/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210610.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 110 Headlines 3033 GROUP: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reynoso Suit Alleges AETERNA ZENTARIS: Discloses Final Settlement of Class Action Suit AIR METHODS: Murphy Sues Over Illegal Medical Air Transpo Charges ALL MERCHANT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California AMDOCS LIMITED: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 8 Deadline AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought APARTMENT LIST: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: N.D. California Certifies Damages Class in Williams Suit ATERIAN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline BISSELL HOMECARE: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California BOOK PEOPLE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline CIMAREX ENERGY: Hayhook Sues Over Royalty Underpayments CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Outbreak COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Suit Seeks Billions in Wake of Bribery Scandal COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Blanton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CREDIT COLLECTION: Becker Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Stay Motion for Class Certification Briefing DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers File Suit Over Upgradeable Laptop DENALI STAFFING: Initial Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Cody Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Entwistle & Cappucci Discloses Class Action EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Discloses Class Action FAMILY FOOT: Filing of Preliminary Class Cert. Bid Due October 1 FIRST TRANSIT: Settlement Agreement in Alkady Suit Gets Final Nod FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of August 2 Deadline FUELCO ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Segovia FLSA Suit Denied GEICO CASUALTY: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Destination Charges GLOBAL CREDIT: Lapinski Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN: Grantham Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Landsdale Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal HONEY POT COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOUSTON WIRE: Omni Cable Merger Deal Lacks Info, Parshall Claims HUB INT'L: Ct. Certifies California Class & Wage Statement Subclass HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Wins Bid for Class Certification ILLINOIS: Ex Legislator Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit J.B. HUNT: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Tossed J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification JAGUAR LAND: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due July 23 JAPAN INN DORAL: Lopez Slams Illegal Termination Over Sick Leave JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Claims in Potts' 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed JUKA INNOVATIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEMON CREEK: Fuel Spill Class Action Suit Gets Second Go-Ahead LIFEMD INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOUIS MILUSNIC: Seeks to Dissolve July 14-Issued Prelim. Injunction LOUISIANA: Bid to Dismiss Plaisance Class Suit Junked MIDLAND CREDIT: Levine Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas MILKY WAY INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MINERAL HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MINUTE MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification NCAA: Baker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana NCAA: Racanelli Files Suit in S.D. Indiana NEC NETWORKS: Accused of Failing to Safeguard PHI and PII NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Reichert Says NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Savage Sues Over Sale to Microsoft OHIO: Bids to Dismiss & for Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Nixed OKONITE COMPANY: Court OKs Parrish Bid for Class Certification OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid PETROBRAS COMPENSATION: Dutch Court Allows Class Action to Proceed PFA INSURANCE: June 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners Slam Delay in Gun License Release PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline PIZZA ON STONE: Oct. 1 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought PORSCHE CARS: Court OKs Extension of Class Certification Deadlines PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations PROMPT NURSING: Judge Awards $1.56 Million in Class Action Lawsuit PURECYCLE TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline PURELY ELIZABETH: Meraz Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Order to 1st Circuit ROMEO POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline SCRIPPS HEALTH: Garcia Slams Negligent Storage of Patient Data SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Owners Face Class Suit Over Unsafe Conditions SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Property Owners Hit With New City Orders STATE AUTO: Planet Sub Appeals Ruling in Insurance Class Action SUMMER WWK: Film Production Crew Members Seek to Certify Class TESLA INC: Seeking to Transfer Suit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Court Tosses 10 Class Suits, Including Nguyen UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL: Judge Signs Class Action Certification Order UNIFIED SECURITY: Facing COVID-19 Class Action Over Liquidation UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Scott Suit VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Slams Share Price Drop VOLVO GROUP: Court Tosses FLSA Collective Action Certification Bid WASHINGTON PRIME: Schall Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline WAWA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Conditional Class Status Nixed WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Third Amendment Complaint Tossed [*] Cartel Follow-On Litigation Under New Dutch Class Action System ********* 3033 GROUP: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reynoso Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY REYNOSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3033 GROUP, LLC, d/b/a SHOOTERS WATERFRONT Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-61131-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay federal minimum wages for certain hours worked to all of its servers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the minimum wage requirements under federal law by requiring servers to purchase uniforms, parking passes, and other various tools of the trade out of their own pocket and then use these items each day of their employment. The Defendant allegedly failed to ever reimburse the servers for the initial cost and upkeep of their uniform and parking pass which resulted in an unlawful kickback to the Defendant and drove Plaintiff's and all similarly situated employees' wages below the acceptable rate during their first and subsequent weeks of employment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as server from approximately March 21, 2021 until May 3, 2021. 3033 Group, LLC, d/b/a Shooters Waterfront is a seafood restaurant located on the intracoastal waterway in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com AETERNA ZENTARIS: Discloses Final Settlement of Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aeterna Zentaris Inc. (NASDAQ: AEZS) (TSX: AEZS) ("Aeterna" or the "Company"), a specialty biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing a diversified portfolio of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products, today announced the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has given final approval of the settlement from the previously disclosed class-action lawsuit against the Company. The settlement payment will be funded entirely by the Company's insurers. Pending no action taken during the 30-day appeal period, this matter will be considered fully and finally settled. The previously disclosed class-action lawsuit alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with certain public statements made between August 30, 2011, and November 6, 2014, regarding the safety and efficacy of Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin) and the prospects for the approval of the Company's New Drug Application for the product by the FDA. Although Aeterna denies all of the alleged claims and all liability, it agrees that the settlement is appropriate to resolve the disputes, avoid further costs of litigation and avoid further distractions to management. About Aeterna Zentaris Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a specialty biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing a diversified portfolio of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products focused on areas of significant unmet medical need. The Company's lead product, macimorelin (Macrilen™), is the first and only U.S. FDA and European Commission approved oral test indicated for the diagnosis of adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD). The Company is leveraging the clinical success and compelling safety profile of macimorelin to develop it for the diagnosis of childhood-onset growth hormone deficiency (CGHD) in collaboration with Novo Nordisk. Aeterna Zentaris is dedicated to the development of therapeutic assets and has recently taken steps to establish a growing preclinical pipeline to potentially address unmet medical needs across a number of indications, including neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), hypoparathyroidism and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; Lou Gehrig's disease). Additionally, the Company is developing an oral prophylactic bacterial vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.[GN] AIR METHODS: Murphy Sues Over Illegal Medical Air Transpo Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MURPHY, Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-10896-KAR (D. Mass., May 28, 2021) seeks a declaration of rights, obligations and relationship between Plaintiff, the Class and the Defendants relating to Defendants' claimed entitlement to payment for its emergency air transportation services. The case involves the alleged intersection of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1976's preemption provision, with the Defendants' practice of charging patients for emergency, medical air transportation rates when no express or implied-in-fact contract exists between them and the patient for such transportation. The complaint asserts that the Defendants' sole business is the transportation of critically injured patients at the request of healthcare provider seeking transfers under the Emergency Medical Transportation and Labor Act. There is no contract between the patient and Defendants prior to transfer, regarding the terms or price of that transfer, and no agreement between the certifying healthcare provider and the patient to contract for the terms and conditions of transfer, in particular no agreement to bind the patients to any contract with Defendants, the suit added. Air Methods Corporation 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. Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC provides air medical transportation services utilizing a fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Soule, Esq., PO Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402-1307 Telephone: (802) 658-2311 E-mail: ssoule@PFClaw.com - and - Edward L. White, Esq. Daryan P. Martinez, Esq. EDWARD L. WHITE P.C. 829 East 33rd Street Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 810-8188 Facsimile: (405) 608-0971 E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com daryan@edwhitelaw.com ALL MERCHANT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Merchant Funding LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All Merchant Funding LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them Case No. 2:21-cv-04607 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. All Merchant Funding -- https://allmerchantfunding.com/ -- provide businesses with lines of credit, invoice factoring, merchant cash advance, small business loans, cash flow loans, business loans, factoring, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com AMDOCS LIMITED: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Amdocs Limited ("Amdocs" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:DOX) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Amdocs securities between December 13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/dox. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under 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 that: (1) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (2) Amdocs concealed its large borrowing; (3) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its North American business was stable, that business was actually deteriorating annually, in part because the Company was losing AT&T as a customer; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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/dox 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 Amdocs you have until June 8, 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. Our 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. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY and JEFF ABERIN (a married couple), DON AWTREY, CHARLES BURGESS, JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI Assigned to: Hon. Jon S. Tigar LOU, and JOY MATZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask the Court to issue an order setting the following briefing schedule and page limits for the Impact of Olean Briefing: -- AHM's opening brief: June 15, 2021 (15 pages) -- Plaintiffs' opposition: July 8, 2021 (15 pages) -- AHM's reply: July 22, 2021 (10 pages) A copy of Parties motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ptt1ph at no extra charge.[CC] The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com The Attorneys for the Defendant American Honda, are: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Rachel A. Straus, Esq. Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mmallow@shb.com rstraus@shb.com anassihi@shb.com APARTMENT LIST: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apartment List, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Apartment List, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04958 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Apartment List -- https://www.apartmentlist.com/ -- is a free service that helps you find the perfect apartment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com APPLE INC: N.D. California Certifies Damages Class in Williams Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREA M. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-04700-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Named Plaintiffs Andrea Williams and James Stewart bring the putative class action against Defendant Apple for breach of contract on Aug. 12, 2019. Apple is a corporation incorporated under the laws of California and has its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple's cloud storage service is called iCloud that allows subscribers to utilize certain Internet services, including storing their personal content (such as contacts, calendars, photos, notes, reminders, documents, app data, and iCloud email) and making it accessible on their compatible devices and computers, and certain location based services. According to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), owners of Apple devices are granted up to 5 GB of iCloud storage for free. If an Apple device user wishes to store more than 5 GB of data on the cloud through iCloud, then that user must subscribe to iCloud's paid service. The Plaintiffs allege that in order to subscribe to iCloud, a user must agree to the iCloud Terms of Service Agreement." The Named Plaintiffs sue Apple on behalf of United States iCloud subscribers (excluding Apple, its employees, and its directors) who paid for an Apple iCloud subscription sometime during the class period Sept. 16, 2015 through Oct. 31, 2018. The FAC alleges that Apple failed to inform Williams and Stewart that their data was being stored on "non-Apple remote servers and facilities" despite alleged assurances to the contrary. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they "bargained for, agreed, and paid to have Apple -- an entity they trusted—store their data." According to the FAC, however, Apple's representations were false. "Apple lacked the facilities needed to readily provide the cloud storage space being sold to class members through iCloud." "Unable to provide the cloud storage space, Apple breached its iCloud agreement with its subscribers and had these users' data stored not by Apple on Apple facilities, but instead turned the users' digital files to other entities, like Amazon and Microsoft, for them to store on their facilities." The FAC alleges that "had Apple disclosed that, contrary to its contractual representation, Apple was not the provider of the cloud storage," putative class members "would not have subscribed to Apple's iCloud service or would have not agreed to pay as much as [they] did for the service." The FAC claims that other companies, such as Microsoft and Google, offer cheaper cloud storage services than Apple and that Apple's "price premium" harmed putative class members who would have otherwise utilized these cheaper cloud storage alternatives. The Plaintiffs' original complaint, like the operative FAC, alleged three causes of action against Apple: (1) breach of contract, (2) violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). They allege that Apple agreed to be the "provider of the iCloud Service" and to store putative class members' content on Apple's servers. Yet Apple allegedly breached this promise because "storage was provided by non-Apple third parties with whom neither the Named Plaintiffs nor the class members had bargained." The Plaintiffs also claimed that Apple violated the FAL and UCL by making the following "false and misleading" claim: "Apple was the provider of the iCloud cloud storage service and the class members' data would be stored on the cloud by Apple." On March 27, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple's motion to dismiss the original complaint. Specifically, it granted with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss (1) the Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief; and (2) the Plaintiffs' FAL and UCL claims. The Court denied Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. On April 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. Apple moved to dismiss the FAC on May 11, 2020. On Nov. 17, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple's motion to dismiss the FAC. Specifically, it dismissed the Plaintiffs' FAL and UCL claims with prejudice but did not dismiss their prayer for injunctive relief. Accordingly, only the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim for damages and injunctive relief remains. On Jan. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their instant motion for class certification. On Jan. 29, 2021, Apple filed its opposition to the instant motion. On Feb. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their reply supporting class certification and on Feb. 22, 2021, Apple filed a sur-reply. On Feb. 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a response to Apple's sur-reply. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class ("Damages Class") and a Rule 23(b)(2) class ("Injunctive Class"). The Damages Class comprises: All persons in the United States who paid for a subscription to iCloud at any time during the period Sept. 16, 2015 until Oct. 31, 2018. The Injunctive Class comprises: All persons meeting the foregoing Rule 23(b)(3) class definition who are current paying subscribers of iCloud in the United States as of the date the Court enters its order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. For both classes, only one claim is at issue: breach of contract under California law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Apple breached the iCloud Agreement (a standardized form contract) by storing their data on third-party servers rather than Apple's servers. In other words, they claim that Apple promised "fully in-house" iCloud storage, not "partly outsourced" storage. Apple opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on six grounds. First, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs cannot prove predominance because adjudicating breach of contract would require individualized inquiries into (1) the class members' interpretation of the iCloud Agreement; and (2) whether the class members' data was in fact outsourced. Second, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs cannot prove predominance because adjudicating injury would require individualized inquiry into purchases on iCloud family plans. Third, it argues that the Named Plaintiffs -- Andrea Williams and James Stewart -- are atypical and inadequate class representatives. Fourth, Apple argues that the affirmative defenses of waiver and laches defeat predominance. Fifth, it argues that the Plaintiffs' model of classwide damages fails to satisfy Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, which requires the Plaintiffs to "establish that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis." Lastly, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs have waived their injunctive class because the Plaintiffs' Motion does not address the standards governing the elements required to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class nor apply the record of the case to show how such elements are met. Judge Koh examines Apple's six arguments. She agrees in part with Apple's first, third, and last arguments. The Judge finds that those arguments identify the Plaintiffs' problems with common proof during part of the class period, Williams' inadequacy as a class representative, and the Plaintiffs' failure to support certification of the Injunctive Class. The Judge disagrees with Apple's other arguments. Ultimately, she (1) certifies the Damages Class but limits it to the class period Sept. 16, 2015 to Jan. 31, 2016; (2) holds that Stewart is the sole class representative; and (3) denies certification of the Injunctive Class. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Judge Koh certifies the following class: "All persons in the United States who paid for a subscription to iCloud at any time during the period Sept. 16, 2015 to Jan. 31, 2016. Excluded from this Class definition are all employees, officers, or agents of Defendant Apple Inc. Also excluded from this Class definition are all judicial officers assigned to this case as well as their staff and immediate families." The Judge denies certification for the putative class period spanning Feb. 1, 2016 to Oct. 31, 2018 and denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2). Lastly, she orders that Named Plaintiff James Stewart will serve as the sole class representative. Named Plaintiff Andrea Williams is an inadequate class representative. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/58ypwbma from Leagle.com. ATERIAN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) investors that acquired shares between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021. Investors have until July 12, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that Aterian made misleading and false statements to the market. Aterian experienced a steep decline in its organic growth. Aterian's recent acquisitions were flawed assets that were overpaid for. Customer interest in Aterian's AI software was low. Aterian used paid reviews rebate programs in order to bolster their product offerings. Aterian's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages, when the market learned the truth about Aterian. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BISSELL HOMECARE: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Alex Figueroa, Gina Marie Urizar, Bonafacio Burdios, Individually and On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., Case No. 21STCV13581 was removed from the Los Angeles, Spring Street, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04645-FMO-GJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Bissell Inc., also known as Bissell Homecare -- https://www.bissell.com/ -- is an American privately owned vacuum cleaner and floor care product manufacturing corporation headquartered in Walker, Michigan in Greater Grand Rapids.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq. BLACK OAK LAW FIRM 1100 West Town And Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (800) 500-0101 Fax: (800) 500-0301 Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com - and - Jason A Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 321 North Mall Drive Suite R108 St George, UT 84790 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: jason@kazlg.com - and - Seyed 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 The Defendant is represented by: Bryan J Weintrop, Esq. Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Fax: (310) 229-9901 Email: bjweintrop@venable.com dsilverman@venable.com BOOK PEOPLE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Book People Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Book People Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04968 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BookPeople -- https://www.bookpeople.com/ -- is Texas' largest independent bookstore, has been a staple in Austin's Community of Books since 1970.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCXI) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action is pending and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Nov. 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021 Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CCXI Contact An Attorney Now:CCXI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The lawsuit focuses on ChemoCentryx's statements about its new drug application ("NDA") for its vasculitis drug candidate Avacopan. Beginning on Nov. 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx touted positive topline data from its Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE trial demonstrating Avacopan's superiority over standard of care in ANCA-associated vasculitis and that the trial met both of its primary endpoints. This and subsequent positive announcements sent the price of CCXI soaring. The complaint alleges ChemoCentryx concealed that: (1) the trial's study design was flawed; (2) data from the trial raised serious safety concerns; and (3) these issues presented a substantial concern about the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA. On May 4, 2021, the truth emerged when the FDA announced it had identified several areas of concern, including "uncertainties about the interpretability of the data and the clinical meaningfulness of these results." In addition, the document took issue with the complex trial design and the lack of long-term safety data. This news drove the price of ChemoCentryx shares crashing over 45% lower on May 4, 2021, wiping out as much as $1.5 billion of the company's market capitalization. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving ChemoCentryx misled investors about Avacopan's efficacy and safety," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a ChemoCentryx investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ChemoCentryx 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 CCXI@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. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV) ("CCIV") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against CCIV on behalf of those who purchased or acquired CCIV securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021 Website: https://www.ktmc.com/churchill-capital-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435 Toll free (844) 887-9500 CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company. Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid"), is an American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of 2020, Lucid's first car, Lucid Air, is in development. On Monday, February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement between CCIV and Lucid was announced. CCIV and Lucid's transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. However, at 6:22 p.m. that same night, Ed Ludlow of Bloomberg News reported that Peter Rawlinson, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer, announced that production of its debut car will be delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. Following this news, CCIV's stock price fell from a close of $57.37 per share on February 22, 2021, to a close of $35.21 per share on February 23, 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of CCIV's business, operations and financial condition. CCIV investors may, no later than July 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Churchill Capital Corp IV. (NYSE: CCIV) investors that acquired shares between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021. Investors have until July 6, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that Churchill Capital made misleading and false statements to the market. Lucid Motors was not ready to produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021 production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle production target touted in the period before its merger with Churchill Capital. Churchill Capital's public statements were materially misleading and false throughout the class period. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about Churchill Capital. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 6, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Churchill Capital Corp IV ("Churchill Capital" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCIV) for violations of Sec10(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 January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. 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. Lucid Motors ("Lucid") was not ready to produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021 production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle production target touted in the period before its merger with Churchill Capital. 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 Churchill Capital, 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] CIMAREX ENERGY: Hayhook Sues Over Royalty Underpayments ------------------------------------------------------- Hayhook, Ltd. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cimarex Energy Co., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00237, (N.D. Okla., June 1, 2021) seeks to remedy Cimarex's systematic breach of express duties under certain leases to pay royalties to Hayhook for natural gas. A relevant portion of the royalty clause of the lease, which provides for payment of royalty on gas used "off" the lease includes the royalties to be paid on gas, including casing-head gas or other gaseous substance, produced from said land and sold or used off the premises or used in the manufacture of gasoline or other product therefrom, the market value at the well of one-eighth of the gas sold or used, provided that on gas sold at the wells the royalty shall be one-eighth of the amount realized from such sale. This gas is typically used off the lease premises to power the equipment that performs compression, dehydration, treatment, or processing services, or to pay in-kind for off-lease services by allowing the midstream service provider to keep all or part of the gas or its constituents for later sale on its own account. The on-lease free use clause of the lease provides that the lessee shall have free use of oil, gas, coal, wood and water from said land, except water from lessor's wells, for all operations hereunder, and the royalty on oil, gas and coal shall be computed after deducting any so used. Cimarex allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of royalty by falsely representing on the check stubs provided monthly to Hayhook that it was paying royalty on the full volume and value of production from its wells.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jo Lynn Jeter, Esq. Rebecca S. Woodward, Esq. W. Caleb Jones, Esq. NORMAN WOHLGEMUTH, LLP 3200 Mid-Continent Tower 401 S. Boston Avenue Tulsa, OK 74103 Tel: (918) 583-7571 Fax: (918) 584-7847 Email: JJeter@nwlawok.com RWoodward@nwlawok.com WJones@nwlawok.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com rhudson@midwest-law.com CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Outbreak ---------------------------------------------------------------- ncpolicywatch.com reports that a new class-action lawsuit brought against the Citadel Salisbury nursing home claims that chronic understaffing endangered the health and safety of its residents. The Citadel Salisbury was the site of the largest COVID-19 outbreak in a North Carolina congregant care facility early in the pandemic. New owners started running the Citadel Salisbury on Feb. 1, 2020. The lawsuit says that the owners failed to correct existing problems at the facility when they bought it, and some services got worse. Limited liability corporations that hold the license for and operate the nursing home are named as defendants in the federal suit, as are Simcha Hyman and Naftali Zanziper, the LLC's owners. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of residents and family members who said residents were not given their medicines, had to cope with ignored calls for assistance and "terrible food" -- far from the "five-star" service residents and family members were promised by Accordius Health. Zanziper and Hyman control Accordius Health, a limited liability company that manages the nursing home. Attorney John Hughes of Wallace & Graham "What the families say is, we understand that in the end our Medicaid dollar can get so much care, but at least be honest with us, be truthful with us," said John Hughes, an attorney with Wallace & Graham, who brought the suit. The lawsuit claims breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and infliction of severe emotional distress. One of the plaintiffs in the Citadel Salisbury litigation, Sybil Rummage, did not regularly receive medications she needed for her heart and for pain and, after she tested positive for COVID-19, had trouble getting the proper medication to treat it, according to court documents. Court documents filed in a 2020 suit against the facility include quotes from the deposition of a Citadel Salisbury administrator in which she agreed there were times when Rummage did not get the correct doses of her heart medication at the right time. In February 2020, Rummage's daughter said that her mother was not getting the right size pull-up brief she needed, according to claims in this year's suit, and that Rummage saw residents walking around with no undergarments. Rummage developed a bedsore because she was wearing the wrong type and size of undergarment. Rummage's care is paid for by Medicaid; facilities and undergarments are covered under Medicaid reimbursement. But Rummage's daughter had to reach into her own pocket to purchase the right product for her mother, the lawsuit says. A spotty performance record In 2008, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established a 5-star rating system that the public can access at www.medicare.gov/care-compare/ to compare nursing homes. The Citadel Salisbury has no rating because it is part of a special program for facilities with "a history of serious quality issues," that require more frequent inspections. Citadel Salisbury has been inspected six times since January 2020, according to the investigative news site ProPublica, and was fined twice last year. Limited liability corporations that Hyman and Zanziper control operate 36 nursing homes in North Carolina. The Citadel Salisbury is on the list of nursing homes that have a history of "severe problems," according to Medicare. Deficiencies noted in inspection reports dropped from 15 in September 2020 to three in February 2021, but the nursing home remains on the most recent Medicare list of homes that have not improved. Two other North Carolina nursing homes run by Zanziper and Hyman limited liability companies are on the special focus list or are poised to be added. Accordius Health at Clemmons is a "special focus facility" that has shown improvement, according to Medicare. The Ivy at Gastonia is a candidate for the list. The Medicare website gives the Gastonia nursing home a 1-star or "much below average" rating. Most of the nursing homes run by Zanziper and Hyman companies have either one or two stars on the Medicare compare list. Medicare uses reports from health inspections, reports on staffing – nursing hours per resident per day – and quality of resident care to calculate its ratings. Twenty-seven of those nursing homes were rated with one or two stars for staffing, meaning they were below or far below state or national averages. Six of the nursing homes received three or four stars for staffing. The lawsuit includes an exhibit using staffing data the company must send to the federal government. Those data show that nurse staffing hours at the Citadel Salisbury met minimum federal requirements on only 10 of 275 days, from April 2020 through December 2020. For 152 days, the nursing home reported no registered nurse work hours. A shoestring business model? The nursing home owners' business model depends on cutting employee expenses, the lawsuit said. The investment firm that Hyman and Zanziper run known as the Portopiccolo Group was the subject of a Washington Post article last December because it bought more than 20 nursing homes in several states during the pandemic. The article says that while Portopiccolo was buying three North Carolina nursing homes in 2019, it stated in a mortgage loan contract that the company would save $360,000 by lowering employee benefit and insurance costs and another $410,000 by cutting equipment and transportation costs. The current lawsuit references the mortgage contract. Attorney Michael Phillips of HAT Law Michael Phillips of HAT Law, an attorney representing the nursing home defendants, said in an email that the claims about understaffing are wrong, and that lawyers at Wallace & Graham, the Salisbury firm that filed the suit, know it. Further, the claims about cost-cutting in the mortgage contract "have absolutely no merit," the email said. Wallace & Graham filed a lawsuit against the nursing home last year that ended in March 2021 with a consent agreement. The nursing home said it had been, and would continue to abide by the nursing home patient "Bill of Rights." Wallace & Graham is known for its representing people sickened by asbestos and for suing Smithfield Foods/Murphy-Brown on behalf of residents dealing with odors and noise from industrialized swine farms. "Through discovery done in their prior, dry-run lawsuit, Plaintiff's counsel was furnished with written documentation of actual nurse hours worked at the Citadel Salisbury, which clearly showed the facility staffed at a significantly higher rate than what was falsely asserted in the present lawsuit," said Phillips. "The Plaintiff's lawyers also deposed witnesses who testified consistent with the written documentation that the Citadel Salisbury appropriately staffed at a significantly higher rate than what has been claimed." The court file for the lawsuit brought last year includes documents that are in a manila envelope marked "Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only." Hughes said in an interview that he could not discuss the information contained therein because the company wants it to be confidential. The lawsuit relies on data the company sends to the federal government, which the company tells the government is accurate, Hughes said. "If that data is inaccurate, probably that company shouldn't be in business. The government relies on it being accurate, and so did we. If the data is so wrong it makes a difference in our allegations, I think we will be adding another claim." Hughes said that as part of the lawsuit brought last year, Accordius Health COO Kim Morrow agreed on the first day of her deposition that the public data on staffing was accurate; but on the second day of the deposition she said it was incomplete, and "there is other data showing how more staffing was occurring and somehow it didn't get into her data." The lawsuit puts responsibility for operations at the Citadel Salisbury on the limited liability companies, rather than the local administrator who is supposed to manage the nursing home. The lawsuit claims that Portopiccolo, Hyman, and Zanziper exclusively control the negotiation of vendor contracts, wages and pay scales, hires of contract labor, accounting, and instructions for the nursing home chain. "Portopiccolo was directly and materially involved in making and implementing the staffing and supply decisions that gave rise to this action," the suit says. In depositions last year, the local administrator did not know what the facility's budget or that her boss owned the staffing agency, Hughes said. "She couldn't say, 'buy more masks,'" Hughes said. "She had no power to do that." Phillips did not address the claims about medications or pre-pandemic supply problems, but said in the email that it was hard for all nursing homes to get supplies during the pandemic. It was extremely difficult to find "PPE, toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other supplies for many months after the pandemic was declared," he wrote. "Finding supplies was just as challenging for nursing homes. When there were shortages, it was never due to cost control concerns." A state report on COVID-19 outbreaks from June 23, 2020, said that the Citadel Salisbury had 168 COVID-19 cases, 114 of those among residents, and 18 COVID-19-related resident deaths. One of the lawsuit plaintiff's Betty Deal, tested positive for COVID-19 last April. Her daughter-in-law, Donna, had a hard time finding out the test result, according to the suit. Under the new nursing home owners Betty Deal did not receive her medications for Parkinson's disease on schedule, the lawsuit claims. Deal also went without a hearing aid for weeks because it sat undelivered on a nursing cart, the lawsuit said. On August 2, Donna called the nursing home and was told there was only one certified nursing assistant in the building. Using a company's own reports to show chronic understaffing would be a first for a North Carolina lawsuit, Hughes said. A bigger question is whether for-profit companies should own nursing homes. "Should this kind of care be managed by a remote central office?" he asked. [GN] COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Suit Seeks Billions in Wake of Bribery Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Ponce at fox32chicago.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against ComEd in the wake of the bribery scandal involving state government officials. The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court by attorneys at DiCello Levitt Gutzler and Romanucci & Blandin, says customers have been overpaying on their electric bills, and will continue to overpay, as a result of legislation fueled by the bribes. The surplus amount is $17.2 billion, according to the lawsuit. "What's happened here, by ComEd's own admission, there's been a gross violation of the public trust," said Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt Gutzler. After ComEd admitted to bribing associates of high-level elected officials, Levitt says the resulting $200 million fine was a slap on the wrist compared to the profit they say those bribes generated. "The total amount of admitted benefit that they have received we have determined through experts is $17.2 billion--with a 'B,'" said co-counsel Stephan Blandin of Romanucci & Blandin. DOWNLOAD THE FOX 32 NEWS APP Levitt and Blandin say the rate hikes resulting from the bribes are already built into the monthly bills of 4.2 million ComEd customers, who they say have been overpaying since 2016 and will continue to overpay for the foreseeable future. If they win the case, they say it could mean thousands of dollars back into the pockets of each customer. "If they're paying more than they should be each month, that's unjust," said Levitt. "That's not right and it's money that is theirs." ComEd released the following statement in response to the lawsuit: "Over the last 10 years, legislation that paved the way for ComEd's smart grid investments delivered the reliable power that northern Illinois families and businesses expect and prepared the system for extreme weather. These improvements have helped prevent more than 16 million customer interruptions, resulting in $2.7 billion in savings. At the same time, ComEd households pay less than they did nearly a decade ago and enjoy rates lower than customers in comparable U.S. cities. Regulators under three different governors have approved every dollar of ComEd's investments in lengthy annual proceedings, and any claim that the investments did not benefit customers has no merit." The case is expected to go to trial in 2022. [GN] COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Blanton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Communications Test Design Inc. The case is styled as Jodie Blanton Jr., as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Communications Test Design Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0005136 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 7, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Communications Test Design Inc. (CTDI) -- https://www.ctdi.com/ -- delivers innovative, in-region and technical supply chain solutions to the world's leading telecom carriers, cable companies, and OEMs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. 1110 Franklin St. Ste. 6 Oakland, CA 94607-6528 Phone: (415) 779-2888 Fax: (415) 738-7873 Email: larry@ysleelaw.com CREDIT COLLECTION: Becker Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection Services, Inc. The case is styled as Edward Becker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-11829-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., May 26, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Collection Services (CCS) -- https://www.ccsusa.com/opCo_ccs.html -- is recognized as one of the nation's largest and most respected collection firms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Phone: (201) 507-6300 Email: lh@hershlegal.com CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Stay Motion for Class Certification Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN LLC, d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER, and THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying the briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until such time as the Court has ruled on the fully-briefed Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Defendants ask the Court to vacate the 14-day deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification, and re-set the deadline for the Defendants' response to 45 days following its order on this Motion. On September 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint asserting a single claim for an alleged violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act. On December 18, 2020, the Parties completed fact discovery. Expert discovery closed on April 9, 2021. On March 8, 2021, CLC filed its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice challenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue his only remaining claim because he suffered no concrete injury. On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum of Law in support thereof. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uWETkv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy A. Hudson, Esq. Jordan E. Wilkow, Esq. TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 209 S. LaSalle St., 7th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 762-9450 Facsimile: (312) 762-9451 E-mail: thudson@tdrlawfirm.com jwilkow@tdrlawfirm.com - and - Chad C. Beaver, Esq. BEAVER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 920 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 579-1800 Facsimile: (816) 817-0540 E-mail: cbeaver@beaver-law.com DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers File Suit Over Upgradeable Laptop -------------------------------------------------------------- lawstreetmedia.com reports that a complaint filed seeks to "redress the greed" of Dell Technologies in connection with representations it made about its flagship gaming laptop, the Alienware Area 51M R1 (Area 51M R1). According to the plaintiff, Dell caused unsuspecting customers to overpay for the laptop based on the promise that certain core hardware components were fully upgradeable, when, in reality, they were not. The Northern District of California filing explained that prior to the release of the Area 51M R1, and to gain a competitive edge in the "intensely competitive gaming laptop market segment," Dell told customers that its product's central processing unit (CPU) and its graphics processing unit (GPU) were fully upgradeable to future CPUs and GPUs. As such, purchasers of the Area 51M R1 would only have to pay to upgrade laptop parts rather than purchase a whole new machine, the plaintiff contended. Such upgradeability, the complaint averred, is the "elusive holy grail of mobile computing." However, the plaintiff asserted that Dell's promise was an affirmative and knowing misrepresentation. Allegedly, if he and other purchasers had known that the laptop was not upgradeable, and instead that the core components would last less than a year before requiring the purchase of an entirely new laptop, they would not have paid the $2,700 price for the laptop. The complaint seeks to certify a regional class consisting of consumers residing in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington who purchased an Area 51M R1 in 2019 and a parallel California subclass. The complaint stated a claim for breach of contract and warranty and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the state's Unfair Competition Law. The complainant and putative class seek damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and injunctive relief. Hochfelsen & Kani LLP and Mahany Law represent the plaintiff. [GN] DENALI STAFFING: Initial Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DENALI STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-1185 (E.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the Agreement; 2. certifying for settlement purposes only, the proposed Rule 23 Class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective; 3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel; 4. appointing the Plaintiff Wright, as representative of the Settlement Class; 5. approving the mailing of the Notice Packet to class members in a form; 6. setting deadlines for the members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the case or object to the Agreement; 7. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt in to the FLSA Collective; 8. finding that such Notice process satisfies due process; 9. directing that any member of Rule 23 Class who has not properly requested exclusion and FLSA Collective members who have chosen to participate to the FLSA Collective shall be bound by the Agreement in the event the Court issues a Final Order Approving Settlement; 10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class or FLSA Collective who wishes to object to the Agreement in any way must do so per the instructions set forth in the Notice Packet; and 11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Agreement. The Agreement provides for a total monetary settlement payment of $36,772.58 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The Parties believe that the settlement is fair and reasonable, as it fully and adequately satisfies this Court's criteria for such settlements. On August 3, 2020, the Plaintiff Wright, filed his Complaint against Denali on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 22, 2020, in which the Plaintiff substituted Denali as the sole Defendant. Denali is no longer a party to this lawsuit. The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of Denali within the three years preceding the filing of his Complaint. In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged violations of the FLSA and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL), to wit, the Defendant failed to compensate said employees for daily rest breaks that lasted fewer than 20 consecutive minutes in duration, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, and/or meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the WWPCL. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uVkFI0at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, are: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC 235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com The Attorneys for the Defendant are: Christopher K. Schuele, Esq. Robert K. Sholl, Esq. REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN SC 1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 298-1000 E-mail: rsholl@reinhartlaw.com cschuele@reinhartlaw.com DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Cody Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Powell Cody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DePaul University, Case No. D 2021CH01027 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 4, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03001 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. DePaul University -- https://www.depaul.edu/ -- is the largest Catholic university in the U.S. and private institution in Chicago, serving nearly 23000 students.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rocio Rosales, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC, a Virginia Corporation; HILTON EMPLOYER INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01202903-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., May 26, 2021), is brought to seek unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, premium wages for missed meal breaks, rest breaks, wages, and wages upon termination, reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California law by preventing Class Members and Subclass Members from paying the wages rate for minimum wages and overtime wages, taking their entitled rest breaks, meal breaks, wages upon termination, and waiting time penalties upon termination and for failing to reimburse for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other relief under California Industrial Welfare Commission, California Labor Code, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and California common law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a nonexempt employee associated with housekeeping tasks associated with cleaning rooms for customers at the Defendants' hotel. DT Employer, LLC is a Virginia corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armond M. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON APC 2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone (949) 281-6857 Fax (949) 777-6218 EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Entwistle & Cappucci Discloses Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Entwistle & Cappucci LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci" or "E&C") today announced that the firm has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors that purchased Emergent BioSolutions Inc.("Emergent" or the "Company") (NYSE: EBS) common stock from April 24, 2020 through April 16, 2021, inclusive. A copy of the complaint is available at: www.entwistle-law.com. Institutions and individuals that invested in Emergent common stock may contact E&C for additional information concerning the litigation and to discuss potential strategies for the recovery of any losses. The action arises from Emergent's pervasive quality control problems at the Company's Bayview COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing facility in Baltimore, Maryland that culminated in the destruction of up to 100 million COVID-19 Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccine doses. The complaint alleges, based on documents recently made public, that numerous statements issued by Emergent concerning its manufacturing processes, capabilities, quality control procedures and status as a purported leader in the biopharmaceutical industry were materially false and misleading. First, an internal audit conducted in June 2020 by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals found two "Major" quality control deficiencies, including "deficient" contamination controls and that the Company failed to conform to basic industry standards; Second, U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") inspections of Emergent's Baltimore facility conducted both prior to and following the Company's award of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing contracts notified the Company of a "series of quality control shortcomings" including the "fail[ure] to ensure that electronic data" was "protected from deletion or manipulation," "carelessness in the handling of rejected materials" and failure to "follow proper testing and lab procedures;" and Third, Dr. Carlo de Notaristefani, an Operation Warp Speed Manufacturing & Supply Chain adviser charged with overseeing the production of COVID-19 vaccines on behalf of the federal government, issued a draft report in June 2020 highlighting Emergent's key manufacturing risk as the "remediation of the compliance gaps identified by the FDA inspection held in April 2020." Dr. Notaristefani further noted that the Company's staffing was "inadequate to enable the Company to manufacture at the required rate" and Emergent would need to expend "significant resources" and "strengthen" quality controls to meet manufacturing scale-up and roll-out deadlines. Emergent allegedly admitted to the FDA - but not the investing public - that the Company was plagued with known manufacturing problems, including that the "sudden scale-up" had "strained the capacity" of the Company's COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing facility. When these facts became public through a series of partial corrective disclosures, the price of Emergent's common stock declined significantly, eliminating over $1.5 billion in market capitalization. If you invested in Emergent BioSolutions common stock, please feel free to contact attorneys Robert N. Cappucci or Joshua K. Porter at 212-894-7200, or via e-mail at rcappucci@entwistle-law.com or jporter@entwistle-law.com. About Entwistle & Cappucci Entwistle & Cappucci is a national law firm providing exceptional legal representation to clients globally in the most complex and challenging legal matters. Our practice encompasses all areas of litigation, including securities, antitrust, corporate transactions, general corporate and commercial, creditor's rights and bankruptcy, corporate governance and fiduciary duty, government affairs, insurance, investigations and white-collar defense. Our clients include public and private corporations, major hedge funds, public pension funds, governmental entities, leading institutional investors, domestic and foreign financial services companies, emerging business enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. [GN] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Discloses Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action against Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) ("Emergent") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Emergent common stock between April 24, 2020, and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Roth v. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01189-CCB (the "Roth Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Southern Division). Investor Deadline Reminder: For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or visit: https://www.ktmc.com/emergent-biosolutions-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=emergent. Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. Emergent signed a series of deals with Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") and AstraZeneca worth a combined $876 million to provide contract development and manufacturing organization services to produce the companies' COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The Class Period begins on April 24, 2020, the day after Emergent announced that it had entered into an agreement with J&J to manufacture J&J's COVID-19 vaccine candidate at Emergent's Baltimore facility. Under the deal, Emergent would provide drug substance manufacturing services and reserve large-scale manufacturing capacity for J&J. On April 19, 2021, Emergent revealed that, "at the request of the FDA, Emergent agreed not to initiate the manufacturing of any new material at its Bayview facility and to quarantine existing material manufactured at the Bayview facility pending completion of the [FDA's] inspection and remediation of any resulting findings." Following this news, the price of Emergent's common stock declined $9.77 per share, or more than 12%, from a close of $77.64 per share on April 16, 2021, to close at $67.87 per share on April 19, 2021. The Roth Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore facility had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) the Baltimore facility had received a series of FDA citations as a result of these contamination risks and quality control issues; (3) Emergent had been forced to discard millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the facility deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore facility were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] FAMILY FOOT: Filing of Preliminary Class Cert. Bid Due October 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASSANDRA DEISINGER and JESSICA DEISINGER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FAMILY FOOT AND ANKLE CLINIC, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00107-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an preliminary pretrial conference order stating that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary October 1, 2021 certification of the FLSA class: 2. Amendments to the pleadings: July 2, 2022 3. Motions & Briefs To Certify/Decertify January 28, 2022 Classes: 4. Disclosure of experts: Plaintiffs: June 1, 2022 Defendant: July 1, 2022 5. Deadline for filing dispositive August 1, 2022 motions: 6. Settlement Letters: December 9, 2022 7. Discovery Cutoff: December 9, 2022 8. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and December 19, 2022 all motions in limine: 9. Objections: January 6, 2023 10. Final Pretrial Conference: January 17, 2023 11. Trial: January 30, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pqflLA at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST TRANSIT: Settlement Agreement in Alkady Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALKADY, v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-02291-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's Final Approval Motion is granted. 2. The parties and ILYM shall complete their respective duties and obligations under the Settlement Agreement and this Order. ILYM shall treat all class member personal information as confidential, not to be disclosed for any purpose other than as provided by the Settlement Agreement. 3. ILYM shall receive $17,838 from the Gross Settlement Amount for its notice and settlement administration services. 4. Plaintiff's Fee Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 5. The Class Counsel shall receive $132,500 for their fees and $8,803.06 for costs from the Gross Settlement Amount. 6. The Plaintiff shall receive $3,000 from the Gross Settlement Amount as an incentive award. 7. The Plaintiff and the class members shall be deemed to have released their claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 8. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the court retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. 9. This action is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff dismisses the Amended Complaint as provided in the Settlement Agreement. In this class action alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of non-exempt fixed-route bus drivers at Defendant's Orange County Transportation Authority locations in Santa Ana and Irvine, the Plaintiff filed unopposed motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative's incentive award. No objections have been received. Having read and considered the Motions, including supporting declarations, exhibits, and Settlement Agreement in light of prior proceedings in this action, and given no objection or opposition to the Motions, the Settlement Approval Motion is granted, and the Fee Motion is granted in part. In the operative first amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination, violation of the Unfair Competition Law. First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces. A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z5MFfp at no extra charge.[CC] FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of August 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Frequency, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) ("Frequency" or the "Company") and its Chief Executive Officer, David Lucchino, alleging violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5). If you purchased Frequency common stock between November 16, 2020, and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at 844-818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The action was filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Evans v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-10933 (D. Mass. June 3, 2021). Frequency is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322," which the Company has long promoted as a potential treatment for patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL"). The complaint alleges that Frequency and CEO Lucchino misled investors about the Phase 2a study of FX-322. Before the market opened on March 23, 2021, Frequency disclosed in a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78% drop, damaging investors. Lead Plaintiff Deadline The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is August 2, 2021. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. What You Can Do If you purchased Frequency common stock between November 16, 2020, and March 22, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at 844-818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. This may be considered Attorney Advertising. [GN] FUELCO ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Segovia FLSA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUELCO ENERGY LLC, Defendant, Case No. SA-17-CV-1246-JKP, Consolidated with Case No. SA-19-CV-1129-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for Decertification of Collective Action. As a fuel supplier for gas production companies, the Defendant employs individuals to provide fuel for customers at their gas hydraulic fracturing sites ("job site"). On a typical job site, the Defendant assigns two fuel trucks (known as "bobtails"), each with a two-person crew -- a driver and an operator or technician. It would thus have a four-member crew for both shifts (night and day). Therefore, there is typically a crew of eight for each job site. Each bobtail remains on site for the duration of the job. Crew members work together to provide fuel to equipment at the site. Given the nature of the job sites -- often located in remote areas -- and the lengthy nature of each job project, the Defendant lodges its crews at the nearest hotel or at a "man-camp" for the duration of the project. It would provide a van or truck to transport crews between the hotel and job sites. Usually, both shifts would use the same van with one shift using it to travel to the job site and the departing shift using it to return to the hotel. Sometimes, a member of the working crew would drive to the hotel from the work site, pick up the next shift, and return to the job site. And sometimes each shift had a company van for their transportation. At times, the Defendant would place its drivers/technicians on call and pay them their regular rate of pay for time spent on call at the hotel. It would also pay them their regular rate of pay for their commute time to the job site. According to the Defendant, it did not include either on call time (also known as "standby time") or commuting time (also known as "drive time") in its overtime pay calculations, but it would include some on call time in its overtime calculations if the employee was on "standby" at the job site or working in Defendant's "yard performing various tasks." Plaintiffs Segovia and Flores commenced the action by filing an Original Complaint - Collective Action with consents to join in December 2017. They later moved for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and relied on a two-step approach utilized in Lusardi v. Xerox, Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D. N.J. 1987). They sought conditional certification of "All Drivers and/or Frack Fuel Technicians since Dec. 8, 2014." On Dec. 10, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint, partially granted the motion for conditional class certification, and conditionally certified the following class in the case: "All Frack Fuel Technicians employed by Defendant since Dec. 8, 2014." The next day, the Plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint. As set out in the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs bring the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant distinguished between four time-categories for each Plaintiff or putative plaintiff -- "Regular," "Overtime," "Standby," and "Drive Time" -- and that it only paid regular hourly rate for the latter two types. They allege that the policy of paying the regular rate for "Standby" or "Drive Time" violates the FLSA, either because the time was working time that could qualify for overtime under the FLSA or because the time qualified as non-discretionary bonuses that should have been included when calculating overtime pay. Specifically, they assert three claims: (1) individual overtime pay based on Section 207 for "drive time" and "standby time" claims; (2) individual overtime pay based on Section 207 for regular rate claims; and (3) overtime claims as a collective action claim. The Defendant previously moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which the District Court accepted without objection. The Magistrate Judge identified the Plaintiffs as "Frac Fuel Technicians" or "Operators" and noted that four such employees would staff a fracking wellsite. As framed by the Magistrate Judge, "the question presented by Fuelco's summary judgment motion is whether Section 207(a)(1) should be applied to hours listed on the Plaintiffs' earning statements under the categories 'Drive Time' and 'Standby' Time." For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant regarding whether "standby" time payments are or should be included in determining the "regular rate" of pay, but otherwise denied summary judgment without prejudice to renewal of the motion after further discovery. On April 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge partially granted a motion for approval and distribution of notice. At that point, three additional employees had filed consents to opt in. Thereafter, numerous individuals filed consents to join this collective action as Opt-in Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge issued a Phase II Scheduling Order used in these types of collective actions, and the case has proceeded in accordance with such scheduling order as periodically amended. In August 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge Pilliam who continued the reference of all pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge. On April 15, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted an unopposed motion to consolidate by Fuelco and thus consolidated the case with Case No. SA-19-CV-1129-JKP for all pretrial purposes, "but such consolidation is without prejudice to the right of any party to request a separate trial of any issue, claim, or counterclaim in the case." See Order Consolidating Cases. Thereafter, six consents were subsequently withdrawn. On Oct. 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Phase II Scheduling Order to set various deadlines, including one for filing a motion for decertification (Dec. 4, 2020) and one for motions for summary judgment (45 days after ruling on motion for decertification). The next month, the Magistrate Judge set a briefing schedule and extended the deadline for a decertification motion to Dec. 18, 2020. On Dec. 18, 2020, the Defendant timely filed its motion for decertification with a separate appendix. The Plaintiffs filed their response with delayed exhibits. After Defendant filed a reply brief with a separate appendix, the Magistrate Judge returned the case to Judge Pulliam because all pretrial matters were complete. Taking an appropriate abstract view of the employees, Judge Pulliam finds that the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated, and the case may proceed as a collective action. He opines that the Plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus that binds the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs as alleged victims of a specific policy or practice to not pay overtime wages for drive time or standby time. Allowing the employees to pursue their claims together furthers the purpose of the FLSA overtime provisions. And collective pursuit of the cases appears fair to both sides and does not make trial unmanageable. While there are some differences between employees, such as what each employee did or did not do pre- and post-driving, the differences do not affect whether the employees are similarly situated. For these reasons, Judge Pulliam denies Defendant Fuelco's Motion for Decertification of Collective Action. In doing so, he affirmatively conducts the similarly situated analysis in accordance with the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021) that rejected the two-step conditional certification approach applied earlier in the case. Naturally, because the instant case proceeded under a conditional certification for more than two years before the Swales decision, the Judge could not simply ignore the historical conditional certification when making its determination as to whether the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated and thus may proceed collectively. The Magistrate Judge previously set a deadline for any dispositive motion at 45 days from the date of this ruling. On June 25, 2021, the parties will submit the joint stipulation as to sub-classes and any individual proposals that the parties want the Court to consider. Given this deadline and the complexity of the collective action, Judge Pulliam extends the dispositive motion deadline to Aug. 24, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjk2d9sj from Leagle.com. GEICO CASUALTY: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Casualty Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00385-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., June 4, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Destination Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lewin Day at thedrive.com reports that when buying a new car, there's a host of wheeling and dealing that goes on before you come to a final purchase price. There's the recommended retail, plus taxes, minus rebates and offers, and then there's the destination charge. It's nominally the cost the automaker charges for delivering the car from the factory to the dealership, which the dealership then passes on to the consumer. In a class action lawsuit just served to GM, however, customers are alleging that the automaker has been taking profit from destination charges, and they're seeking restitution, reports CarComplaints. Plaintiffs in the case are customers that have purchased GM vehicles in California and New Jersey. Robert Romoff of California was charged a $1195 destination charge when purchasing a Chevrolet Equinox, while Joe Siciliano of New Jersey was charged $995 for a Cadillac Escalade delivery. The lawsuit itself claims that destination fees can be up to $1695 in some cases. Notably, customers are unable to negotiate on these charges, and must pay the going rate quoted by the company as a part of the purchase process. The primary allegation is that customers were misled over the nature of the fee, which was represented as the genuine cost of delivering the vehicle. It suggests that there's a "significant amount of profit" included in destination charges, which are outwardly presented as the basic cost of delivering a vehicle. In the class action filing, it states: "[A] destination fee is generally understood in the automotive industry to reflect the manufacturer's average cost of delivering one of its vehicles to a dealership. That destination fee is charged to the dealer and passed on to the purchaser or lessee of that vehicle. Consumers similarly have the expectation that they are covering an automotive manufacturer's cost for the delivery of the manufacturer's vehicles when paying the "destination fee" as part of their new-vehicle lease or purchase." Research from Consumer Reports has suggested that destination fees have been climbing for some time, notably rising 30% from 2011 to 2020, or two and a half times above inflation. Counter arguments are that the cost of shipping vehicles has gone up as car sizes have increased, with less cars fitting on each tractor-trailer. There's also talk of fuel prices playing a role, as well. Despite this, it remains to be seen whether there is profit being taken in these charges. Speaking on the matter to Consumer Reports, independent consultant Dan Bedore made a cogent point on the topic, asserting that "It does not take a mathematician to understand the value of a $100 increase to a company that sells two million units a year." The GM suit is not the only game in town, either—CarComplaints reported that the same law firm filed a class action against Chrysler for the same practice back in May. Whether or not automakers are padding their balance sheets with excessive delivery charges will likely be borne out in court. If GM has evidence that the charges legitimately reflect their costs, the suit may fail. Alternatively, the class action could be the warning shot across the bow that prompts automakers to reign in their delivery fees from rising too much further. We've examined the costs of shipping cars ourselves, and look forward to seeing what comes to light in due time. [GN] GLOBAL CREDIT: Lapinski Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Kathleen Lapinski, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 9:21-cv-80937-AMC (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Global Credit & Collection Corporation doing business as Affinity Global -- http://www.affglo.com/-- is located in Chicago, Illinois and is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq. LOAN LAWYERS, LLC 2150 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 523-4357 Fax: (954) 581-2786 Email: matis@fight13.com - and - Matthew David Bavaro, Esq. LOAN LAWYERS, LLC 3201 Griffin road, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Phone: (954) 523-4357 Email: matthew@fight13.com - and - Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN: Grantham Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hammerman & Hultgren PC. The case is styled as Christopher Grantham, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Hammerman & Hultgren PC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00982-MTL (D. Ariz., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hammerman & Hultgren -- http://hammerman-hultgren.com/-- is the leader in collection services in Phoenix and beyond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Landsdale Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Landsdale 329 Prop LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LANSDALE 329 PROP, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02034-MSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs Lansdale 329 Prop, LLC, 329 Mainlans, LLC and Lincoln Liquor LLC d/b/a Stove and Tap, and 560 Wellington Square Associates LLC d/b/a Al Pastor are two businesses who are insureds through policies issued by Defendant The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. d/b/a The Hartford. The Defendant has allegedly denied Plaintiffs' claim for business interruption coverage, giving rise to the lawsuit for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment. The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Landsdale 329 Prop LLC, et al. v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., Case No. 21-2047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 1, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LANDSDALE 329 PROP LLC, 329 MAINLANS LLC, LINCOLN LIQUOR LLC, DBA Stove and Tap, and 560 WELLINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATES LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Al Pastor, are represented by: Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Mark R. Rosen, Esq. Meghan J. Talbot, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street, 38th Floor 3300 Two Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com mrosen@barrack.com mtalbot@barrack.com Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO is represented by: Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1265 E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com - and - Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG 1818 Market Street, Suite 2740 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 405-9191 - and - Sarah D. Gordon, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-8005 E-mail: sgordon@steptoe.com HONEY POT COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Honey Pot Company (DE), LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Honey Pot Company (DE), LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04985 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Honey Pot -- https://thehoneypot.co/ -- seeks to promote female health through plant-based products, offering feminine care with natural washes, wipes and pads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HOUSTON WIRE: Omni Cable Merger Deal Lacks Info, Parshall Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES PARSHALL, Plaintiff v. HOUSTON WIRE & CABLE COMPANY, ROY W. HALEY, MARGARET S. LAIRD, DAVID NIERENBERG, JAMES L. POKLUDA III, SANDFORD W. ROTHE, WILLIAM H. SHEFFIELD, and G. GARY YETMAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04072 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Houston Wire & Cable Company and the members of Houston Wire's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Houston Wire will be acquired by Omni Cable, LLC through OmniCable's subsidiary OCDFH Acquisition Sub Inc. On March 25, 2021, Houston Wire and OmniCable issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 24, 2021 to sell Houston Wire to OmniCable. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Houston Wire stockholder will receive $5.30 cash for each share of Houston Wire common stock they own. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $91 million. According to the complaint, on May 12, 2021, Houston Wire filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Houston Wire stockholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Johnson Rice & Company, L.L.C. and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced by Johnson Rice and the Company's additional financial advisor, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. The Defendant's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed transaction, the suit added. Houston Wire & Cable Company is one of the largest wire and cable providers in America. The company was founded in 1975 and based in Houston, Texas.[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 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 HUB INT'L: Ct. Certifies California Class & Wage Statement Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fabian Gonzalez, et al. v. HUB International Limited, Case No. 5:20-cv-02600-PA-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order that: 1. certifies the California Class and Wage Statement Subclass, and designates Gonzalez as the class representative for the certified class and subclass, and appoints his chosen counsel, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmid De Blow LLP, as class counsel. 2. neither Gonzalez nor Sanchez have satisfied their burden to support certification of the Meal Break, Rest Period, Regular Rate Subclasses, and Derivative Subclasses, and that Sanchez is not an adequate class representative. The Court therefore denies certification of the remaining subclasses. 3. the parties shall meet and confer concerning the content of the class notice and, by no later than June 14, 2021, file a proposed class notice and any necessary complementary documents. If the parties are unable to agree to the content of a class notice, they shall submit their competing versions of the class notice and a brief not to exceed three pages advocating for their respective versions of the class notice by no later than June 14, 2021. Judge Anderson says Plaintiff Gonzalez is an adequate class representative for the California Class and Wage Statement Subclass, and that the Wage Statement Subclass satisfies the Rule 23 requirements for certification. a. The "Meal Break Subclass" defined as follows: "All non- exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from January 8, 2015 through the date of class certification, and who worked at least one shift of more than 6 hours." b. The "Rest Period Subclass" defined as follows: "All non- exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from January 8, 2015 through the date of class certification, who worked at least one shift of more than 3.5 hours." c. The "Regular Rate Subclass" defined as follows: "All Class Members who worked overtime in a pay period in which 'Employee Referral Bonus', 'Management Bonus', 'Bonus', 'Reward Bonus' and/or 'Other Bonus' was received and whose overtime regular rate of pay did not account for such bonuses from January 8, 2015 through the date of class certification." d. The "Wage Statement Subclass" defined as follows: "All non- exempt, hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant in California from January 8, 2018 through the date of class certification, who received at least one wage statement from Defendant." The Plaintiffs also seek to certify derivative claims for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203 for the Meal Break, Rest Period, and Regular Rate subclasses for the period from January 8, 2016, through the date of class certification. Defendant opposes certification of the class and subclasses. Gonzalez commenced this action in San Bernardino Superior Court on January 8, 2019, and filed a First Amended Complaint on March 15, 2019. The Defendant, which is an insurance broker, removed the action to this Court on March 28, 2019. After determining that the Defendant had not satisfied its burden to establish the amount in controversy required for a case removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court remanded the action on May 10, 2019. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in San Bernardino Superior Court in March 2020, which added Sanchez as a named plaintiff. After conducting discovery, and obtaining additional information concerning the amount of damages the Plaintiffs seek, the Defendant filed a second Notice of Removal on December 16, 2020. The second Notice of Removal again alleges that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to CAFA. A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3qYe3 at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN HARTSTEIN v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04874-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting Hartstein's motion for class certification: Class: "All individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period from April 24, 2016 to final judgment (the "Relevant Period") and who fall within the definition of one or all of the following Subclasses: Subclass 1: "All members of the Class whose employment was terminated (including, without limitation, temporarily laid off, laid off, or "furloughed") and who were not paid for vested vacation time and/or floating holidays immediately upon cessation of their employment within the Relevant Period;" Subclass 2: "All members of the Class whose employment was terminated (including, without limitation, temporarily laid off, laid off, or "furloughed") and who were not paid for vested non- discretionary hotel room bonuses immediately upon cessation of their employment within the Relevant Period;" and Subclass 3: "All members of the Class who are or were hourly-paid and/or non-exempt, who worked overtime and received overtime pay, and who earned nondiscretionary hotel room bonuses during the Relevant Period." The class and subclasses will be represented by Plaintiff Karen Hartstein. Blackstone Law, APC is appointed as class counsel. Hartstein is a former Hyatt employee. She was terminated from her position in March 2020, when Hyatt instituted what it characterized as temporary layoffs of more than 6,000 employees. Hyatt did not provide a specific return to work date. It instead notified employees it could take eight to twelve weeks for Hyatt to return to normal business operations but that it would not commit to that timeline. Hyatt provided no assurance that employees would be rehired, and many were not. Hartstein alleges that at the time Hyatt instituted the temporary layoffs, it knew the COVID-19 pandemic would have a catastrophic impact on its business and it would be years before hotels would achieve pre-pandemic occupancy rates. Hyatt notified employees of the temporary layoffs by sending them a letter. The letter noted employees would be "furloughed/temporarily laid off from their employment on March 18, 2020," and that employees' "health benefits w[ould] continue as is through the months of April and May." Additionally, the letter stated: "To ease any financial hardships, if you would like, we also can pay out accrued vacation pay on that date at your request, although we are not separating anyone’s employment at this time." Numerous employees took Hyatt up on this offer and requested Hyatt pay them for their accrued vacation wages, earned vacation wages, and floating holidays. The payment of those wages was not immediate; it was made on the next payroll cycle. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4VBBP at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: Ex Legislator Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- wcia.com reports that a third former state legislator has filed a lawsuit to argue he is entitled to pay raises from years past -- even though he voted against them while he was in office. Mike Fortner, a former Republican state representative and NIU physics professor from West Chicago, had a reputation for paying close attention to the state's many fiscal headaches. Fortner filed the new lawsuit ay seeking backpay for himself and all current or former state lawmakers. His lawyers argue Fortner's previous votes to block his own pay raises were unconstitutional because it changed his salary during the middle of his term. "Fortner is entitled to receive his full COLA salary adjustments for the period from July 2009 to January 2019 -- spanning all of fiscal years 2010 through 2018 and the first six months of fiscal year 2019," the suit argues. Fortner's attorneys later filed a motion for class action certification on Wednesday, which would extend to all current and former members of the General Assembly -- even those who don't publicly put their names on the lawsuit. Comptroller Susana Mendoza (D-Illinois) called it "an ill-advised class(less) action lawsuit" that "exposes taxpayers to millions of dollars in additional liability." Mendoza's office estimates the class action lawsuit could cost taxpayers more than $10 million if the courts rule in Fortner's favor. "I respectfully suggest that this Professor of Particle Physics has sued the wrong person – he should sue himself," Mendoza said. "HE is the one who voted to deny himself a pay raise – not the Comptroller's office. It's not rocket science, Professor. You should know better." In the early 2010s, elected officials won glowing headlines for embracing fiscal discipline in forgoing their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) pay raises. Governor Pat Quinn signed several laws to require legislators to take furlough days as another way to reduce their pay. Now, Fortner's lawsuit argues both were unconstitutional, and asks the court to order the Comptroller to reimburse him. Last year, statehouse Democrats took a new approach to block their automatic pay raises. Instead of writing conflicting language in the budget that could contradict the state constitution, they simply zeroed out the line item in the appropriations bill next to the legislator pay raises. "They absolutely could have" done that again this year, Comptroller Susana Mendoza's spokesman Abdon Pallasch said in a phone call Thursday night. Instead, this new state budget gives lawmakers their full COLA. The Illinois House filed the final budget bill with 20 minutes to go before a midnight deadline on Monday. When the 3,088-page piece of legislation arrived in the Senate for final approval, downstate Senators Doris Turner (D-Springfield) and Rachelle Crowe (D-Glen Carbon) were so surprised to see the legislator pay raises were added back into the bill that they voted against it. Two other former state senators, Michael Noland (D-Elgin) and James Clayborne (D-Belleville), have gone back and forth against the Comptroller's office in court, claiming they were entitled to reimbursement for lost wages. Both Noland and Clayborne also voted against pay raises while they were in office, and sued for them in court after they left Springfield. A judge recently awarded Noland and Clayborne a victory and ruled they do have a right to back pay. Mendoza has not issued them checks, and has appealed the decision, saying she will take the fight all the way to the state Supreme Court. Court records list Eric Madiar as one of Fortner's attorneys in the new lawsuit. Madiar served as former Senate President John Cullerton's chief legal counsel before leaving state government to open a lobbying firm. As the Senate Parliamentarian, Madiar would have signed off on the maneuver when Noland, Clayborne, and Fortner voted to block their own pay raises. If the courts ultimately decide the constitutional guarantee of a COLA supersedes the General Assembly's power to appropriate funds for their own salaries, politicians could still find a way to publicly denounce the raise and donate the funds. "I will send legislators the forms state employees can already use to distribute a portion of their salaries to charity," Mendoza said. "As a former legislator who voted against these pay raises, I will lead by example, donating any back pay I get to charity and will encourage others to do the same."[GN] J.B. HUNT: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE WILLIAMS & PAUL CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01701-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the joint motion to continue class certification briefing, deadlines and hearing as: -- Plaintiffs shall file their opening brief by September 17, 2021: -- Defendant shall file its opposition brief by October 15, 2021; and -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief by October 29, 2021. J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company based in Lowell, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wYBnYv at no extra charge.[CC] J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. J.J. MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Class defined as: "All persons in the state of Florida who received at least one collection letter from J.J. Marshall." The Plaintiff Gartrell files this Motion for Class Certification on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, to secure redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). The facts in this case are simple and largely undisputed. The FCCPA requires debt collectors to register with the state before collecting debts from Florida consumers. J.J. Marshall & Associates, Inc. has never been registered as a debt collector in Florida. On February 4, 2019, J.J. Marshall, sent a standard form debt collection letter to Plaintiff, a Florida resident, without disclosing that it was unregistered and therefore not legally permitted to take such actions, the Plaintiff contends. JJ Marshall has sent similar collection letters to 1,098 Florida consumers within the two-year limitations period. The predominating common issues in this case ask whether collecting consumer debts owed by Florida consumers without being registered violates the FDCPA and/or the FCCPA. JJ Marshall attempted to collect a $612.92 personal debt allegedly owed to Plaintiff's previous landlord for pest control, cleaning and carpet replacement charges after she vacated her Jacksonville apartment. Ms. Gartrell insists that she does not owe the landlord because that apartment was vacated in the same condition it was in when she took possession, and the charges were for damage that were merely normal wear and tear items. J.J. Marshall is a Michigan based debt collection company and is not, and never has been, registered as a debt collector in Florida. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3inPwKA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Glenn Banner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF GLENN S. BANNER, P.A. Florida Bar No.: 0620254 5245 Commissioners Drive Jacksonville, FL 32224 Telephone: (904) 240-4401 E-mail: gbanner@gbannerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale T. Golden, Esq. GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC 1135 Marbella Plaza Drive Tampa, FL 33619 E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com JAGUAR LAND: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due July 23 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY BLOCK and VICTORYA MANAKIN on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05957-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order that: 1. the Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification on or before July 23, 2021; 2. the Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before September 21, 2021; 3. the Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their motion for class certification on or before November 22, 2021; and 4. there will be no adjournments of this briefing schedule; and 5. the parties shall submit a schedule with proposed deadlines through trial, including deadlines for expert discovery (if any), within 21 days after this Court issues an order deciding the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification. Jaguar Land Rover was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing or assembling of complete passenger automobile. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gfvkb5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg M. Kohn, Esq. Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Facsimile: (973) 618-9194 E-mail: gkohn@nagelrice.com bnagel@nagelrice.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica K. Jacobs, Esq. Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Esq. Michael L. Kidney, Esq. James W. Clayton, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market Street, Floor 23 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 675-4677 Facsimile: (267) 675-4601 E-mail: stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com jessica.jacobs@hoganlovells.com michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com james.clayton@hoganlovells.com JAPAN INN DORAL: Lopez Slams Illegal Termination Over Sick Leave ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge A. Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Japan Inn Doral, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-22026 (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2021), seeks equitable and monetary relief to readdress the violations of Lopez's rights pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act and the anti-retaliatory provisions found in Section 2615. Japan Inn Doral is a Japanese and Thai restaurant in Dade County where Lopez worked as a server from approximately December 5, 2019, to January 26, 2021. On January 3, 2021, Lopez tested positive for COVID-19 and needed at least 2 weeks of medical leave to treat his serious health condition and comply with the mandatory State and Federal quarantine requirements. Lopez took two weeks of unprotected medical leave. Immediately after, Lopez's work schedule account was locked out. He was eventually terminated on January 26, 2021, despite being eligible to take a leave under the Family Medical Leave Act because of his qualifying medical condition. [BN] 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 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Claims in Potts' 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JAMIE POTTS, KIM MILESZKO, CHRISTINA LUKA, and REBECA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a New Jersey corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-10406 (FLW) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Potts, Mileszko, Luka, and Gonzalez, brought the consumer fraud-related action against Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("JJCI") in connection with the allegedly deceptive labeling and advertising of certain Neutrogena-brand makeup remover cleaning towelettes that purportedly caused adverse skin reactions. In their SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that JJCI, the entity responsible for the labeling and marketing of certain Neutrogena-brand products, engaged in deceptive practices with respect to the labeling and advertising of seven "makeup remover cleansing towelettes." The SAC alleges that the Products are a "cosmetic makeup removing product intended to act as a gentle cleanser that does not irritate the skin but quickly and effortlessly removes makeup from the face and eyes." JJCI allegedly advertises on the Products' labels that the wipes are "Ophthalmologist tested," "Dermatologist tested," and "Allergy tested," which, according to the Plaintiffs, creates "the impression in the minds of consumers that the Products are ophthalmologist and dermatologist approved, without qualification, and allergen free." Further, the Plaintiffs claim that in large, bolded letters, the Products' labels proclaim that the cleansing towelettes are, "Gentle enough to use around sensitive eye area, even for contact lens wearers." The Plaintiffs allege, however, that "while using the Products as directed, many consumers have experienced adverse reactions ranging from irritation and discomfort to peeling, burning, and temporary or permanent facial scarring." Specific to them, they aver that after applying the Products, they, or their daughters, suffered "adverse skin reactions," including dry skin, rashes, peeling of the skin and other skin irritation, bumps, burning sensations, and skin damage around the areas of use. According to the Plaintiffs, the Products' labels and marketing were misleading because they failed to include warnings related to the claimed risk of allergic or adverse skin reactions. JJCI allegedly knew of customer complaints about such adverse reactions and skin irritation experienced by certain product users, but deliberately chose not to include any warnings on the Products' labeling. In that regard, the Plaintiffs allege that, Neutrogena.com, a website run by JJCI, contains "a litany of consumer complaints regarding skin irritation, rashes, chemical burns, peeling, facial disfigurement, and other injuries" from using the Products. They claim that JJCI is clearly aware of these complaints based on the fact that they respond to each negative review with a request for further information. These consumer complaints and responses on Neutrogena.com allegedly date back at least three years. The Plaintiffs then claim that in light of such knowledge, certain representations made by JJCI on the Products' labeling, or in product marketing, were misleading or deceptive, in the absence of any warnings. Despite the alleged adverse skin reactions, the Plaintiffs claim they would "consider purchasing the Products in the future if the Products could be made to conform with the affirmative representations" on the Products' labels and in JJCI's marketing, or, if the chemical composition of the Products did not change, the labels and marketing representations "warned that the Products were not suitable for all skin types, a pre-use patch test was recommended, and consumers were advised to cease use and consult a physician if they experienced adverse skin conditions after using the Products." The Plaintiffs first filed the action on April 22, 2020, in California state court, and filed an Amended Complaint on June 19, 2020. Shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2020, JJCI removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC, which asserts 10 claims, including: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq. ("FAL"); (3)-(5) violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (6) violation of New York General Business Law SectionSection 349, et seq.; (7) violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCF"), N.J.S.A. Sections 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201, et seq.; (9) negligent omission; and (10) unjust enrichment. On Aug. 11, 2020, the action was transferred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. JJCI is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Skillman, New Jersey, while the Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the states of California, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a "Nationwide Class," as well as a "California Subclass," a "New Jersey Subclass," a "New York Subclass," and a "Florida Subclass." Presently before the Court is JJCI's motion to dismiss the SAC for lack of standing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Analysis A. Standing On this motion, JJCI argues that the SAC fails to plead facts sufficient to establish that the Plaintiffs have Article III standing. First, with respect to Potts, JJCI contends that prior to filing suit, Potts received and cashed a refund check from JJCI for the full purchase price of the Product that allegedly caused an adverse skin reaction for her and her daughter. According to JJCI, this fact deprives Potts of Article III standing on all her claims, because Potts cannot prove she suffered an injury-in-fact to pursue monetary relief. As for the remaining Plaintiffs, JJCI argues that Mileszko, Luka, and Gonzalez also fail to plead facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. Specifically, it submits that it has no record that Mileszko, Luka, and Gonzalez requested, and were denied, a refund of the purchase price paid for allegedly defective products. Thus, according to JJCI, Mileszko, Luka and Gonzalez lack Article III standing because their claimed economic loss in connection with their purchases is not "fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendants." In addition, JJCI argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing because their "price-inflation theory" is too speculative, since they assert claims on behalf of unidentified persons in jurisdictions where Plaintiffs do not allege that they suffered any injury. Finally, JJCI posits that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief, because they have not established that they are likely to suffer future injury from JJCI's alleged conduct. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that "(1) Article III standing does not require Plaintiffs utilize a privately managed 'refund program' before seeking legal remedy; (2) even if there was such a requirement, JJCI deliberately kept the purported 'refund program' secret and out of public view; (3) the particular circumstances of each Plaintiff demonstrates that they each have Article III standing; (4) the Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief to prevent future harm in spite of their knowledge of potential harm in each of the jurisdictions; and (5) the Plaintiffs' claims for injunction relief likewise establish Article III standing." The Plaintiffs' theory of economic harm is based on their allegations that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain due to JJCI's alleged omissions and misrepresentations. Their claims can be summarized in the following way: The Plaintiffs allege that they bought and used Neutrogena face wipes; the wipes were harmful to them because they suffered rashes, swellings, peeling skin, and burning sensations after the use of the Products; and JJCI knew that the Products caused harmful reactions, purposefully did not list warnings about the alleged risks, and misrepresented the degree of the Products' safety, thereby misleading the Plaintiffs into purchasing the Products that they otherwise would not have, had they been warned. 1. Refunds As a preliminary matter, in the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that they suffered physical injuries. Based on those injuries, they allege that they purchased Products that did not perform as advertised, and thus, were worth less than that for which they bargained. Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient factual allegations to permit a fact-finder to conclude that they suffered at least some modicum of economic injury. JJCI's argument that a refund deprives the Plaintiffs of standing is unconvincing for several reasons, including that a plaintiff's failure to seek or accept a refund does not preclude standing. 2. Injunctive Relief Next, JJCI argues that the Plaintiffs cannot seek injunctive relief, because they were aware of the supposed risks of using the Products, and therefore, cannot reasonably claim that they are likely to buy the Products again in the immediate future. In other words, JJCI argues that Plaintiffs cannot show an ongoing harm such that they can seek injunctive relief. Judge Wolfon agrees. She opines that the Plaintiffs' alleged desire to purchase the Products in the future as a means of establishing the likelihood that they will suffer an ongoing harm, is pure speculation. Accordingly, because she finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of future injury, their request for injunctive relief is struck from the SAC. B. Failure to State a Claim 1. Failure-to-Warn and Omission Claims JJCI contends that the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and omission" claims6 fail under Rule 12(b)(6) on two grounds. First, it argues there is no duty to warn of "rare, idiosyncratic, hypersensitive, or unusual reactions" to the Products under California, New York, Florida, and New Jersey law. Second, it claims the Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn and omission claims are expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. Judge Wolfson holds she cannot dismiss, at this stage, the Plaintiffs' claims based on JJCI's proposed theory that because the alleged unusual reactions are rare, there is no duty to warn consumers regarding the alleged adverse reactions suffered by the Plaintiffs, because doing so would go beyond the face of the pleadings. 2. Preemption Second, JJCI contends that the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and omission" claims, found in Counts One through Eight of the SAC, are expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. In analyzing JJCI's preemption argument, Judge Wolfson denies JJCI's motion to dismiss as to the "failure-to-warn and omission" claims and they will proceed. JJCI fails to explain how the Plaintiffs' state law claims require labeling or packaging of a cosmetic that differs from, or adds to, the federal guidelines. Moreover, significantly, JJCI has not pointed to any federal requirements that govern the labeling of their products that contradict the type of labeling the Plaintiffs seek to impose through state law. 3. Negligent Omission Claim Next, JJCI submits that the Plaintiffs' claim for "Negligent Omission" should be dismissed, because the economic loss rule bars their claim under the laws of New York, New Jersey, and Florida, and separately, California law does not recognize "negligent omission" as a cause of action. The Plaintiffs, however, in reply, do not challenge JJCI's argument. Instead, they ask the Court for leave to amend their negligent omission claims "to incorporate contractual theories of recovery upon which a negligent omission claim may be predicated." In short, the Plaintiffs have conceded that failed to sufficiently plead this claim, and therefore, it is dismissed without prejudice. 4. Unjust Enrichment Claim Finally, JJCI argues that tje Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed, because it is an equitable relief claim based on the same allegations as their legal claims, and they have not shown that they lack an adequate remedy at law. Relying solely on New Jersey law, JJCI maintains that dismissal of this claim is appropriate, because the SAC alleges that each of the named Plaintiffs purchased the Product from third-party retailers, and not directly from JJCI. According to JJCI, this fact prevents the Plaintiffs from establishing the requisite "direct relationship" between plaintiff and defendant that New Jersey law demands for any viable unjust enrichment claim. Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiffs may not bring a New Jersey unjust enrichment claim. Indeed, JJCI correctly argues that in order to claim unjust enrichment, New Jersey law requires a direct relationship between the parties. The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased the Products from third-party retailers, such as CVS Pharmacy and Costco. And, there is no dispute that they did not purchase the cosmetic products directly from JJCI, which is a manufacturer, not a retailer. In that respect, the Plaintiffs did not confer any benefit directly on JJCI. Hence, they cannot sustain an unjust enrichment claim under New Jersey law. Although the Judge is giving the Plaintiffs leave to amend their unjust enrichment claims pursuant to the laws of California, New York and Florida -- since they are not adequately pled, and because JJCI has not addressed the substantive law of these states, as it did for New Jersey -- when amending, the Plaintiffs are well-advised that these states differ as to whether a plaintiff must directly confer a benefit on a defendant in order to adequately plead an unjust enrichment claim. The Plaintiffs should be mindful of the differences in each state's unjust enrichment law, in order to sufficiently plead them, or whether to bring them at all based upon whether a claim can be stated. As a final note, in the SAC, it is unclear if the unjust enrichment claims are brought solely within each of the proposed subclasses, or whether the Plaintiffs seek a nationwide class with an unjust enrichment claim. If they intend to assert an unjust enrichment claim on behalf of a nationwide class, they must, in their amended pleadings, specify upon which states' laws they rely. Conclusion Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part JJCI's Motion to Dismiss as follows: (i) JJCI's motion is denied as to Counts one through eight, which are the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and omission" claims; (ii) the motion is granted as to Count Nine, negligent omission, and Count Ten, unjust enrichment, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice, with the exception of the New Jersey unjust enrichment claim, which is dismissed with prejudice; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is struck from the SAC. The Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their negligent omission and unjust enrichment claims in accordance with the dictates of the Opinion. When amending their complaint, they must also clarify which of the seven products listed in the SAC were purchased and used by them and/or their children. See infra. The Third Amended Complaint must be filed no later than 21 days from the date of the Order accompanying the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3s3vedjh from Leagle.com. JUKA INNOVATIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juka Innovations Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Juka Innovations Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04975 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Juka Innovations Corporation aka The TubShroom Company -- https://www.tubshroom.com/ -- has been providing the world with award-winning drain protection products for virtually every drain in the home since 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com LEMON CREEK: Fuel Spill Class Action Suit Gets Second Go-Ahead -------------------------------------------------------------- John Boivin at nelsonstar.com reports that the class action lawsuit launched by residents of the Slocan Valley after the 2013 fuel spill in Lemon Creek has been given the go-ahead to go to trial once more. Judge D.M. Masuhara ruled on May 21 the lawsuit could go ahead after changing some of the specifics of the suit to reflect a higher court decision. The lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000 litres of jet fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a delivery to a firefighting operation. The spill forced thousands of people up to 40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley to evacuate the area. The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days. Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for damages. Masuhara, the chambers judge reviewing the certification, ruled in 2017 the class action could go ahead, the first time such a class action environmental lawsuit had been approved in British Columbia. But the defendants in the case – the helicopter company, fuel-delivery company, the truck driver, and provincial government - appealed. The BC Court of Appeal found issue with some of the particulars of the issues to be decided (called the "common issues"), and remitted, or sent the matter back, to Masuhara for a re-determination, according to the higher court's reasons. After implementing the changes outlined by the Court of Appeal, Masuhara re-certified the lawsuit as a class action. "I find that a class proceeding is the preferable mechanism for resolving the certified common issues," he said in his judgement. "It was encouraging in that another hurdle was cleared in advancing the action," says David M. Aaron, one of the lawyers leading the class-action suit. "Because it would be prohibitive for every class member to retain the experts that we've retained in the fields of biology, chemical engineering, and environmental impact. It would be highly inefficient for there to be thousands of individual trials each determining the same question of who is at fault for the transgressions, if any, that resulted in the fuel spill. "Now that question is going to be determined in one action, in one court, on behalf of all class members." The latest hurdle cleared is a big one, but it is very far from being over. The defendants may appeal this latest decision. Even if they don't, it may be years before a decision is rendered, and that decision could face its own appeals. "The judicial process is often slow and laborious, but that's what it takes to get things right. We've had to stick to this matter at the Court of Appeal, and back to the chambers judge, and we're still only past the procedural question of what the appropriate modality is for the action," says Aaron. "Now that has been determined as a class action. We're going to hold the defendants accountable under that procedure, and it's important the people of the Slocan Valley and in particular the members of the class exercise patience. "Sometimes the wheels of justice move very slowly." The deadline for appealing this latest decision is June 21. A trial date won't be set until that period is over. [GN] LIFEMD INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeMD, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LifeMD, Inc., Lifemd.Com Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05032 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LifeMD, Inc. -- https://www.lifemd.com/ -- operates as a direct-to-patient telehealth company that connects consumers to healthcare professionals for care across various indications, including concierge care, men's sexual health, dermatology, and others in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal LOUIS MILUSNIC: Seeks to Dissolve July 14-Issued Prelim. Injunction ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES, et al., Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., Defendant-Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant-Respondents ask the Court to enter an order dissolving the preliminary injunction issued in this matter on July 14, 2020, due to a significant change in facts. The Respondents have offered the vaccine to all inmates. Respondents have mitigated to the risk of COVID-19 infection among FCC Lompoc's inmates to the point where no new cases have occurred in its general population in over five months. Moreover, Respondents have performed home confinement reviews of nearly all the inmates at FCC Lompoc. The preliminary injunction requiring expedited processing of home release evaluations and compassionate release requests due to the risk of COVID-19 no longer serves a purpose. A copy of the Defendant-Respondents motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x7te47 at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Respondents Louis Milusnic and Michael Carvajal, are: Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq. David M. Harris, Esq. Joanne S. Osinoff, Esq. Keith M. Staub, Esq. Paul B. La Scala, Esq. Chung H. Han, Esq. Daniel A. Beck, Esq. Jasmin Yang, Esq. Paul B. Green, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-7423 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: Keith.Staub@usdoj.gov Chung.Han@usdoj.gov Paul.LaScala@usdoj.gov Daniel.Beck@usdoj.gov Jasmin.Yang@usdoj.gov Paul.Green@usdoj.gov LOUISIANA: Bid to Dismiss Plaisance Class Suit Junked ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaisance, et al., v. State of Louisiana et al, Case No. 3:21-cv-00121 (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order: 1. denying the Motion to Dismiss, filed by Louisiana Workforce Commission and Ava Dejoie; 2. denying as moot the Motion to Stay Discovery and Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Pending Defendants Motion to Dismiss; and 3. directing the parties to confer and file a joint proposed limited schedule related to class certification. "Joint proposed limited schedule due by June 7, 2021 and limited to three pages. Any disagreements shall be reflected in the joint filing, i.e., no party is permitted to file a separate proposed schedule," says Judge Wilder-Doomes. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico. Its history as a melting pot of French, African, American and French-Canadian cultures is reflected in its Creole and Cajun cultures.[CC] MIDLAND CREDIT: Levine Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Theressa C. Levine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00278 (E.D. Tex., June 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MILKY WAY INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milky Way International Trading Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Milky Way International Trading Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04984 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Milky Way International Trading Corporation doing business as MW Polar Foods -- https://www.mwpolar.net/ -- is a food production company based out of Norwalk, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MINERAL HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Mineral Health Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04845 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Mineral Health is an online retailer of plant-based medicine formulated around the hemp plant, including sublingual oils, facial cleaners, body oils, supplements and similar items through www.mineralhealth.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com MINUTE MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minute Media LLC. The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Minute Media LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03195 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minute Media -- https://www.minutemedia.com/ -- is a global, digital, sports media company, powered by socially driven content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Email: msegal@segallegal.com MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDARESS CARTER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Mr. Carter moved to certify four classes: a City class, a JCS Bearden subclass, a Kloess subclass, and a false-imprisonment class. 1. City Class consists of: "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on JCS-supervised probation, who (1) had debt commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the court to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on or after August 3, 2013." 2. JCS Bearden Subclass consists of: "all individuals in the City Class who served any of their post-commutation jail time on or after September 11, 2013." 3. Kloess Subclass consists of: "all individuals in the City Class whose debt was commuted to jail time on a date when Branch Kloess was the public defender assigned to the jail docket or for whom Benchmark court records or other documents indicate the individuals s were represented by Branch Kloess for the commutation." 4. False-Imprisonment Class consists of: "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on JCS-supervised probation, who (1) had debt commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the court to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on or after September 11, 2009." A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pnwe9O at no extra charge.[CC] NCAA: Baker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dan Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01537-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 4, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com The Defendant appears pro se. NCAA: Racanelli Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Pasquale Racanelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01536-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., June 4, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Fax: (713) 554-9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com The Defendant appears pro se. NEC NETWORKS: Accused of Failing to Safeguard PHI and PII --------------------------------------------------------- D.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEC NETWORKS, LLC. d/b/a CAPTURERX, and WALMART INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00363-SRB (W.D. Mo., May 25, 2021), is brought to redress the Defendants' willful and reckless violations of their privacy rights by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) and publicly disclosing their PHI and PII without authorization in violation of Missouri common law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members are patients of CaptureRx who entrusted their PHI and PII to the Defendants. The Defendants betrayed the Plaintiffs' trust by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PHI and PII and publicly disclosing their PHI and PII without authorization in violation of Missouri common law. This action pertains to the Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of the the Plaintiff's PHI and PII that occurred on or about February 6, 2021 (the "Breach"). The Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a direct and/or proximate result of the Defendant's failure to safeguard and protect their PHI and PII. The wrongfully disclosed PHI and PII included, inter alia, Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' first name, last name, date of birth, and prescription information. The Defendants flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally, willfully and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions required to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult residing in Lowry City, St. Clair County, Missouri. The Defendants are health care providers pursuant to state and federal law, providing health care and medical services to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. Nicholas J. Luedecke , Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com nick@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Anne Schiavone, Esq. HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC. 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 283-8738 Facsimile: (816) 283-8739 Email: aschiavone@hslawllc.com NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Reichert Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan M. Reichert, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-01300-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., May 28, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard the confidential, personally identifiable information of hundreds of thousands of consumers. The complaint asserts that in late September 2020, and due to Netgain's inadequate data security and failure to comply with federal and state data privacy standards, an unauthorized third party used compromised credentials to gain access to Netgain's digital environment. Although the information stolen may vary by individual class member, the categories included names, account numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account numbers, and dates of birth (PII), as well as personal health information such as medical record numbers, health insurance policy and identification numbers, clinical notes, referral requests, laboratory results, immunization information, medical disclosure logs, in addition to other medical and health related information (PHI). Due to Netgain's alleged negligence and inadequate data security, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered irreparable harm and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, the suit alleges. Plaintiff and Class members' PII and PHI have been compromised and they must now undertake additional security measures to minimize the risk of identity theft. Netgain Technology, LLC provides cloud-enabled IT solutions and managed services to various types of business entities including healthcare providers and accounting companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Ave. N., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Savage Sues Over Sale to Microsoft --------------------------------------------------------- Lesley Savage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Lloyd Carney, Mark Benjamin, Daniel Brennan, Thomas Ebling, Robert Finocchio, Laura Kaiser, Michal Katz, Mark Laret and Sanjay Vaswani, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00776 (D. Del., May 28, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Nuance by Microsoft Corporation through its subsidiary Big Sky Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Nuance stockholder will be entitled to receive $56.00 in cash for each share of Nuance common stock they own. The complaint alleges that the proxy statement, which recommends that Nuance stockholders vote in favor of the merger, omits or misrepresents the company's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Nuance's financial advisor, Evercore Group LLC and Evercore's potential conflicts of interest. Nuance is a provider of conversational AI and cloud-based ambient clinical intelligence for healthcare providers.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 Email: BDLong@longlawde.com - and - Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (646) 860-9158 Fax: (212) 214-0506 Email: raymond@bespc.com OHIO: Bids to Dismiss & for Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANSELM CADDELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOYCE CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-91 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, entered Order denying: (i) Defendant Joyce Campbell's Motion to Dismiss; (ii) Defendant Richard Jones's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and (iii) Defendant The City of Fairfield's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. On Feb. 23, 2017, an Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper, without a warrant, stopped Plaintiff Caddell for an alleged traffic violation. Fairfield Police Department personnel also responded to the scene. After a brief investigation, Caddell was arrested. Caddell alleges that "pursuant to the policies and customs of Defendant Fairfield," officers transported him to the Butler County Jail, where he remained without bond or appearance before a judicial officer until Feb. 28, 2017. That day, he appeared before the Fairfield Municipal Court, specifically Fairfield Municipal Judge Joyce Campbell. Judge Campbell released Caddell on his own recognizance. The five-day delay between arrest and arraignment provides the basis for Caddell's suit. Mr. Caddell filed a Complaint on Feb. 1, 2019, followed shortly thereafter by an Amended Complaint on Feb. 18, 2019. On July 23, 2020, Caddell submitted a Second Amended Complaint, which "added Caleb Lawson as a Plaintiff, but made no other substantive changes." In the Second Amended Complaint, he asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the five-day detention in the Butler County Jail violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiff also seeks class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and defines the putative class as "individuals subject to a warrantless arrest and detained for more than 48 hours without appearance before a judicial officer pursuant to the policies or customs of the Defendants during the two years prior to the filing of the Class Action Complaint." The Second Amended Complaint names Joyce Campbell (an active Fairfield Municipal Court Judge) and Richard Jones (the Butler County Sheriff) as Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Caddell asserts that they "were aware, or should have been aware of the constitutional mandate that individuals be provided an appearance before a judicial officer within 48 hours of arrest." Regarding Campbell, Caddell claims that she is "the sole judicial officer and presiding judge" of the Fairfield Municipal Court, as well as that court's "policymaker." And he asserts that "Campbell in her individual capacity fails to conduct arraignments such that some detained individuals are held in custody for more than 48 hours in violation of their clearly established rights." Caddell also alleges that Campbell supervises the business of the court and exercises control over the "administration, docket, and calendar of the court." He brings his claims against Campbell "in her individual capacity for purposes of damages, and in her official capacity for purposes of prospective relief." As for Jones, Caddell claims he is the "policymaker for the Butler County Sheriff's Office" and "operates the Butler County Jail," including "a patrol division empowered to arrest and detain individuals throughout Butler County." Caddell claims that Jones is responsible for policies and customs that violate the right to a prompt initial appearance for individuals detained after a warrantless arrest. In particular, Caddell asserts that Jones maintains "policies or customs whereby the officers of his force transport certain individuals arrested without warrant to the Butler County Jail," notwithstanding that they "know, or reasonably should know, that many of these individuals will be detained in excess of 48 hours without appearance before a judicial officer." Mr. Caddell also sues the City of Fairfield under a municipal liability theory. As with Jones, he asserts that the municipality likewise "employs policies or customs" involving transporting arrestees to Butler County Jail that they "know, or reasonably should know" will result in individuals being detained for a constitutionally impermissible period. After Caddell filed his First Amended Complaint (which was identical to the Second Amended Complaint as to each aspect described), each Defendant filed a motion challenging that Complaint in its entirety. The City of Fairfield moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The City argued (1) that Caddell failed to allege any causal relationship between (a) the City, or any City policy or custom, and (b) Caddell's alleged over-detention, and (2) that, as a matter of law, the City is not responsible for how the Fairfield Municipal Court operates. Judge Campbell moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). She pressed four arguments: (1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes Caddell's claims; (2) judicial immunity bars any claim predicated on her role in Caddell's underlying criminal case; (3) in terms of Caddell's claims directed at her alleged policymaking role, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the obligation to bring detainees before a judicial officer falls on the detaining authority, which she was not alleged to be; and (4) sovereign immunity precludes claims brought against her in her administrative capacity because she acts as an arm of the state in that role. For his part, Jones moved for judgment on the pleadings. He claimed that the duty to secure a prompt probable cause determination falls solely on "the arresting officer," and that neither he nor anyone on his force played that role here, as his only alleged role was as jailor. Relatedly, he argued that Caddell failed to articulate a causal connection between any Butler County policy and his alleged over-detention. Finally, Jones argued that, even if a jailor may have some responsibility for securing a prompt appearance, that legal proposition is not "clearly established," and thus he is entitled to qualified immunity. At some level, each Defendant disclaims responsibility for Caddell's over-detention on the grounds that such responsibility should lie elsewhere -- (a) the City, which may have employed the arresting officer, says responsibility should lie with the County which acted as jailor; (b) the County Sheriff, who acted as jailor, says responsibility should lie either with the arresting officer or the Court (as the jailor delivered Caddell at the first available court date); and (c) the Court says responsibility should lie with the "detaining authority," which could presumably be a reference either to the arresting officer (who initiated the detention), or the jailor (who was maintaining the detention). Mr. Caddell opposed these motions on the merits, and he also moved to strike Jones' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that it was premature. The cause is technically before the Court on consideration of two separate Report and Recommendations (each an "R&R") that the Magistrate Judge filed in the matter. The Magistrate Judge issued the first Report and Recommendation on Feb. 12, 2020 ("First R&R"). There, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the Defendants' various motions to terminate this matter at the pleading stage. Defendants Joyce Campbell, Richard Jones, and the City of Fairfield each filed separate Objections to that R&R. But, while consideration of the First R&R was pending, the Magistrate Judge granted Caddell leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, technically mooting the First R&R and corresponding Objections. The Second Amended Complaint, however, merely added an additional plaintiff, and did not meaningfully change the underlying allegations. Thus, the Defendants essentially refiled the same motions that they had filed against the previous version of the Complaint. On Sept. 16, 2020, the Magistrate Judge, concluding that no new analysis was necessary, issued a short second Report and Recommendation ("Second R&R"). In the Second R&R, she adopted the reasoning of the First R&R as applied to the Second Amended Complaint. Because the Defendants' Objections to her analysis were already on file as to the First R&R, the Magistrate Judge also ordered no new objections be filed as to the Second R&R. Law and Analysis I. The Second R&R Correctly Dismissed The Defendants' Motions Regarding The First Amended Complaint As Moot. To start, Judge agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that the Plaintiffs' filing of a Second Amended Complaint moots the First R&R, as well as the motions that the First R&R addressed and the Defendants' related Objections. Accordingly, he adopts the Second R&R's recommendation that the Court finds the motions relating to the First Amended Complaint and the First R&R itself all to be moot. Thus, he dismisses as moot: (1) Defendants the City of Fairfield and Joyce Campbell's Motions to Dismiss; (2) Defendant Jones' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; (3) Plaintiff Caddell's Motion to Strike; and (4) the Defendants' Objections to the First R&R. But the Judge nonetheless considers the Defendants' Objections, as applied to the Second R&R, which adopts the reasoning of the First R&R. II. The Defendants' Instant Motions Opposing Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Advance The Same Arguments Regarding The First Amended Complaint And The First R&R. Each of the three Defendants sought dismissal of all claims against them as a matter of law. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying each of their motions. And each Defendant separately objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in that regard. Thus, Judge Cole considers each Defendant separately, but reaches the same conclusion as to all -- their Objections are not well taken at this stage of the litigation. A. The Court Denies Defendant Joyce Campbell's Motion To Dismiss. While it is not clear that Campbell's Objection meets that test as to any arguments other than qualified immunity, Judge Cole nonetheless considers each of the arguments for dismissal she asserted. These include whether: (1) "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this Court from reviewing Caddell's claims against Campbell; (2) Campbell "is entitled to absolute judicial immunity" regarding "her role in Caddell's underlying criminal case"; (3) Campbell should receive qualified immunity; and (4) Campbell "is entitled to qualified and sovereign immunity" for claims involving "her alleged policymaking role." Given the nature of the claims asserted, Judge Cole opines that none of those defenses work at this stage of the litigation. First, the Magistrate Judge correctly rejected Campbell's Rooker-Feldman argument because Caddell "is not seeking review of any judgment rendered by Judge Campbell." Second, Campbell has not established that judicial immunity bars Caddell's Section 1983 claim. Third, Judge Cole agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that Campbell's qualified immunity defense falls short, at least absent more facts about Campbell's responsibility for the alleged courthouse policy and details about the alleged customs and policies that gave rise to asserted County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991 violations for arrestees adjudicated by the Fairfield Municipal Court. Lastly, the Fairfield Municipal Court is an arm of the State, and thus an official-capacity claim against Judge Campbell (an employee of the State) for money damages would be an impermissible claim against the State. B. The Court Denies Defendant Richard Jones's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. Like Judge Campbell, Sheriff Jones also objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that Caddell's claims can proceed against him. According to Jones, Caddell cannot plead a Riverside claim against him, as the obligation under Riverside runs to the arresting officer, not the jailor. Accordingly, even if Jones has "customs or policies" in place that led to over-detention, Jones contends that he cannot be liable under Section 1983 for those policies, especially when someone not on his force was the arresting officer. Separately, he argues that even if a jailor could bear legal liability in that setting, it was not clearly established that a jailor could, and thus qualified immunity is warranted. Judge Cole disagrees. He agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Jones' theory that a sheriff cannot be liable for a Riverside violation is unavailing. He therefore denies Jones' Motion to the extent it argues that, as a jailor, he is not liable as a matter of law. To succeed on his qualified immunity defense, on the other hand, Jones must establish that Cadell failed to allege that Jones's "conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at the time," citing Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2016). Under that standard, the Judge finds that Caddell has alleged enough to proceed past the pleadings stage. C. The Court Denies Defendant The City Of Fairfield's Motion For Partial Judgment On The Pleadings. As with the other Defendants, the City of Fairfield's basic argument is that, as a matter of law, it cannot bear responsibility for the alleged Riverside violation. That is so, it claims, because the arresting officer was the City's agent (as the arrest record shows that it was Trooper York of the Ohio State Highway Patrol who arrested Caddell), nor is the City is not responsible for operating the Fairfield Municipal Courts (which is the court that provided Caddell's hearing). The Magistrate reached a contrary conclusion on that question, and Judge Cole agrees. As he did in response to the other Defendants' arguments, the Judge concludes that the City errs in asserting that, as a matter of law, only the arresting officer can bear responsibility for a Riverside violation. The violation does not arise from the arrest itself, but rather from the detention that follows after the arrest. The question, then, is which entity should bear responsibility for the length of that detention. It is not clear who decided where Caddell would be transported after arrest, nor who undertook that transport, nor what the municipality knew about the length of the detention that would follow from taking Caddell to the Butler County Jail (if it was in fact a municipal agent who made that decision pursuant to some official custom or policy). What is more, Caddell's operative Complaint squarely alleges that the City of Fairfield "employs policies or customs whereby the officers of its police forces transport certain individuals arrested without a warrant to the Butler County Jail. Based on these allegations, the City of Fairfield cannot show that Caddell's claims fail at the dismissal stage. Separately, the City of Fairfield argues that Sixth Circuit precedent requires finding, as a matter of law, that a municipality cannot be liable for a municipal court's conduct because those courts are arms of the State, and are thus shielded by the Eleventh Amendment. It cites Ward v. City of Norwalk, 640 F. App'x 462, 464 (6th Cir. 2016), for the proposition that a municipal court "is considered an arm of the state for the purposes of Section 1983." And the City of Fairfield faults the Magistrate for not applying that case. On this point, Judge Cole agrees with the City of Fairfield. In Ward, the Sixth Circuit followed Alkire to conclude that the Norwalk Municipal Court is an arm of the State of Ohio. Thus the City of Fairfield cannot be liable based on any customs or policies that the Fairfield Municipal Court adopted. Still, as noted, the City of Fairfield faces potential liability for the Fairfield Police Department's polices and customs. And that provides a separate, independent basis for municipal liability. Thus, Judge Cole ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the City of Fairfield is not entitled to dismissal. Conclusion Judge Cole adopts the Second R&R. Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; the Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings; the Defendants' Objections to the First R&R; and the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The City of Fairfield, however, is not responsible for actions taken by the Fairfield Municipal Court and thus cannot be found liable on that basis. The Judge denies the City of Fairfield's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it relates to municipal liability stemming from the Fairfield City Police Department's customs and policies. Finally, Defendants Campbell and Jones' Motions, as pertaining to qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, are denies, but without prejudice to the Defendants' ability to re-raise the immunity issues on a more fully developed factual record. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j4733ca7 from Leagle.com. OKONITE COMPANY: Court OKs Parrish Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walter Parrish v. The Okonite Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-09000-JFW-JC (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court says many of the issues raised by the Defendant are more appropriately raised on a motion for summary judgment (and should have been raised in a motion to dismiss), and do not justify a denial of the motion for class certification. The Court signs, as modified, the Plaintiff's Proposed Statement of Decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, lodged with the Court on May 20, 2021. On April 14, 2021, the Plaintiff Parrish filed a Motion for Class Certification. On April 26, 2021, the Defendant Okonite filed its Opposition. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matter was, therefore, removed from the Court's May 17, 2021 hearing calendar and the parties were given advance notice. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows: Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc. 253 F. 3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) have been satisfied. The Okonite Company is an American manufacturer of insulated wire and cable. A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RrXyHi at no extra charge.[CC] OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard P. Parducci, as conservator for and on behalf of Margarett Parducci and as Trustee of the JOHN A. PARDUCCI AND MARGARETT L. PARDUCCI SURVIVOR'S TRUST dated December 28, 1987, v. Overland Solutions, Inc., AMCO Insurance Company and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:18-cv-07162-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification, and related briefs, in this case, as follows: Current Date Proposed New Date Plaintiff's Motion for Class May 31, 2021 June 8, 2021 Certification (incl. disclosure of any supporting experts) Defendants' Response (incl. July 19, 2021 Aug. 3, 2021 disclosure of any opposing experts) Plaintiff's Reply Aug. 9, 2021 Aug. 24, 2021 Overland Solutions provides insurance underwriting support services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUiRuG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Attila Panczel, Esq. Joseph John Turri, Esq. INSURANCE LITIGATORS & COUNSELORS, PLC. 419-J Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Telephone: (707) 462-6117 Facsimile: (707) 230-5525 E-mail: insterminator@aol.com insterminator@aol.com - and - Lawrence G. Papale, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE 1308 Main Street, Suite 117 Saint Helena, CA 94574 Telephne: (707) 963-1704 E-mail: lgpapale@papalelaw.com - and - Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: cgipson@mtattorneys.com PETROBRAS COMPENSATION: Dutch Court Allows Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ On May 26, 2021, the District Court in Rotterdam ruled that Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation (SPCF or Foundation) has standing to pursue declaratory relief in the Netherlands on behalf of global investors who purchased shares on the Brasil Bolsa Balcao S.A. or B3 - Brazil (formerly BM&FBOVESPA) and linked markets in the European Union as well as certain bonds prior to July 28, 2015. The May 26 ruling effectively denies the Defendants' attempt to dismiss the litigation before having to argue the merits of the case. The litigation will now focus on the merits of the case and whether Petrobras violated applicable laws, thus causing damage to shareholders. In 2014 and 2015 it was revealed that, for many years, Petrobras made fraudulent and misleading statements to investors regarding (i) the company's books and records, (ii) the valuation of company assets, and (iii) the associated bribery and kickback schemes uncovered by Brazilian Federal law enforcement agencies in 2014 - the widely reported Lava Jato scandal. The key takeaways from the May 26 ruling in Rotterdam are: The Court rejects Petrobras Defendants' argument that Petrobras investors cannot seek relief in the Netherlands due to an arbitration clause in Petrobras' articles of association. The Court in Rotterdam takes particular issue with the disingenuous attempts by Petrobras to argue in the Netherlands that investors should pursue their rights through arbitration in Brazil whilst arguing in Brazilian arbitration that the same arbitration clause does not permit investors to seek relief through arbitration. The Court noted how a broad interpretation of the arbitration clause would result in the shareholders being denied access to an independent national court. The Court ruled that Petrobras investors who are currently actively engaged in arbitration proceedings or separate litigation for the same facts in Brazil or elsewhere are excluded from the global class of investors for whom the Foundation in the Netherlands litigates. The Court has set a date of September 1, 2021 for the Foundation to submit its further arguments and facts regarding the merits of the case and specifically the arguments that support the Foundation's allegations that Petrobras violated investors' rights under applicable securities laws. For more information on the May 26 ruling, please visit www.pbcompensation.com or send an e-mail to board@pbcompensation.com [GN] PFA INSURANCE: June 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: PFA INSURANCE MARKETING LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-03771-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Parties stipulate and ask Court issue an Order adjusting the schedule as to class certification as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline to File Opposition June 29, 2021 to Class Certification: Deadline to File Reply on July 23, 2021 Class Certification: Deadline for Hearing Motion August 24, 2021 for Class Certification: A copy of the Parties motion dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ilCGMS at no extra charge.[CC] The Interim Class Counsel are: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Sylvain Frayer, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sfrayer@girardsharp.com The Attorney for Defendant Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., is: Michael J. Hassen, Esq. REALLAW, APC 1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 359-7500 Facsimile: (925) 557-7690 E-mail: MJHassen@reallaw.us The Attorneys for the Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, are: Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq. Thomas A. Evans, Esq. Rachel Adi Naor, Esq. Tania L. Rice, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 560 Mission St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: bo.phillips@alston.com tom.evans@alston.com rachel.naor@alston.com tania.rice@alston.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners Slam Delay in Gun License Release -------------------------------------------------------------- Gun Owners of America Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Jack Breslow, Daniel Enden, Devon Pirestani, Sasson Aaron Soffer and Luke Sturgis, on behalf of themselves and the class of any person who has applied for a License to Carry Firearms in Philadelphia but has not yet received their license or a denial thereof, Plaintiffs v. City of Philadelphia and Commissioner Danielle M. Outlaw, Defendant, Defendants, Case No. 210502725 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, June 1, 2021), seek immediate relief from the City's refusal to timely issue licenses to carry firearms and further to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Philadelphia to "issue or refuse" all licenses within the 45 days pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1702, 1708, and 1709. According to the complaint, the City of Philadelphia refused to timely accept applications, but instead created an "appointment" process to allow applicants to drop off their one-page License to Carry Firearms applicant. After a Motion for Peremptory Judgment, the City and Commissioner Outlaw decided to accept applications via email, providing Plaintiffs the relief sought in the lawsuit. However, Defendants have now simply shifted their illegal process by, instead of making individuals wait months to drop-off their application, they are trying to make approved applicants wait months to pick-up their physical license, adds the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Austin, Esq. P.O. Box # 54628 Philadelphia, PA 19148 Tel: (610) 656-1956 Email: austin@stackhousegroup.com PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) investors that acquired shares between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021. Investors have until June 28, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click https://portnoylaw.com/pinterest/ to join the case. It is alleged in the complaint that during the Class Period, Pinterest made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was approaching its maximum capacity; (2) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (3) Pinterest's risk of losing advertising revenue was increasing; and (4) at all relevant times, Pinterest's public statements were materially misleading and false, or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts, as a result. On October 31, 2019, post-market, Pinterest reported its third quarter financial results for 2019. Pinterest reported disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S. year-over-year MAUs, which had reached 87 million, only 8 million more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed their expected US advertising revenue targets. Pinterest's guidance was only marginally increased, which implied further deceleration in future quarters. Pinterest's stock price fell approximately 17% on this news, to close at $20.86 per share on November 1, 2019, on unusually high trading value. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 28, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] PIZZA ON STONE: Oct. 1 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Velazquez, et al., v. Pizza on Stone, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09087-PGG-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the deadline for the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Class Certification Motion be extended to October 1, 2021. A copy of the Parties motion dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Sdm5jG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP www.fslawfirm.com 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 PORSCHE CARS: Court OKs Extension of Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL XU and DANIEL VAZ-POCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00510-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines: Previous New Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' motion for class June 11, 2021 Sept. 9, 2021 certification and defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual claims: The Defendant's response to Sept. 10, 2021 Dec. 9, 2021 plaintiffs' motion for class and plaintiffs' response to defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual claims: The Plaintiffs' reply brief Nov. 12, 2021 March 9, 2022 in support of motion for class certification and defendant's reply brief in Support of motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual claims: Porsche Cars North America Inc. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is headquartered in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fXArxZ at no extra charge.[CC] PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- tcpaworld.com reports that well the mortgage vertical is certainly in the plaintiff's bar's crosshairs these days. As we've been reporting, a string of new class actions have been filed targeting the practices of mortgage lenders with respect to their marketing text message campaigns. In the latest such suit - this one against Premier Mortgage, LLC - the Plaintiff claim she was texted 9 times after advising the lender she was not interested in any mortgage products. She also contends she never solicited information about a mortgage to begin with. This is true (allegedly) although her number was on the DNC list. Notably the complaint seeks recovery for both DNC violations and for violations of the TCPA's ATDS provisions–Plaintiff alleges an ATDS was used with the ability to store numbers using a R&SNG. We'll see how those allegations hold up. The Plaintiff seeks to represent three classes: Robocalling Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received one or more telemarketing call on their cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing, made via the same system(s) used to call the Plaintiffs. Policy Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received two or more telemarketing call on their residential landline or cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing. National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received two or more telemarketing call on their residential landline or cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing to a telephone number that was registered with the NDNCR for more than 30 days at the time of each call. The case is brought by the ever-dangerous Avi Kaufman AND the original Wolf of TCPAWorld, Anthony Paronich. [GN] PROMPT NURSING: Judge Awards $1.56 Million in Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ staffingindustry.com reports that a federal judge in New York ruled in a class action lawsuit that staffing firm Prompt Nursing Employment Agency LLC, which does business as Sentosa Services, and owner Berish Rubenstein must pay $1.56 million in compensatory damages plus interest for breach of contract to a group of nurses from the Philippines, according to court records. Judge Nina Gershon previously found Prompt Nursing and Rubenstein liable for breach of contract in September 2019 for failing to pay the nurses a base salary in accordance with the prevailing wage. The judge also found the company, Rubenstein and other defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Prompt Nursing brought the nurses to the US from the Philippines under a contract that would have charged the nurses $25,000. In addition to the breach of contract, the judge ruled the company, Rubenstein and other defendants liable for $1.56 million plus interest for violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. However, class members may recover damages from breach of contract or violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, but not both. Also, the judge did not rule in favor of punitive damages, instead allowing the question to go to trial. The Philippines Star newspaper reported the suit was brought by Rose Ann Paguirigan in March 2017 and included more than 200 nurses recruited in the Philippines to work at nursing homes in New York. It reported Paguirigan presented evidence the nurses were not paid the prevailing wages promised in employment contracts. In addition, she presented evidence that nursing homes and recruiters used threats of serious harm to keep nurses from leaving, including the $25,000 termination fee.[GN] PURECYCLE TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle") (NASDAQ: PCT) between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16522&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. PureCycle Technologies, Inc. NEWS - PCT NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (iii) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in PureCycle, you have until July 12, 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. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased PureCycle securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16522&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. [GN] PURELY ELIZABETH: Meraz Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels ---------------------------------------------------------- ALONDRA MERAZ and SHARYN BUKSBAUM, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PURELY ELIZABETH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-04091-LB (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) seeks redress for the Defendant's deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of its Purely Elizabeth oats, bread and muffin mixes, oatmeal, pancake and waffle mixes, and granola, in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising, Business and Professions Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently labels on the front of their product packages that the products provide specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as "7 protein" on the label of its Vanilla Pecan Collagen Protein Oats. Consumers like Plaintiffs, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will provide the actual amount of protein per serving. In truth, however, the products do not deliver the amount of protein that the labels claim. Based on amino acid content testing, the products allegedly contain up to 25% less protein than claimed, meaning, for example, rather than having 7 grams of protein per serving, the Vanilla Pecan Collagen Protein Oats product actually has only 6 grams. The products prominently make protein content claims but fail to provide the required percent daily value of protein in the nutrition facts panel, the suit added. Purely Elizabeth LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells in the United States a variety of consumer food products under the brand name "Purely Elizabeth," including oats, oatmeal, pancake and waffle mixes, and granola.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA SCHATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUAPAW HOUSE, INC.; CASEY BRIGHT, Case. No. 5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class of: "all Putative Plaintiffs who were employees of Quapaw House, Inc. and/or Casey Bright since January 1, 2020 who suffered nonpayment of wages upon and subsequent to termination and improper deductions from select wages actually paid." Quapaw House is a hospital & health care company. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George M. Rozzell IV, Esq. Kristin Pawlik, Esq. MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC 112 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 621-0006 E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com kpawlik@arkattorneys.com ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Order to 1st Circuit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff JIMMY SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jimmy Smith, Plaintiff v. American Bar Association, Roger Williams Law School, United States Department of Education, Francis X Flaherty, Jared Goldstein, Jonathan Gutoff, Jenna Wims Hashway, Olivia Milonas, Tanya Monesteir, William E. Smith, Michael Yelonsky, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00133-PJB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2021, the lawsuit arose after Roger Williams Law School (RWU) purposely gave the Plaintiff unfair hearing and edited the Zoom hearing video so that his rights on appeal were not as live. According to the complaint, RWU Law's Honor Board Process is supposed to be confidential but RWU either through indifference or purposeful action can never keep it secret. As the only law school in the state, they have a duty to make sure their hearings are fair and information is not leaked. Mr. Smith says that Roger Williams did not provide a fair hearing to him during the honor board process and subjected him to expulsion without an adequate opportunity to defend himself. His complaints were dismissed arbitrarily. He adds that RWU Law has failed to recruit and hire adequate racial minority faculty and the U.S. Department of Education and American Bar Association should never have funded them after the "Ralph Pappito incident." The OCR investigation procedure is discriminatory on its face, he said. Persons with certain disabilities cannot possibly file a complaint, says the suit. The Plaintiff now appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from a TEXT ORDER as fully given by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which states that "All pending motions are denied without prejudice. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge who shall hold a status conference and establish a schedule for the filing of pretrial motions." The appellate case is captioned as Smith v. Roger Williams Law School, et al., Case No. 21-1435, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 30, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JIMMY SMITH, of Bristol, Rhode Island, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW and US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION are represented by: Steven M. Richard, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 1 Citizens Plaza, 5th Flr. Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 454-1000 E-mail: srichard@nixonpeabody.com - and - Lauren S. Zurier, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Flr. Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 709-5030 ROMEO POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming June 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Romeo Power Inc. f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp. ("Romeo" or the "Company") (NYSE: RMO) securities between October 5, 2020 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Romeo investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/romeo-power-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 30, 2021, Romeo announced that, as a result of a significant supply shortage of battery cells, its fiscal 2021 revenue guidance would be reduced by 71-87%. During a related conference call, the Company revealed that it relied solely on Samsung and LG for its supply of power cells, not four different cell suppliers as Romeo had previously stated. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.04 per share, or 19.7%, to close at $8.33 per share on March 31, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Romeo Power had only two battery cell suppliers, not four; (2) the future potential risks that defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo Power's business, operations and business prospects; (3) Romeo Power did not have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021; (4) Romeo Power's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo Power's revenue growth; and (5) Romeo Power's supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021 inventory; and (6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Romeo securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 15, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] SCRIPPS HEALTH: Garcia Slams Negligent Storage of Patient Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Garcia, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Scripps Health and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00024103 (Cal. Super, June 1, 2021), seeks injunctive relief for unlawful violations of Business and Professions Code and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Scripps Health is a health care provider in San Diego, California. Garcia was a patient of Scripps Health which held his individual identifiable medical information in electronic form including but not limited to his medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment, including diagnosis and treatment dates. On May 1, 2021, Defendant negligently created, maintained, preserved and stored patients' confidential, individual identifiable medical information in a non-encrypted form, thus making it susceptible to hackers, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 - and - Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Fax: (760) 929-9260 Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com - and - Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR. P.O. Box 999 Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 Telephone: (760) 753-311 Fax: (760) 753-3206 SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) investors that acquired shares between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021. Investors have until July 7, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that Skillz made misleading and false statements to the market. The majority of Skillz's revenue was comprised of three games in particular that had suffered from a significant decline. Skillz's financial condition was misrepresented by its revenue recognition policy. Skillz's growth projections, particularly with respect to the Android market, were unrealistic. Skillz's public statements were materially misleading and false throughout the class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about Skillz. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Skillz Inc.") (NYSE: SKLZ) between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021. If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=16327&wire=5 Allegations against SKLZ include that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: representations relating to certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its revenue, and the Company's valuation. For example, one of the Company's objectively unrealistic promises included the unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at $3.5 billon, based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million for 2022. However, the Company failed to inform investors that downloads of the games that account for a majority share of its revenue have been declining since at least November 2020. In reality, the Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale was far from realistic given its size, market share, reliance on thirdparty app stores, declining downloads of its most popular games and, critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus Payments that Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a fact that investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are routinely provided to its customers, who are expected to use them for game entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz revenue. If you suffered a loss in Skillz Inc. you have until July 7, 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. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Owners Face Class Suit Over Unsafe Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Magnarelli at wrvo.org tenants of the Skyline Apartments in Syracuse have filed a class-action lawsuit in Onondaga County Supreme Court against the building owner for unsafe and unsanitary conditions, which has been going on for years. If the lawsuit moves forward, hundreds of current and former tenants could receive compensation and punitive damages. Joe Maslak, an attorney with Legal Services of Central New York, said since former NFL star Tim Green and his son Troy purchased the once-desirable building in 2016, dangerous and unclean conditions have been allowed to exist, like stairwells and common areas with blood, human waste and discarded hypodermic needles. Elevators in the 12-story building, have been in and out of operation. Safety is a huge concern. "Trespassers have been permitted to access that building with impunity for several years, victimizing the tenants of that building and leaving them, quite frankly, in fear for their lives every day," Maslak said. "We got together with a handful of tenants and on their behalf, we filed this class-action lawsuit seeking to hold the Greens accountable for allowing those conditions to exist for as long as they have." Maslak said they're seeking a refund of rent paid to compensate for the conditions. "They paid for something they didn't get," he said. "They paid for clean, safe housing, they got something very, very different." They're also seeking punitive damages based on the egregious nature of the conditions. Maslak said there needs to be accountability for landlords in the city who prioritize profit over safe, clean and habitable housing. The Greens now have a timeframe to file an answer to the lawsuit. Last month, Skyline tenants described to city officials the dangerous conditions that continue to persist at the property. The City of Syracuse served Skyline with a nuisance abatement notice in March, following the burglary and murder of a 93-year-old woman. [GN] SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Property Owners Hit With New City Orders ------------------------------------------------------------ Hayley Foran and Lacey Leonardi Syracuse at spectrumlocalnews.com reports that city of Syracuse has extended a nuisance abatement order on the Skyline Apartments for one year, including a request for improved safety and security measures, according to a press release from Mayor Ben Walsh's office. The extension, outlined in a six-page order signed by Syracuse Police Chief Kenton Buckner, will require that the property owners report complaints and safety incidents, as well as the installation of security cameras, upgraded security locks and alarm systems on the doors and the introduction of onsite security comprised of three security guards stationed at the main entrances 24 hours a day, seven days a week. "I strongly support Chief Buckner's order. With additional input from residents, we've placed new requirements on the property owner that will make Skyline Apartments a better place to live for the hundreds of people who call it home," said Mayor Walsh. "Ultimately, it is up to Green Skyline to live up to the duties of a responsible property owner. The City will continue to monitor and enforce these requirements to ensure Green Skyline does its job." In addition to the new orders from the city, a class action lawsuit against Tim and Troy Green and Skyline Apartments has been filed in Supreme Court. Tenants represented by attorneys from Legal Services of Central New York filed the complaint this week. The complaint alleges many residents of the 364-unit building have low incomes and many are disabled or senior citizens. They say the building has a lack of security and cameras, adding that tenants are too scared to leave their apartments due to trespassers that may assault or rob them. The complaint supports their allegations by citing drug arrests, rapes and the murder of 93-year-old Connie Tuori in her Skyline apartment earlier this year. The filing alleges the Greens have failed to maintain the building and the property is unsafe and not sanitary, including drug paraphernalia and human waste left in stairwells by non-tenants. The Supreme Court clerks office says neither a judge nor a court date have not been assigned to this case yet. The city of Syracuse codes violation case against Green-Skyline will be in State Supreme Court later this month. [GN] STATE AUTO: Planet Sub Appeals Ruling in Insurance Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc., 1 Thirty Nine, Inc., and 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00577-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31, 2020, the lawsuit arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance coverage for the losses sustained and expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs because of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. The Plaintiffs have been prevented from operating their dining rooms and were restricted to carry out or delivery services due to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the infectious disease COVID-19, according to the complaint. To protect their business in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from the Defendant, including property coverage, as set forth in State Auto's Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form BP002 (12/99). The Defendant has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities that have required the limitation of normal business operations, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. In particular, the Defendant has denied claims submitted by the Plaintiffs under their policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment dated May 19, 2021, granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The appellate case is captioned as Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., et al. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Company, Inc., Case No. 21-2199, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before July 7, 2021; -- Appendix is due on July 19, 2021; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, 1 Thirty-Nine, Inc., 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc., Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc. and Planet Sub Holdings, Inc. is due on July 19, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; 1 Thirty-Nine, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Erin D. Lawrence, Esq. Jeremy Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC. 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com erin@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com - and - Todd Michael Johnson, Esq. VOTAVA & NANTZ 9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 240 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 895-8800 E-mail: tjohnson@vnjlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112-0000 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: trottinghaus@wcllp.com - and - Amber J. Simon, Esq. Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, Esq. POLSINELLI, PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112-1895 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 E-mail: asimon@polsinelli.com ltucker@polsinelli.com Defendant-Appellee State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. is represented by: Elise D. Allen, Esq. David J. Buishas, Esq. Adam H. Fleischer, Esq. BATES & CAREY 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606-0000 E-mail: eallen@batescarey.com dbuishas@batescarey.com afleischer@batescarey.com - and - Nicholas Anthony Cammarata, Esq. Patrick J. Kenny, Esq. Clark H. Cole, Esq. ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 621-5070 E-mail: ncammarata@atllp.com pkenny@atllp.com pkenny@atllp.com SUMMER WWK: Film Production Crew Members Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY BRENNAN; KYLE COLEMAN; CARYN FRANKENFIELD; FRANK GALLINE; JOHN A. JOHNSTON; DAWN SNYDER; FREDRICK WAFF; CORY GERYAK; and SARA RINEY; individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. SUMMER WWK LLC; HL WOODS, also known as HOWARD WOODS; and CHERELLE GEORGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order 1. conditionally certifying a putative class of: "film production crew members who worked for the Defendants Summer WWK LLC, HL Woods, also known as Howard Woods, and Cherelle George on the motion picture "Summer When We Were Kings;" 2. authorizing the Plaintiffs to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees; 3. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the film production crew contact information so that they may be notified of the lawsuit; 4. authorizing notice through first-class mail and email, a 90 day notice period, with a 45 day reminder notice to those who have not responded; 5. approving that Notice be provided to the collective class; and 6. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Opt-In Consent Form. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uTIz6R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq. James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq. STANFORD FAGAN LLC 2540 Lakewood Avenue SW Atlanta, GA 30315 Telephone: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244 E-mail: michaels@sfglawyers.com jfagan@sfglawyers.com - and - Robert S. Giolito, Esq. ROBERT S. GIOLITO PC 1626 Montana Ave., Ste 201 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 897-1082 E-mail: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com TESLA INC: Seeking to Transfer Suit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Shalvey at businessinsider.com reports that Tesla's lawyers said they would ask a Pennsylvania court to transfer a class-action complaint over Solar Roof price hikes to California, where similar complaints have been filed. Otherwise, the company would seek arbitration. The Pennsylvania complaint -- filed in late April by Philip Dahlin and Mary Arndtsen -- said Tesla unilaterally increased the price of the couple's Solar Roof project by more than $30,000 after they'd signed a contract. Two similar complaints seeking class-action status were filed in May in US District Court in California. Customers across the US said the company increased the price of their roofing projects by as much as 70%. A California judge was set to decide whether to combine the two local complaints into a single lawsuit, which may then be certified as a class action. Tesla's lawyers on Wednesday said that "any discussion of a potential class settlement would be premature and complicated by the highly individualized circumstances at issue" for each customer. Insider has reached out to Tesla and its lawyers for additional comment. Lawyers from both sides of the Pennsylvania case met on Tuesday. They agreed that Tesla would ask a judge next week to decide whether to transfer the case, according to a joint court filing. Without a transfer, Tesla said it would ask the court to send the complaint to arbitration, since there was an arbitration clause in the couple's contract. "The parties have conferred and agreed that Tesla will file a motion addressing these issues on June 8, 2021," the filing said. Tesla's Solar Roof contract arbitration clause "almost certainly forestalls this class action under current Supreme Court precedent," Gregory Klass, associate dean and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told Insider last month. In the original complaint, Peter Muhic, of LeVan Muhic Stapleton, wrote that the arbitration clause would be struck down as invalid under Pennsylvania law, in part because of the way it had been formatted on the page. He wrote that the clause also "does not contain a separate line for each party to indicate assent." Tesla's lawyers — Michael G. Rhodes, Whitty Somvichian, and Danielle Pierre of Cooley LLP — said in Wednesday's filing that the Federal Arbitration Act would compel the parties into arbitration. That law would supersede the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act, a Pennsylvania law, which was cited in the complaint, the lawyers said. Muhic and co-counsel on Wednesday wrote that the Pennsylvania law includes "important consumer safeguards and requirements for an arbitration clause to be valid in a home improvement contract in Pennsylvania." They added: "Tesla's contract wholly fails to comply with the requirements, rendering its arbitration clause invalid." Tesla's lawyers also said the company disputes the "characterization of the facts" as they're laid out in the Pennsylvania complaint. Solar Roof customers could appeal directly to the company, it said. "Some customers have already availed themselves of that process, and Tesla remains willing to consider individualized requests from plaintiffs or other customers based on customers' unique circumstances," the attorneys wrote. [GN] TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Court Tosses 10 Class Suits, Including Nguyen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, dismisses the cases, JENNIFER B. NGUYEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. WADE K. MARLER DDC, et al., Plaintiffs v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. PACIFIC ENDODONTICS PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MARIO D CHORAK DMD PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MARK GERMACK DDS, Plaintiff v. DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. KARA McCULLOCH DMD MSD PLLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ASPEN LODGING GROUP LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. VITA COFFEE LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC, Plaintiff v. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, Defendant. CARLOS O CABALLERO DDS, MS, PS, et al. v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:20-cv-00597-BJR, 2:20-cv-00616-BJR, 2:20-cv-00620-BJR, 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, 2:20-cv-00661-BJR, 2:20-cv-00809-BJR, 2:20-cv-01038-BJR, 2:20-cv-01079-BJR, 2:20-cv-01176-BJR, 3:20-cv-05437-BJR (W.D. Wash.). Before the Court are the consolidated actions of hundreds of businesses from across Western Washington State who have turned to their insurance policies to cover lost income stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the numerous cases being filed, and the commonality of their claims, the District assigned all such matters to Judge Rothstein, who ordered consolidation and coordinated briefing on dispositive motions. The COVID-19 is a viral illness that has reached pandemic proportions throughout the world. In Washington State, the Governor responded to the pandemic caused by COVID-19's spread by issuing a series of Proclamations declaring a state of emergency and severely limiting, or closing, businesses, schools, and public gatherings. All types of businesses were affected, including dentists (Germack v. Dentists Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00661), restaurants (La Cocina de Oaxaca LLC v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., Compl., No. 20-cv-01176), law firms (Owen Davies, P.S. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. 20-cv-06155), barbershops (J Bells, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., 20-cv-05820), the Symphony (Seattle Symphony Orchestra v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01252), and even the Courthouse itself (COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and Court Operations, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON), https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/node/614 (last visited May 28, 2021). Impacted businesses also span the jurisdiction of the Western District of Washington (e.g., Mikkelson v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05378 (Olympia); Prato v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., No. 20-cv-05402 (Tacoma); Caballero v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05437 (Bremerton); Vancouver Clinic Inc. P.S. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05605 (Vancouver); Canlis Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 21-cv-00373 (Seattle). In response to severe limitations on their operations, many businesses turned to their insurance policies to recover lost wages and reduced income. This is a common story across the country as similar governmental restrictions designed to prevent the spread of the disease constricted access to every form of operation. Near uniformly, insurance companies denied the claims. Based primarily on the reasoning that COVID-19, as a virus, does not cause harm to or loss of physical property, insurance companies across the United States have denied businesses' claims for lost income pursuant to their all-risk business insurance policies. Many insurance companies also denied coverage based on the exclusion clauses. In response, the businesses filed suit. The lawsuits before the Court advance some combination of six separate causes of action. These include (1) Declaratory Relief seeking a determination that the businesses' losses and expenses resulting from interruption of business are covered by the businesses' policies; (2) Breach of Contract based on the insurance companies' denials of coverage; (3) Insurance Bad Faith or Failure to Act in Good Faith based on the claim that the insurance companies unreasonably denied coverage or failed to reasonably investigate the businesses' claims; (4) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Action ("WCPA"), WASH. REV. CODE Section 19.86, et seq.; (5) violation of the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act ("IFCA"), WASH. REV. CODE Section 48.30.015; and (6) Negligence. All of the Complaints before the Court advance at least the first two foregoing causes of action, which the Court will refer to as the "Contractual Claims" as they involve allegations related to the insurance contracts themselves. The "Extra-Contractual Claims," or the other four causes of action, generally address the propriety of the insurance companies' conduct in denying coverage. Additionally, some of the Complaints advance class action allegations seeking to represent similarly situated plaintiffs across the State and country, e.g., Cascadia Dental Specialists, Inc. v. Am. Fire and Cas. Co., Compl., No. 20-cv-00732, while others include only the individually named plaintiff, e.g., Strelow v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., Compl. No. 20-cv-00797. As mentioned previously, these lawsuits are prevalent across the country. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied consolidation in an order dated Aug. 12, 2020 (In re COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Prot. Ins. Litig., 482 F.Supp.3d 1360 (J.P.M.L. 2020). The University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School's COVID Coverage Litigation Tracker ("CCLT") has been monitoring the number of similar cases filed, and their outcomes. As of the date of the Order, the CCLT has tracked at least 1,766 similar cases filed in federal or state court. Of those cases which have published rulings on dispositive motions similar to those before the Court, the majority have granted dismissal, finding no coverage. The cases before the Court were transferred to Judge Rothstein on an ad hoc, one-by-one basis as they were filed. On Sept. 29, 2020, the Court published its First Scheduling Order directing all of the parties to meet and confer to discuss the commonalities in their cases and whether consolidation was possible. It held a hearing on consolidation on Nov. 9, 2020. Subsequently, the Court -- with the cooperation of the Parties -- issued a series of orders consolidating all the matters before it to date into the ten consolidated actions currently before the Court. Each consolidated action represents one group of affiliated insurance companies. The 10 cases are as follows: (i) Aspen Lodging Group LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01038 (Affiliated FM Insurance Company); (ii) Marler v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00616 (Aspen American Insurance Company); (iii) McCulloch v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00809 (CNA Financial Corporation); (iv) Vita Coffee LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01079 (Fireman's Fund Insurance Company); (v) Caballero v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05437 (The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.); (vi) Chorak v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00627 (The Hartford Financial Services Group); (vii) Pacific Endodontics PS v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00620 (Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc.); (viii) Germack v. Dentists Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00661 (The Dentists Insurance Company); (ix) Nguyen v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-00597 (The Travelers Companies, Inc.); and (x) La Cocina de Oaxaca LLC v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., No. 20-cv-01176 (Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota). Each Defendant insurance group filed at least one dispositive motion (either a Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or Motion for Summary Judgment) or adopted a dispositive motion already pending in a pre-consolidation case filed against them. In opposition to the dispositive motions, the Plaintiffs in seven of the ten consolidated cases chose to file the same Omnibus Response in each of their cases, jointly addressing the common issues present in all of their cases. The Defendants in those seven cases, in turn, filed an Omnibus Reply. The other cases which did not file the omnibus briefing followed the same timeline as the omnibus group but chose to file individual responses and replies. Discussion Judge Rothstein holds that most of the cases currently before her have not conducted discovery. The Court stayed all discovery at the request of the Parties in most of the cases pending consideration of the dispositive motions. Based on the lack of discovery, and the fact that the Court directed the Parties to address largely issues of law in their dispositive motions concerning coverage and exclusions, the Judge evaluates all of the Motions according to the FRCP 12(b) and 12(c) standard and consider only the evidence appropriate to those types of motions. She divides the remainder of the Order into two sections. The first examines applicable questions of coverage and exclusions based on the common terms contained in all the insurance policies at issue. The Judge then proceeds to apply its general findings to the specific cases at issue, addressing any unique aspects of those cases. A. General Coverage Provisions All the insurance policies at issue require some form of the phrase "direct physical loss of or damage to" covered property to trigger coverage in the first instance. The Plaintiffs urge the Court to follow these two state court decisions and find that the term is ambiguous and, therefore, coverage exists. In doing so, theys rely heavily on the courts' opinions in Perry Street and Hill and Stout. The Defendants, on the other hand, argue the requirement for direct physical loss or damage is clear, unambiguous, and does not provide coverage for COVID-19-related losses. They further argue that Washington appellate precedent aligns with this interpretation, and that Perry Street and Hill and Stout were wrongly decided. Therefore, the Defendants urge the Court to follow the now overwhelming majority of courts who have found no coverage. Judge Rothstein determines the meaning of the term "direct physical loss of" as well as the term "direct physical damage to" the insured property. She concludes that COVID-19 does not cause direct physical damage to property as the term is used in the insurance policies. Given her conclusion that COVID-19 does not cause physical harm or damage to non-organic surfaces, the Judge finds that the pleading of actual presence is immaterial. She joins the numerous courts across the country that have held that COVID-19 does not trigger direct physical loss or damage. B. Extensions Almost all the Plaintiffs argue that, should the Court find that the general coverage provisions do not afford them coverage in the COVID-19 situation, it should look to the extension provisions contained in their insurance contracts for independent coverage grounds. The Plaintiffs contend the following provisions provide coverage: (i) Business Income, Extra Expense, and Extended Business Income Provisions and (ii) Civil Authority Provisions. With respect to the first provisions asserted, Judge Rothstein holds that none of the extension provisions which define the benefits an insured is entitled offer coverage as they rely on an initial trigger of the general coverage provision discussed. Often, these extension provisions themselves explicitly incorporate the requirement for physical loss or damage. As to the second provisions contended, the Judge finds that the Civil Authority provisions do not provide coverage in these circumstances. C. Exclusions While Judge Rothstein's decision that the term "physical loss or damage" does not provide coverage in the case of COVID-19 is determinative, the Parties expend extensive time contesting the applicability of the Virus exclusion contained in many of their policies. The Judge holds that the underlying facts are undisputed and the line of causation is clear: COVID-19 caused the Governor to issue the Proclamations, which forced the Plaintiffs to curtail their business operations. Where a policy includes a Virus exclusion, that exclusion also bars coverage for the losses alleged in the case. D. Extra-Contractual Claims Judge Rosthstein's holding construing the terms of the insurance policies resolves the Plaintiffs' Contractual Claims (i.e. their causes of action based on Declaratory Judgment and Breach of Contract). She has determined the meaning of the terms in question and established that the Defendants did not breach the terms of their insurance contracts by denying coverage. The Parties debate, however, whether the Plaintiffs' Extra-Contractual Claims (i.e., their causes of action based on Bad Faith, WCPA, IFCA, and Negligence) can survive absent a finding of coverage. The Judge determines that the Plaintiffs have largely failed to plead acts independent of unreasonable denial of coverage or investigation. Without independent grounds, which they have failed to allege, dismissal of their Extra-Contractual Claims is appropriate. E. Leave to Amend In the present cases, Judge Rothstein concludes that amendment would be futile. As COVID-19 does not cause direct physical loss of covered property, and such loss is required to trigger coverage, there is no way that the Plaintiffs can amend their complaints to cure this deficiency. As such, she denies the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. II. Individual Cases Judge Rothstein now applies her findings to the 10 consolidated cases, listed by Defendant insurance company. While she is sympathetic to the plight of businesses in this difficult time, today she joins the majority of those courts around the country who have addressed similar claims and finds that the businesses in question are not entitled to coverage under their insurance policies. Like the overwhelming consensus that has formed, the Judge determines that COVID-19 does not cause the physical loss or damage to property required as a condition precedent to trigger coverage in all the relevant policies. Order Based on the foregoing, Judge Rothstein she grants the motions for dismissal before her in accordance with the following: A. ASPEN LODGING GROUP LLC V. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-01038: 1. Vancouver Clinic's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 33, is denied. 2. Vancouver Clinic's Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 35, is denied as moot. 3. Affiliated FM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Vancouver Clinic, Dkt. No. 36, is granted. 4. Affiliated FM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Aspen Lodging, Dkt. No. 39, is granted. 5. Aspen Lodging's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 42, is denied. 6. Aspen Lodging's Motion for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 44, is denied as moot. 7. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. B. MARLER V. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00616: 1. Aspen American's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Tabaraie Complaint, Dkt. No. 51, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. C. McCULLOCH V. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00809: 1. CNA's Motion to Dismiss Complaints, Dkt. No. 50, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. D. VITA COFFEE LLC V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-01079: 1. Fireman's Fund's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is granted. 2. United Policyholders, National Independent Venue Association, and Washington Hospitality Association's Motion for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae in Support of Vita Coffee's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, is denied as moot. 3. Fireman's Fund's Consolidated Motion to Dismiss the Complaints of Worthy Hotels, Inc. and Naccarato Restaurant Group, Inc., Dkt. No. 41, is granted. 4. Fireman's Fund's Motion to Dismiss Weimac LLC's Complaint, Dkt. No. 51, is granted. 5. The matter is Ddismissed with Prejudice. E. CABALLERO V. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-05437: 1. Massachusetts Bay's Rule 12 Motions against Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 56, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. F. CHORAK V. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00627: 1. Hartford's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 56, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. G. PACIFIC ENDODONTICS PS V. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00620: 1. Liberty Mutual's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 46, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. H. GERMACK V. DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00661: 1. Dentists' Motion to Strike and Dismiss all Class Action Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, is denied as MOOT. 2. Dentists' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 35, is granted. 3. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. I. NGUYEN V. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, No. 20-cv-00597: 1. Travelers' Revised Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 53, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. J. LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC V. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, No. 20-cv-01176: 1. Tri-State's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Dkt. No. 45, is granted. 2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/96nvxz9y from Leagle.com. UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL: Judge Signs Class Action Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honourable Justice Glustein signed the Flight PS752 Class Action certification order for the class action arising from the downing of UIA Flight PS752. On January 8, 2020, UIA Flight PS752 was shot down moments after takeoff from Iran on its way to Canada via Ukraine. There were no survivors. Flight PS752 Class Action certified by the Court. The class action is on behalf of the passengers and the passengers' families. It alleges the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively the Iran Defendants) and Ukraine International Airlines PJSC (UIA) are legally responsible for the downing of Flight PS752. Previously, the Court found the class action is "the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues in an action and provides a fair, efficient, and manageable method for advancing the class members' claims." "We are grateful the court made another order in our favour" said representative plaintiff Vahid Hezarkhani, whose sister-in-law and brother-in-law were on Flight PS752. "This is another major litigation milestone as we prosecute the class action for the passengers and their families. We will continue to work with the various stakeholders as we seek justice and compensation" said Tom Arndt, of TWA Law, class counsel representing the class members. The class action was commenced January 20, 2020. In September 2020 the court approved the third-party litigation funding agreement with Galactic Litigation Funders. In November 2020, the court determined that the Class Action and TWA Law were the best class action and best law firm positioned to advance the interests of the victims and their families, permitting this class action to go forward, staying similar actions commenced by other counsel. Formal notice of certification will be published shortly. Class Members and interested individuals are encouraged to consult the case specific website regarding progress of the litigation: www.flightps752.ca [GN] UNIFIED SECURITY: Facing COVID-19 Class Action Over Liquidation --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Cooper at theage.com.au reports that the company that provided security at the Melbourne hotel central to last year's COVID-19 second wave has gone into liquidation while facing a class action over its role in the outbreak. Unified Security Group is the first defendant in a class action brought by lead plaintiff Dragan Markovic, whose father Nenad contracted COVID-19 in a nursing home and died in hospital in August. Health records indicated Nenad Markovic contracted a strain of coronavirus that originated at the Rydges on Swanston hotel, the Supreme Court heard. But Unified, which provided security at Rydges, had recently gone into liquidation, a directions hearing was told. Ninety per cent of cases during last year's second wave in Victoria originated from leakages at Rydges. MSS Security, which provided security at the Stamford Plaza hotel, is also named in the lawsuit. The inquiry into Victoria's bungled hotel quarantine system found 99 per cent of COVID-19 cases during the second wave were traced to returned travellers staying at the hotels, through leakages that became community transmissions. More than 800 people died during the second wave, the vast majority of them residents in aged care homes. Barrister Andrew Fraatz, acting for Dragan Markovic and other plaintiffs, said the class action was "in a state of flux" following Unified's liquidation. However, he was hopeful the case would proceed because of the company's insurance. "I'm on safe ground in saying the contract between the state of Victoria and Unified did require insurance: professional indemnity and public liability insurance," he said. "It's a safe bet that there is insurance there." Mr Fraatz said his clients needed a few weeks to consider their position following the development. "We need some time to shake the tree and see what the position is," he said. A lawyer who was acting for Unified was on Friday excused from the hearing because he did not have instructions from the company's liquidators. Anna Robertson, acting for MSS Security, told the court there were deficiencies in the plaintiffs' case as she didn't yet know how it was alleged there was an infection from Stamford Plaza which led to community transmissions. Justice John Dixon ordered the case return to court on July 12. The case is one of three Victorian class actions arising out of last year's second wave. The other two - one from businesses and the other from individuals who lost their jobs - focus on economic losses caused by last year's lockdowns. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Scott Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCOTT, JEREMY CERDA, OSMAN AK, MERUDH PATEL, GREGORY HARDY, and LARRY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORMER WARDEN HERMAN E. QUAY, FACILITIES MANAGER JOHN MAFFEO, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:19-cv-05039-ERK-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edward R. Korman entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all those people who were confined in the Metropolitan Detention Center's West Building from January 27, 2019 until February 3, 2019, and who have or will in the future have satisfied the exhaustion requirement imposed by 28 U.S.C. section 2675;" and 2. appointing class counsel in light of the work they have already done on this case, as well as their experience, knowledge, and resources. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed class is ascertainable and complies with the Rule 23(a) prerequisites. They have also shown compliance with the requirements to maintain a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), says Judge Korman. The Plaintiffs brought this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action for negligence on behalf of a putative class of persons incarcerated at the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) facility in Brooklyn during a power outage. The complaint alleged that on January 27, 2019, during a period of severe winter weather, the West Building at the MDC lost power because of an electrical fire. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Slams Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------- Shane Lavin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Michael A. Colglazier, George Whitesides, Doug Ahrens and Jon Campagna, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03070, (E.D. N.Y., May 28, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the U.S. On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed via a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp., a special purpose acquisition company and its then-private predecessor, after which Social Capital Hedosophia (SCH) changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities, and Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. As a result, the company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the merger, says the complaint. On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 2021. Gavin acquired Virgin Galactic securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com VOLVO GROUP: Court Tosses FLSA Collective Action Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORETHA COTTON-THOMAS, Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00113-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Glen H. Davidson entered an order that: 1. the Plaintiffs motion seeking to have the Court certify this case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act is denied; 2. the putative class members' claims shall be dismissed without prejudice; and 3. the individual claims of the named Plaintiff, Loretha Cotton- Thomas, shall procced. Volvo manufactures automobiles. The Company offers heavy trucks, engines, and auto parts and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vZxwuf at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON PRIME: Schall Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Washington Prime Group Inc. ("WPG" or "the Company") (NYSE: WPG) for violations of Sec10(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 November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 23, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://schallfirm.com/cases/washington-prime-group-inc/#case-form to participate. 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. WPG suffered from a substantially deteriorating financial condition. The Company's worsening financial condition resulted in considerable uncertainty about its ability to meet capital structure obligations. 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 WPG, 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] WAWA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Conditional Class Status Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter entered an order that the Employee Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification is denied without prejudice. Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUUCfI at no extra charge.[CC] WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Third Amendment Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia Corporation doing business as Weight Watchers, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-06261-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order dismissing the third amendment complaint in full, with prejudice as to Quintanilla's claim for damages and without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as to her claims for injunctive relief. The Court dismisses Quintanilla's fourth effort at pleading claims against WW. In filing the TAC, Quintanilla had the benefit of reviewing the motion to dismiss the SAC filed by WW, which made essentially the same arguments that today have proven fatal to her claims. After that motion was filed, the Court gave Quintanilla the choice either to oppose it or to amend the SAC to fortify her claims, and informed her that this would likely be her final opportunity to amend. Quintanilla chose to amend, but has again failed to plead any plausible claims against WW. And although she has, perfunctorily, sought leave to amend yet again, she has not suggested that she is aware of additional unpled facts that could salvage her claims. The Court's dismissal of Quintanilla's claims for damages today is therefore with prejudice, and without leave to amend. WW International, formerly Weight Watchers International, Inc., is a global company headquartered in the U.S. that offers various products and services, including weight loss and maintenance, fitness, and mindset such as the Weight Watchers comprehensive diet program. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SemYIV at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Cartel Follow-On Litigation Under New Dutch Class Action System ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States, class actions seem to be a go-to instrument for cartel follow-on litigation. In the United Kingdom, the (certification) criteria for collective proceedings were recently clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Merricks vs. Mastercard proceedings. What about the use of class actions for cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands, now that the recent Collective Damages in Class Actions Act (Dutch acronym WAMCA) has taken effect? Cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands The Netherlands is seen as an attractive jurisdiction for follow-on proceedings. Cartel follow-on proceedings are typically conducted by use of the assignment model (cessiemodel). There are only few examples where a class action in relation to antitrust infringements was brought (under the particular provision of Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code, DCC). Assignment model v. Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA) When using the assignment model, a litigation funder incorporates a "special purpose vehicle" (SPV), for example a foundation or a private limited company, to which injured parties can subsequently assign their claims. The SPV can bring the actual (bundled) claims against one or more of the cartelists in fairly standard proceedings before the competent court. The assignment documentation is commonly tested extensively. A class action under Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA) works differently. This provision allows an interest organization – if admissibility requirements are met – to request declaratory relief in a class action. However, it limits the possibilities for funders/funding arrangements and it explicitly rules out the possibility to claim monetary damages. Mere declaratory relief does in practice not provide much (additional) value, since proceedings tend to follow a decision by which the European Commission has already established the infringement. Will the WAMCA increase the use of Article 3:305a DCC in cartel follow-on proceedings? As per 1 January 2020, the WAMCA has widened the scope of Article 3:305a DCC and enables interest organizations to claim monetary damages in a class action. The WAMCA also enhances admissibility requirements for interest organizations and introduces a lead claimant system in case multiple interest organizations bring collective claims. Please see our earlier news item for more general information on the WAMCA. Although the WAMCA facilitates claims for monetary compensation, funders and/or interest organizations may be reluctant to use Article 3:305a DCC for cartel follow-on proceedings because of strict(er) admissibility requirements (limited case law regarding cartel follow-on proceedings under Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA) already suggested a relatively high bar for admissibility). In addition, the WAMCA introduces a lead claimant system for a potential multiplicity of claimants, but the WAMCA is not specifically tailored for a potential multiplicity of cartel infringers as defendants. Over twenty class actions have been registered in the Dutch central class action register since 1 January 2020. None of these specifically relates to antitrust infringements. Going forward, people in the field do not necessarily expect players to shift to using WAMCA proceedings as cartel follow-on, also given the widespread use of the assignment model. Get in touch Our team has extensive experience with competition litigation, class actions and -settlements and other forms of collective redress. For more information, please contact Mijke Sinninghe Damste or Huib Schrama or someone else in our competition litigation team. [GN] ********* 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 ***