act for the 1964 Award and its implementing regulations, to be eligible to share in the distribution by Interior of the 1964 Award, regardless of whether some or all of these individuals were also determined by Interior to be eligible to share in Interior's distribution of the 1980 Award; and (ii) the 33,584 individuals determined by Interior, pursuant to the 1982 Distribution Act for the 1980 Award and its implementing regulations, to be eligible to share in the distribution by Interior of the 1980 Award, regardless of whether some or all of these individuals were also determined by Interior to be eligible to share in Interior’s distribution of the 1964 Award; (b) all Legal Representatives of Settlement Class Members, defined as persons or entities selected by Settlement Class Members or appointed, retained, or approved under applicable federal, state, or tribal law to represent the Settlement Class Members for purposes of this Class Action; (c) all First-Line Heirs, a First-Line Heir being defined as, in the absence of applicable federal, state, or tribal law to the contrary, the living spouse, if any, of a deceased Original Individual Beneficiary, and if there is no living spouse, the oldest living child of the deceased Original Individual Beneficiary; and (d) all Second-Line Heirs, a Second-Line Heir being defined as, in those instances in which there is no First-Line Heir, the next closest living heir of a deceased Original Individual Beneficiary as determined in accordance with applicable federal, state, or tribal law. 2. appointing the following 65 individuals as Class Representatives for the conditionally certified Settlement Class: Leslie Ann Wilkie Peltier; Chrystel Aurora Cornelius; Delvin Cree; Carol Ann Davis; Andrea Laverdure; Roberta Morin Lord; Coreena Joy Patnaude; Barbara Ann Marie Poitra; Larry Joseph Morsette, Jr.; William Dallas Wade Sun Child; John Wayne Gilbert; Carol Sue Doney Hofeldt; Leona Kienenberger; Larry James Salois; Dawn Louise Roath; Eunice Mae Bellanger; Wilfred Vernon Dentz; Dorothy Marilyn Gay; Frank Stephen Lhotka; Bernadette Anne Spahr; Regina Ruth Howard; Charlene Big Knife; Twila Marie Jerome; Toby Lee Lamere; Dale Roger Pesch; Gladys J. Torkelson; Deanna M. Trottier Wirtzberger; Gail Eagleman; Gaile Lynn Torres; Chane Weymer Salois; Maryjo Elizabeth Rust; Lavonne Marie Brown; Shane Michael Brien; Tacey Lynn Foster; Richard Edward Lawson; Peggy Ann Pena; Daniel Boyd Williams; Mikealinda Marae Grant; Annette Marie Charette; Robert S. DeCoteau; Lola Greatwalker; Andrew L. Laverdure; Tammy Jean Wilkie Poitra; Lee William Wilkie; Kenneth Zane Blatt St. Marks; Josephine Oats Corcoran; Yvonne Marie Hill; Kathleen Ann Franklin; Deborah Lea Ronneng; Amelia Evette Lafriniere Roy; Joyce Elaine Demarre Stewart; Aaron Vasecka; Andrew Leslie Vasecka; Devi Cole; Peter Frederick Doney; Debra Josephine Newgard; Marie Louise Nielsen; James Melvin Weigand; Georgi Ann Mitchell; Tammie Mae Simmons; Tina Marie Taylor; Jeremy John Lee Rindahl; Belinda May Harvill; Edward Timothy Ramsted; and Kathleen Butcher; 3. appointing as Class Counsel for the conditionally certified Settlement Class the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), including NARF Staff Attorney Melody McCoy, as the lead attorney for the Settlement Class, and NARF Staff Attorney Kim Jerome Gottschalk, as an attorney for the Settlement Class; 4. granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement; 5. appproving the Plaintiffs' Long-Form and Summary Notices; 6. appointing Class Experts Group, LLC, as the Settlement Administrator and directing that the Settlement Administrator, for the purposes of effectuating the Class Action Settlement Agreement, fulfill the roles designated for the Settlement Administrator in the Settlement Agreement, including the mailing of the Long-Form Notice within 30 calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Order date; and 7. conducting a Fairness Hearing on the Class Action Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), on June 10, 2021. The Court finds that this conditionally certified Settlement Class meets all applicable requirements of Fed. R. C.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation, predominance, and superiority. The United States secretary of the interior is the head of the United States Department of the Interior. The secretary and the Department of the Interior are responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources, leading such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37OlkSY at no extra charge.[CC] US FERTILITY: Mateson Files PI Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Fertility, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Mateson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Fertility, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00466 (D. Md., Feb. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. US Fertility -- https://www.usfertility.com/ -- offers fertility treatment and making it more accessible and affordable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E Mason, Esq. MASON LIETS & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the shareholder class action suit related to the company's August 2016 secondary public offering. On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions. Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the Delaware Court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common stock violated federal securities laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material information regarding the financial condition of the Company. The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27, 2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock dropped. The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against the same officers and also allege that certain current and former members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case. The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending the remaining claims. On December 31, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proceeding as a class action. The Company's appeal of that decision has been denied by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the class has been notified. Discovery is proceeding No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled, U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products. United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. UTOPIA LIVING: Ex-Eco Village Tenants Fail to Get Emergency Relief ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abbe Hamilton, writing for Ledger Transcript, reports that emergency relief will not be granted to the former tenants of Peterborough's Walden Eco Village, a judge ruled, but the longer-term class action suit continues. Thirteen former tenants signed a class action lawsuit at the end of December against Akhil Garland, his business Utopia Living LLC, and the Garland Family Land Trust, of which Garland is a trustee. They sought emergency relief in the form of speedy returns of security deposits, costs associated with moving and emergency housing, and assistance in finding new rental housing at a hearing on Jan. 7. The suit came after the Town of Peterborough issued a cease and desist order to Garland on Dec. 11, which called for the eviction of the property's 25 tenants by Dec. 16. Peterborough issued the order after discovering safety hazards within the property's 15 rental units during an inspection prompted by Garland's proposal to subdivide and sell the land. The property's nine casitas, or tiny houses, had never been permitted, and its seven cottages were being used in excess of their permits, as previously reported. The request for a speedier return of security deposits is already a moot point as almost all had been returned by the hearing, Judge Diane Nicolisi wrote in a court order dated Feb.10 (the remaining security deposits were returned later in the month, the tenant's lawyer Jason Bielagus confirmed). The recovery of costs associated with moving, emergency housing, and the additional costs of having to rent a more expensive living space have the option of being rewarded later in the case, Nicolisi wrote, and that she didn't believe the plaintiff's justifications for emergency relief held up, because they required willful conduct on Garland's part. "At this stage, the plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated that Mr. Garland was aware of the defects in the property and a possible compliance action on the part of the town that would lead to a cease and desist letter and eviction," she wrote. "It appears Mr. Garland was as surprised by the cease and desist letter as the tenants were, and he is in the early stages of contesting the Town's legal position." "[Garland] intentionally constructed the dwelling units on the premises. In so doing, [he] knew, or should have known, that he had not first applied for and obtained permits to do so," Bielagus wrote on Feb. 12, in an objection to one of the defendant's earlier motions. "[Garland] knew, or should have known, he did not build the dwelling units to code. Defendants knew, or should have known, the dwelling units were not maintained as required by the ordinances and code of the Town of Peterborough," he wrote. "Obviously, we're disappointed," Bielagus said of the decision on Feb. 17, but that he might file a motion to reconsider certain parts of the ruling. Garland knew, or should have known, that he hadn't obtained permits for 15 structures he built on the property, Bielagus said, and rented them anyway. "A willful act isn't just an act like changing the locks. A willful act can be a willful inaction, like when you know there's a problem with the heat," but do nothing, according to case law, he said. A hearing on a petition to attach is scheduled for April 7, Bielagus said, a process that he hopes will ensure the tenants can recover financial damages if there's an eventual ruling in their favor. [GN] VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Vanda 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 dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., is still pending. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R), HETLIOZ(R) and the Company's interactions with the Food and Drug Administration regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company does not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. Vanda said, "However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C. VERA INTERIOR: Fails to Properly Record OT Hours, Vazquez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff v. VERA INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and ANTONIO VERA, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00127 (M.D. Tenn., February 17, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt manual laborer from 2009 through September 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked 8-16 hours beyond 40 hours each week. However, the Defendant failed to compensate him for the overtime hours he worked at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay because the Defendant did not record his overtime hours. Instead, he was only paid by the Defendant with cash at his regular rate for hours he worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff contends. Vera Interior Construction, LLC is a construction contractor owned and operated by Antonio Vera. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Lee, Esq. TIM LEE LAW FIRM 810 Dominican Drive Nashville, TN 37228 Tel: (615) 988-0090 Fax: (615) 630-6430 E-mail: tim@timleelawfirm.com VRK MEDIA: Bodde Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VRX Media Group, LLC. The case is styled as Benjamin Bodde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VRX Media Group, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00320-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VRX Media -- https://vrxmedia.com/ -- offers 3D Tours, aerial services, and HDR photography for real estate and commercial industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Alcazar Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING LLC; AHLBURGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01196-JSC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://wahlburgers.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like her, which is a direct violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit says. Wahlburgers Franchising LLC is a dining burger restaurant and bar chain. [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 WALGREEN CO: Samuel Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEVAUGHN SAMUEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 503161/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Feb. 9, 2021) seeks to recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions such as cashiers, customer service associates, and greeters (Hourly Workers) who work or have worked for Walgreen, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendant has compensated Plaintiff and all other Hourly Workers on an hourly basis. The Defendant has also paid Plaintiff and all other Hourly Workers shift bonuses. According to the complaint, despite being manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers in New York their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this regard, the Defendant has allegedly failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Hourly Workers in New York.[BN] Walgreens, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, operates pharmaceutical and convenience stores throughout the United States. Walgreens operates over 9,000 stores throughout the United States, including over 600 in New York State, and employs over 50,000 people in the United States, a majority of whom are Hourly Workers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Lett Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYHESHA LETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-9630 (JMV) (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff Lett brings the putative class action against her auto insurer, the Defendant, alleging that it breached its insurance policy by failing to include title transfer and registration fees in the actual cash value payment for her totaled vehicle. The Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, owned a 2011 Mercedes-Benz R350 that she insured under an auto policy issued by the Defendant, an entity within the Liberty Mutual brand of insuring entities. In September of 2017, the Plaintiff's vehicle was totaled in an accident, for which she filed a property damage claim. The Policy requires the Defendant to pay for "direct and accidental loss" to the Plaintiff's vehicle in the event of a collision. The Policy limits the Defendant's liability for the loss to the lesser of the (1) actual cash value ("ACV") of the damaged property; or (2) amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other similar property. Thus, the policy makes a distinction between ACV and replacement costs--requiring the insurer to pay the lesser of the two. Where the amount to repair the damaged vehicle exceeds the value of the vehicle prior to the collision, the Defendant treats the vehicle as a total loss and limits its liability to the vehicle's ACV, which is adjusted for depreciation and the vehicle's physical condition prior to the damage. The Defendant then either pays for the loss in money, including the applicable sales tax for the damaged vehicle, or repairs or replaces the vehicle. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff's vehicle was a total loss and that its liability was limited to the vehicle's ACV. Using a third-party vehicle valuation provider, it further determined that the vehicle had a value of $19,824 with sales tax of $1,362.90, resulting in a total settlement amount of $20,686.90. This amount does not include the cost of New Jersey's title transfer fee ($85.00) or registration transfer fee ($4.50) that the Plaintiff must expend to replace her damaged vehicle. The Plaintiff alleges these fees must be included in the ACV calculation and payment because they are mandatory costs necessary to place her, as the insured, into her pre-loss position. Failure to pay these fees, the Plaintiff argues, is a breach of the Policy. On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated New Jersey residents insured by Defendant, filed a one-count Complaint for breach of contract in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. The Defendant timely removed the action to the Court on July 29, 2020, based on diversity jurisdiction. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant's motion presents the following question: whether the Policy requires it to include the Transfer Fees as part of the ACV of a damaged vehicle. The answer turns on how the Policy and New Jersey law define ACV.6 Defendant argues that neither the Policy nor New Jersey law require it to pay such fees. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that the purpose of ACV policies is to indemnify insureds and place them into their pre-loss position. She argues that ACV must include all costs necessary to replace the total loss vehicle with a comparable operable vehicle, which necessarily includes the mandatory and unavoidable Transfer Fees. Judge Vazquez opines that New Jersey's Administrative Code defines ACV as "unless otherwise specifically defined by law or policy, the lesser of the amounts to: 1. Repair the motor vehicle to its condition immediately prior to the loss; or 2. Replace the motor vehicle with a substantially similar vehicle. The amount will include all moneys paid or payable as sales taxes." The Code expressly requires insurers to include applicable sales tax with its offer, but it does not require insurers to pay replacement costs or Transfer Fees when adjusting total loss claims. Instead, the Code requires an amount equal to a comparable vehicle. Moreover, the Plaintiff points to no similar concerns as to a motor vehicle. The Judge will not apply the "broad evidence rule" in the case where both policy language and the Administrative Code provide sufficient guidance to insurers on how to calculate and pay ACV in the context of an auto insurance policy. Judge Vazquez is satisfied that ACV, as used in the Policy, cannot be read to mean the replacement cost of the vehicle and the inclusion of Transfer Fees under New Jersey law. To read otherwise blurs the line between ACV and replacement cost, which both the Policy and New Jersey law treat as distinct measurements of loss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim against Defendant for breach of the Policy. He therefore granted the Defendant's motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/rxf2st3l from Leagle.com. WEST MARINE: Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice as to Graciano --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, SANDY GRACIANO, On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 7870-LTS-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs. The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, Judge Swain dismissed with prejudice the action as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs, and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to her calendar if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of the date of her Order. If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before the 30-day period expires. The Judge advised the parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rhd7jxxp from Leagle.com. WHEELCARE EXPRESS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aaron Bryant Gbotoe v. Wheelcare Express, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02797-PJH (N.D. Calif.), the the Hon. Judge Phylis J. Hamilton entered an order that the scheduling deadlines and dates will be modified from the August 20, 2020 Case Management Conference as follows: Event Current Stipulated Date Date Motion for Class April 30, 2021 July 30, 2021 Certification Last Day to Disclose July 6, 2021 Oct. 6, 2021 Experts Last Day to Designate Aug. 6, 2021 Nov. 8, 2021 Rebuttal Experts Non-expert Discovery Aug. 6, 2021 Nov. 8, 2021 Cut-Off Expert Discovery Cut-Off Sept. 6, 2021 Dec. 6, 2021 Last Day for Dispositive Nov. 3, 2021 Jan. 20, 2022 Motions to be Heard Pretrial Conference Feb. 10, 2022 April 21,2021 Trial March 7, 2022 May 16, 2022 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37G8PIW at no extra charge.[CC] WHOLE FOODS: Hodgson Russ Attorneys Discuss Labeling Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Bonaguide, Esq. -- cbonagui@hodgsonruss.com -- Mila Buckner, Esq. -- mbuckner@hodgsonruss.com -- Paul Comeau, Esq. -- pcomeau@hodgsonruss.com -- Reetuparna Dutta, Esq., George Eydt, Esq., and Emily Florczak, Esq., of Hodgson Russ LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that Whole Foods was sued in the Southern District of New York in a proposed class action lawsuit for claims it made on its 365 Brand "Organic Honey Graham Crackers." According to plaintiff, the potential class representative, the packaging for this product would have led a reasonable consumer to believe that the crackers were sweetened primarily with honey (as opposed to sugar) and that they were made with whole-grain flour (as opposed to "white" or refined flour). In actuality, according to plaintiff, the crackers were made with refined flour and the principal sweetener was cane sugar. Whole Foods moved to dismiss, but the court sided with plaintiff on her key claims, finding that she adequately pleaded a violation of New York General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350, prohibiting deceptive acts and false advertising. See Campbell v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 2021 WL 355405 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2021). With respect to plaintiff's claim that the packaging suggested the product contained more whole grain flour than refined flour, the court noted that "graham" refers to whole wheat flour and, "[a] consumer who knows that 'graham' refers to 'whole wheat' flour is likely to read the product packaging as a description of the crackers' ingredients: honey and graham." Id. at *5. Moreover, referencing the graphics on the packaging, the court noted that the "honey" and "graham" were equally sized and a uniform color and font and preceded the word "crackers." A reasonable consumer, according to the court, could "view each of those items as a description of the ingredients in the crackers described below each of those prominent terms." Id. The court found it irrelevant whether a consumer could determine from the ingredient label that refined flour was the principal ingredient. Significantly, the court rejected the conclusion reached in Kennedy v. Mondelez Glob. LLC, 2020 WL 4006197 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2020), where a Magistrate Judge dismissed a similar claim because he did not find that the terms "graham" or "graham cracker" suggested whole wheat flour and, instead, referenced a specific type of cracker. As far as the primary sweetener in the product, the court found that a reasonable consumer would view the honey on the packaging to refer to honey as an ingredient. The design of the packaging suggested that honey was an ingredient, with the graphics treating the words "graham" and "honey" as the same and the front of the box featuring a honey dipper in a bowl of honey. Whole Foods argued that, since there was honey in the product, the packaging was not deceptive. But the court rejected this argument, relying on a Second Circuit decision in which the appellate court noted that "[s]uch a rule would permit Defendant to lead consumers to believe its Cheez-Its were made of whole grain so long as the crackers contained an iota of whole grain, along with 99.999% white flour. Such a rule would validate highly deceptive marketing." Campbell, 2021 WL 355405, at *10 (quoting Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 2018)). The court did, however, dismiss plaintiff's remaining claims, including negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraud. With respect to the fraud claim, the court found that plaintiff's allegation of fraudulent intent -- Whole Food's knowledge of the falsity of the labelling -- was insufficient. As the court noted, "while the existence of accurate information regarding the product's ingredients on the package does not stymie a deceptive labelling claim as a matter of law, it is certainly a substantial barrier to a plaintiff seeking to plead a claim of fraud." Id. at *12. Hodgson Russ Insights - Notwithstanding the assertion of consumer confusion underlying this suit, there is an entire plaintiffs' bar dedicated to finding just these types of disparities in labelling. Plaintiffs' lawyers pay attention to these types of decisions - and you should too! Examine your packaging and the claims made regarding your products to ensure that they cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to litigation and the attendant costs and resources required to defend a class action lawsuit. Additionally, consider employing independent focus groups as part of the marketing process to identify potential mislabelling. [GN] WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Brigati Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worcester Polytechnic Institute, et al. The case is styled as Mr. Steven Brigati, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation; HFM, Inc., a Florida for profit corporation; Case No. 2:21-cv-14098-AMC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement for Contract Dispute. Worcester Polytechnic Institute -- https://www.wpi.edu/ -- is a private research university in Worcester, Massachusetts, focusing on the instruction and research of technical arts and applied sciences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine Johnson James, Esq. ELAINE JOHNSON JAMES, P.A. P.O. Box 31512 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 Phone: (561) 245-1144 Fax: (561) 244-9580 Email: ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the case, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062, has yet to issue a decision on defendants motion to dismiss. On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against us and some of our current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in the company's public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint against the company and a current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020. Briefing on defendants' motion was completed on June 18, 2020, and the Court heard oral argument on June 30, 2020. The Court has not yet issued a decision on defendants' motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries continue to defend class action suits brought by independent contract carriers. Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are defendants in class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. In two related cases pending in federal district court in Los Angeles, Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc., the Court has certified classes beginning in April 2016 and March 2013, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree of control over plaintiffs' operations through the terms of the parties' contracts and defendants' policies, including enforcement of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers' business expenses (including fuel and insurance-related costs), Labor Code penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys' fees and costs associated with bringing the action. Discovery is ongoing in these matters, and defendants continue to mount a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, including as to the threshold issue of employment classification. Both cases are scheduled for trial in September 2021; however, this date may be impacted or significantly delayed by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Court operations, including the scheduling of jury trials. XPO Logistics said, "We anticipate further legal rulings from the Court at or before trial that may substantially affect the scope of the claims asserted. As a result, we are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. YELLOW CORP: Joint Motion to Stay Appeal in Lewis Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Yellow 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 Second Circuit granted the parties' joint motion to stay the appeal in Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., and remand the case to the District Court for consideration once the parties have documented the proposed settlement and presented it to the court for approval. In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements relating to the Company's freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint described above. The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety and entered judgment closing the case. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2020. That appeal is pending and has been fully briefed. On December 16, 2020, the parties to the appeal filed an informative notice to inform the Second Circuit that they would engage in mediation to explore whether the case can be resolved. In February 2021, the parties to the appeal reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for an immaterial amount, which agreement remains subject to certain conditions, including execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. On February 10, 2021, the Second Circuit granted the parties' joint motion to stay the appeal and remand the case to the District Court for consideration once the parties have documented the proposed settlement and presented it to the court for approval. In February 2021, YRC Worldwide Inc. completed a name change to Yellow Corporation. Yellow Corporation is a holding company that, through its operating subsidiaries, offers its customers a wide range of transportation services. The company is based in Overland Park, Kansas. YOU FIRST SERVICES: ARcare Inc. Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against You First Services Inc. The case is styled as ARcare Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. You First Services Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00135-DPM (E.D. Ark., Feb. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. You First Services, Inc. -- https://youfirstservices.com/ -- specializes in the acquisition, development, manufacturing & commercialization of scientific technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West Seventh Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 315-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com ZENDESK INC: Hearing on Bid to Nix Reidinger Suit Set for March 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and the executive officer defendants motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., is set for hearing on March 5, 2021. On October 24, 2019 and November 7, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company filed two putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019, inclusive. The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of our prior public filings. To this point, no discovery has occurred in these cases. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the various lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB), and the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on April 14, 2020 asserting the same alleged violations of securities laws as the initial complaints. On June 29, 2020, Zendesk and the executive officer defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 9, 2020, the court granted Zendesk's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. On January 8, 2021, plaintiff filed its second amended complaint and on January 22, 2021, Zendesk and the executive officer defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint which is set for hearing on March 5, 2021. Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer support platform. The Company offers applications that allow clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from any Internet-connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. ZILLOW GROUP: Asks 9th Cir. to Review Class Status in Vargosko Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the decision of the district court granting plaintiffs motion for class certification. In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding their business practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014. In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit. In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, the company's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss in December 2018. On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which was granted by the District Court on October 28, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the company filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of that decision. Zillow said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss will be incurred related to this lawsuit." Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. ZURICH AMERICAN: Crescent Appeals Class Suit Dimissal to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CRESCENT PLAZA HOTEL OWNER, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03463, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 19, 2020, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligation associated to its insurance policy. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated business owners who purchased property insurance policy from the Defendant for the period April 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021, alleges that the Defendant refused to pay claims for business losses and costs due to COVID-19 and the resultant Closure Orders covered by the Zurich policy's Property Damage and Time Element coverages. The Plaintiff suffered a physical loss of property due to COVID-19 and was forced to suspend or reduce business in compliance with the government's Closure Orders to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members argue that the Defendant is obligated to pay them because Time Element Coverage Extensions, Protection and Preservation of Property losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the policy. The Plaintiff and Class members have complied with all applicable provisions of the policy and/or those provisions have been waived by Zurich or Zurich is stopped from asserting them, and yet Zurich has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the policy's terms. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 18, 2021 and Judgment dated February 18, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as CRESCENT PLAZA HOTEL OWNER, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1316, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, February 19, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's docketing statement was due on February 25, 2021; -- Appellant's transcript information sheet is due on March 5, 2021; and -- Appelant's brief is due on March 31, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***