/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210616.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 114 Headlines 1STDIBS.COM INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Burns Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Crozier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Devine Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Endy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams AAA CAFE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Employees AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Marketing Practices AFTERPAY US: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AKAZOO SA: September 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ALASKA: Faces Class Action Over Prisoners' Phone-Call Charges ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: SDC's Motion Transferred to M.D. Tennessee AMERICAN COLONIAL: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of July 13 Deadline ARTPIX LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUTOCAR LLC: Terminated Non-Hispanic Workers, McNair Suit Claims BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Suit Transferred to S.D. California BANK OF AMERICA: Willrich Suit Transferred to S.D. California BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Lex Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Vienna Eqho Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. BBVA USA: California Court Allows Arbitration in Hill Class Suit BENJAMIN F. EDWARDS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BENNETEK ECOMMERCE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOLLINGER MOTORS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARDINAL MULTI: Mendoza Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT CARRIZO OIL: July 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought CELTIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Penate Alleges CENTRAL BUCKS: Marinello Suit Alleges Equal Pay Violations CHARTER FOODS: Davis FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of AGMs CHIME FINANCIAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Richards Class Suit CLOUDERA INC: Filing of Amended Complaint Due June 24 CLOUDERA INC: Securities Class Suit in California Underway COINBASE GLOBAL: Suspended Account Holders File Class Action COMMONWEALTH ELECTRICAL: Underpays Inspectors, Bellinger Suit Says CONAGRA FOODS: Final Approval of Class Deal in Briseno Reversed CONNECTED PET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Legacy Sports Class Suit CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on Ruling to Remand Nevarez Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Edwards Labor Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Under Appeal DELL TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Class V Transaction Related Suit DELL TECH: Pivotal Software Acquisition Related Suit Underway DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Laptop Upgradeability Issues DHL EXPRESS: Martin Sues Over Misleading Delivery Charges DILLY KEY: Acosta Suit Claims Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ECWID INC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EDIE PARKER: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elias Alleges FIGURE TECHNOLOGIES: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLORIDA HEALTH: 2nd Amended Doyle Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice GENERAL MILLS: Judge Tosses Mislabeling Class Action Settlement GENESIS FINANCIAL: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GEO GROUP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action GLOBAL PLASMA: Boeing Study Cited in Federal Class Action Suit GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Gift Cards Class Action Lawsuit HANNAFORD BROS: Prinzo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts HORMAN'S PICKLES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mobile Emergency Housing Suit Pending HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit Underway in Israel HP INC: Oral Argument on Appeal in Parziale Suit Set for July 29 HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103 Ongoing HP INC: York County Putative Class Action Underway I.C. SYSTEM: New York Court Dismisses Teitelbaum FDCPA Class Suit IMMUNOVANT INC: IMVT-1401 Related Putative Class Suit Underway INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS: Ogden Suit Transferred to D.S.C. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: PERSM Named Lead Plaintiff in Habelt Suit JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Device Causes Addiction, Mendones Alleges JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio District Alleges JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio School Alleges JUUL LABS: N.Y. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Md. School District Says JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Tenn. School Claims JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis. KATIONX CORP: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIRKLAND'S STORES: Miles Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses KODIAK CAKES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KOHL'S CORP: Mollett Sues Over Unpaid OT for Call Center Agents LAWLINE: Zwerin Files ADA Suit in W.D. Washington LEARJET INC: Wood Wins Conditional Collective Action Cert. Bid LEONARD DIPASQUALE: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancer Class LEVY ELECTRIC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIBERTY INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Horn Suit LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Sues Over Refinery's Environmental Disasters MAPCO EXPRESS: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Female Store Managers MCDONALD'S CORP: BIPA Class Action Lands in Federal Court MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Personal Injury Suit Moved to N.D. California MDL 2389: Fund Distribution Plan in FB IPO Securities Suit Granted MISSOURI: $113-Mil. Judgment in Hootselle v. MDOC Affirmed in Part NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Narrows Claims in Veterans Rideshare Suit NESTLE USA: Saldivar Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee-Mate Products OCWEN LOAN: July 9 Extension of Class Certification Hearing Sought OREGON: Court Denies Bid to Remand Moore v. ODOC Class Suit OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Parducci Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass PACIFIC GAS: Wong Sues Over Improper Business Practices PACIFIC MERCANTILE: SEC Filings Mislead Stockholders, Parshall Says PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline PINTEREST INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline PROVENTION BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 20 Deadline PURECYCLE TECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline PURELY ELIZABETH: Faces Consumer Class Action in California REV GROUP: Settlements in 2017 IPO Related Suits Awaits Initial OK ROMEO'S PIZZA: August 11 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya et al., Lose Class Certification Bid SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Naler Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Prothonotary Fees SEALED AIR: New York Court Narrows Claims in Funds Securities Suit SERCO INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $1.2 Million SILVER BOURBON: Kikuchi FLSA-LWPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice SKILLZ INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline STAMPS.COM: Agreement in Principle Reached in Karinski Class Suit SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Budde Suit Moved From D. Kan. to E.D. Mo. TURQUOISE HILL: Bid for Protective Order in Securities Suit Denied UBIQUITI INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 19 Deadline UBIQUITI INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline UNITED PARCEL: Judge Hands Partial Victory in Labor Class Suit UNITED STATES: Morrison & Foerster Attorney Discusses IGRA Case VERVE INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VIRGIN GALACTIC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 27 Deadline VIRGIN GALACTIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 27 Deadline WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Nasta Files FDCPA Suit in W.D.N.C. WALMART INC: Opioids Related Class Suits Underway WASHINGTON DC: Seeks Filing Extension for Class Cert. Bid Response XTO ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Brusamonti Class Suit ZALE DELAWARE: Kaint Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZOOM VIDEO: Kane ADA Suit Transferred to N.D. California ZUMIEZ INC: Mediation in Herrera Suit Set for June 23 ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Putative Class Suit [*] Ballard Spahr Attorney Discusses New CFPB Arbitration Rule [*] Butler Snow Attorney Discusses Class Rep Incentive Award [*] Shook, Hardy & Bacon Attorneys Discuss Class Action Report ********* 1STDIBS.COM INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1stdibs.com, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 1stdibs.com, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05131-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1stDibs -- https://www.1stdibs.com/ -- is an e-commerce company. It has an online marketplace, which sells luxury items such as high-end furniture for interior design, fine art and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com 3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ James G. Bennett, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01729-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Burns Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01719-RMG (D.S.C., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Crozier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Douglas Crozier, Sr., and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01730-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Devine Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF ---------------------------------------------------------- Terence Timothy Devine, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01731-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Endy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Edward Endy, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01732-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 AAA CAFE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA CAFE CORP. D/B/A RETRO PIZZA CAFE, DAISY AVRAAMIDES, and LEONIDAS AVRAAMIDES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03245 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a food prep and delivery person at Retro Pizza Cafe in New York from July 2019 until October 2020. AAA Cafe Corp., doing business as Retro Pizza Cafe, is a restaurant owner and operator located in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Marketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Knight, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that a legal class action case just filed against Afterpay in California puts the spotlight on the often ignored fact that the cost to the customer of using buy now, pay later (BNPL) can be more expensive than the late fees imposed by the operators. The legal action itself may be frivolous, as are many of the class actions that are a feature of the US legal system, but it brings the spectre of regulation back on the radar for Afterpay, which is hoping to hit paydirt in the US. The case being brought by plaintiff lawyers in the US is about lack of disclosure and misrepresentation of Afterpay's marketing to its customers. The most interesting aspect to the lawsuit is the contention that Afterpay has deceived its US users through misrepresentations and omissions in its marketing material about fees that can be charged by the banks. While Afterpay correctly tells customers that it can charge late fees of up to 25 per cent of the purchase price of the product, the lawyers for the plaintiff argue that no warning is given about banks charging overdraft fees and insufficient funds fees. Afterpay says that's not its problem because it tells customers that they need to have sufficient funds in their accounts to meet the instalment payments. Indeed Afterpay goes further, suggesting that if a customer doesn't have enough money in their accounts to make the payments their gripe should be with the bank. Afterpay contends that it is not its responsibility to tell customers about the fees charged by another organisation. This isn't just an issue confined to the US, it's also a feature in Australia and other jurisdictions and just how large these fees are depend on the nature of the account. In Australia, customers that sign up for direct debit on their accounts will be charged for some form of overdraft and potentially with interest. And even if the bank doesn't allow the customer's account to go into overdraft it can still impose a fee for insufficient funds. If this happens the customer gets slugged twice. The US legal claim characterises Afterpay's business model as targeting the young and the poor -- groups that are more financially strapped and "struggling to make ends meet". "In its rush to tout itself as convenient, simple, automatic, and free, Afterpay does not disclose that overdraft and NSF fees are a likely and devastating consequence of the use of its service. No reasonable consumer would run this risk,′ the class action complaint reads. If the bank allows customers to go into overdraft or the customer pays an BNPL provider like Afterpay by using a credit card the transaction takes on more of the characteristics of credit. (Indeed this has been an argument that has been pushed by the Australian banks for a few years.) But to date, regulators have not seen it fit to include these instalment payments as credit under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and don't need to comply with responsible lending obligations. A deep dive into the BNPL sector by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission last year found that a worrying 20 per cent of users said they had gone without essentials to meet their repayments, while another 15 per cent said they had taken out an additional loan. About a third of both groups had made six or more BNPL purchases in the prior six months. Between 30 per cent and 40 per cent held another small or medium-sized credit contract. Over half had missed a BNPL payment. And half were aged between 18 and 29. And Afterpay doesn't know how many other BNPL accounts its customers use. Even if the class action in California is successful it won't be a game changer for Afterpay or the BNPL sector. But it may serve to provide additional air to those that have long argued that Afterpay and its ilk need to have greater regulation. [GN] AFTERPAY US: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afterpay US, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Afterpay US, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05183 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Afterpay -- https://www.afterpay.com/ -- provides payment services. The company offers an installment payment service that is free for customers who pay on time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal AKAZOO SA: September 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on June 7 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Akazoo S.A. and holders of common stock of Modern Media Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SONG): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF SECURITIES CLASS ACTION TO: All persons and entities who or which: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Akazoo S.A. ("Akazoo") between January 24, 2019 and May 21, 2020, both dates inclusive, including but not limited to, those who purchased or acquired Akazoo securities pursuant to the private placement offering agreement, and were damaged thereby; (2) held common stock of Modern Media Acquisition Corp. ("MMAC") as of August 9, 2019, eligible to vote at MMAC's August 28, 2019 special meeting, and were damaged thereby; and/or (3) purchased or otherwise acquired Akazoo common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the September 2019 merger of MMAC and Akazoo Limited, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY A COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Federal Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action (the "Long Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Federal Action, along with the Plaintiffs in a related action pending in the Superior Court for the State of Georgia, Fulton County, styled Pareja, et al., v. Apostolos N. Zervos, et al., Case No. 2020CV337418 (the "State Action" and together with the Federal Action, the "Class Actions"), have reached a proposed partial settlement of the Class Actions for $4,900,000, plus any Additional Settlement Amount that may be recovered (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Class Actions with respect to the Settling Defendants. A hearing will be held on September 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Brian M. Cogan at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine: (i) whether the proposed partial Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Federal Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Settling Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Partial Settlement, dated April 22, 2021 ("Stipulation") and in the Long Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Long Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, www.strategicclaims.net. You may also obtain copies of the Long Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Akazoo S.A. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Tel: (866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985; Email: info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or electronically submitted no later than September 23, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Federal Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than August 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Federal Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel such that they are received no later than August 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Akazoo, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Long Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Akazoo S.A.Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: 866-274-4004 www.strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Class Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 or GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Casey Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (888) 773-9224 By Order of the Court [GN] ALASKA: Faces Class Action Over Prisoners' Phone-Call Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Theriault Boots, writing for Anchorage Daily News, reports that an Anchorage activist and her incarcerated husband have filed a class-action lawsuit against the state challenging what they say are unaffordable, unconstitutional paid prison phone calls. The lawsuit, filed in Anchorage Superior Court on June 1, asserts that Alaska prisoners have a right to phone access through the state's constitution, which has been interpreted by courts to afford prisoners rehabilitation services. "However, if you make it very expensive for prisoners to call their loved ones, this right is undermined," the lawsuit, filed by attorneys with the Northern Justice Project in Anchorage says. Plaintiffs Terria and Karl Vandenhuerk's lawsuit is filed on behalf of both people incarcerated in Alaska jails and prisons and their loved ones on the outside -- the people who pay for calls through Securus, the Texas-based, for-profit corporation that controls all phone communication between prisoners and the outside world. "If they can't get a hold of their family or their family can't pay for it -- how do they prepare to be able to re-enter society?" said Terria Vandenhuerk, an Anchorage restorative justice activist whose husband is incarcerated at Wildwood Correctional Center in Kenai. The Alaska Department of Corrections referred questions to the Alaska Department of Law. The Department of Law has not yet responded to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleges the state is also violating a decades-old final settlement in Cleary vs. State of Alaska, a landmark prisoners' rights case. The Cleary settlement promised that the state would never charge more than 50 cents for local calls, said Nick Feronti, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project. These days, local calls are $1 and long-distance calls can be up to $5 for 15 minutes, with taxes and fees attached. Unlike in other states, in-person visits to prisons are less of an option for many people in Alaska, Feronti said. Phone calls are even more important. "Visitation is really hard in Alaska," said Feronti. "Even in the best of circumstances. Think of anyone off the road system, they have to take a plane flight and a long journey to see a loved one. It's different than almost every state." Expensive phone calls are a problem because inmates without the ability to connect to people outside prison are more likely to fall back into crime when they are released, said Vandenhuerk. Vandenhuerk, whose husband Karl is serving time for burglary and other convictions at Wildwood Correctional Center in Kenai, has spent thousands of dollars on their conversations. Their connection, and those conversations, helped him move away from prison gang life and into a substance-abuse rehab program. He hopes to become a barber when he gets out. Vandenhuerk's son Christopher Seaman was murdered in 2015. Her desire for affordable phone calls for incarcerated people extends to her son's killer, she said. "I want nothing more than the man who killed my son to get the services and rehabilitation he needs,' she said. "I want him to be able to talk to his mom, sister and children. I want him to be released as a whole transformed individual." [GN] ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: SDC's Motion Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SmileDirectClub LLC, Petitioner v. Align Technology Incorporated, Respondent, Case No. MC-21-00021-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), Judge Douglas R. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted Align's request to transfer motion to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Petitioner SmileDirectClub LLC ("SDC") currently is a defendant in a nationwide class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-845. As part of that litigation, SDC served a subpoena duces tecum on Respondent Align, who is not a party to the Tennessee case. SDC's subpoena seeks production of 15 categories of documents. Align objected to the subpoena and refused to produce any documents. Consequently, on April 15, 2021, SDC filed a motion with the Court seeking enforcement of its subpoena. SDC filed its motion with the Court because Align is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. In response, Align both argues the merits of the subpoena and asks that the Court transfer the matter to the Middle District of Tennessee so that the court overseeing the underlying lawsuit can determine whether the subpoena seeks relevant and proportional information. In reply, SDC takes no position regarding Align's Motion to Transfer. Judge Rayes states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) allows the Court to transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. In the case, the entity subject to the subpoena -- Align -- not only consents to such a transfer but has affirmatively requested it. The Judge therefore may transfer the motion, and in his discretion finds such a transfer warranted. Indeed, the issuing court overseeing the underlying litigation is in a superior position to assess the relevance and proportionality of SDC's subpoena. Accordingly, Judge Rayes granted Align's motion to transfer. The matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/45c38aec from Leagle.com. AMERICAN COLONIAL: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Abbott, Esq., and Jacqueline Patishman, Esq., of K&L Gates LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that recently the law firm posted about a ransomware attack on the American Colonial Pipeline Company. The Company has been hit with a class action alleging that a range of US businesses and consumers suffered loss as a result of Colonial Pipeline's decision to cut its supply of fuel until the ransomware attack was resolved. Meanwhile, the Company is still not entirely back on track – Colonial's main website is still offline. The class action is open to all fuel consumers who were impacted by the closure of the pipeline across the east coast which includes a range of businesses that rely on fuel (such as airlines and trucking companies) as well as ordinary retail consumers. Reuters reported that 88% of petrol stations were out of fuel in Washington, 65% in North Carolina, while in South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, just under 50% were without fuel. One of the points that will be considered in the case is whether Colonial actually needed to close the pipeline -- it's been suggested that the pipeline could have been left open and that the Company could have reversed billed its customers based on estimated usage. The ransomware hack was one of the most disruptive attacks on critical infrastructure that the US has ever experienced and it will be hard to determine whether Colonial's decision to 'turn off' its pipeline was necessary to contain the breach or not. Colonial has already paid a $US4.4 million (~$5.7m AUD) ransom to the hacking group DarkSide and if this action is successful, it could stand to lose hundreds of millions more. Flow on effects of attacks on critical infrastructure clearly have the potential to seriously damage businesses and the economy generally. Even the cost of defending litigation makes the cost of a security breach much higher than merely paying a ransom. [GN] ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of July 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on June 7 disclosed that on May 14, 2021, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Array Technologies, Inc., No. 21-cv-2396 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client the Plymouth County Retirement Association ("PCRA") against Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY) ("Array" or the 'Company') and other related parties (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Array securities between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), who were damaged thereby. The Exchange Act claims are brought against Array and certain of the Company's officers. Separately, the Action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's October 2020 initial public offering, the Company's December 2020 secondary public offering, or the Company's March 2021 secondary public offering (collectively, the "Offerings"), and were damaged thereby. In connection with the Offerings, Array filed registration statements and prospectuses with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Offering Materials"). The Securities Act claims are brought against Array, investment banks that acted as underwriters on the Offerings, and Company directors and officers who signed the Offering Materials. ATI Investment Parent, LLC, an Array shareholder who sold substantial amounts of Array stock through the Offerings is also named as a defendant in connection with the Securities Act claims. Array is an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based manufacturer of ground-mounting systems used in solar energy projects. The Company's principal products are commonly referred to as 'trackers.' Trackers are designed to move solar panels throughout the day to maintain an optimal orientation to the sun, which significantly increases their energy production. With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose that, dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain commodities such as steel was in the process of more than doubling, and that Array was facing increasing freight costs. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's positive statements about its business and operations lacked a reasonable basis. Similarly, with respect to the Securities Act claims, the Action alleges that the Offering Materials contained false and misleading statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose that, prior to the Offerings, increases in commodity and freight costs had been negatively impacting the Company's business and operations. On May 11, 2021, just months after the Offerings, the truth about these mounting costs and their negative impact on the Company's profits was revealed. On that date, Array reported first quarter 2021 results that missed profit analysts' expectations and withdrew its full-year 2021 outlook citing increases in steel and freight costs. Analysts immediately cut their ratings on Array stock citing concerns about the Company's shrinking profit margins. For example, in a Barclays report, analysts downgraded Array stock from 'Overweight' to 'Underweight' noting concerns about volumes, margins, and earnings power. On this news, Array's stock priced dropped $11.49 per share, or 46.1 percent, to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021. If you: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Array securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant and/or traceable to any of the Offerings and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the 'Class' and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than July 13, 2021. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow at (800) 321-0476, or via email at dschwartz@labaton.com. PCRA is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN] ARTPIX LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ArtPix, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ArtPix, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05132-AJN (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ArtPix 3D -- https://artpix3d.com/ -- merges innovative laser engraving technology and quality craftsmanship to transform photos into detailed 3D crystal images.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com AUTOCAR LLC: Terminated Non-Hispanic Workers, McNair Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON McNAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOCAR, LLC; AUTOCAR INDUSTRIES, LLC; and BIRMINGHAM ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00787-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the complaint, the Defendants' termination and hiring plan had disparate impact on the basis of national origin, ancestry, ethnicity, or race. The Defendants disproportionately favored and increased the number of employees of Hispanic national origin, ancestry, ethnicity, and/or race and, at the same time, disproportionately disfavored and decreased the number of non-Hispanic and/or African American employees. During 2019, the Defendants allegedly terminated a large number of employees at Birmingham, Alabama and Hagerstown, Indiana locations and replaced those employees with Hispanic employees. Mr. McNair was hired by the Defendants on or about August 14, 2017 and was terminated on or about November 13, 2019. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff was deprived of income and other benefits due him. The Plaintiff also suffered embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, and mental distress. Autocar, LLC is an American manufacturer of severe-duty, Class 7 and Class 8 vocational trucks, with its headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama. Autocar Industries, LLC is a truck manufacturer based in Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham Assembly Operations, LLC is a heavy-duty truck assembly operation business in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Wallace Blizzard, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0593 E-mail: wblizzard@wigginschilds.com BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Lindsay McClure, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant; Jennifer Yick; Third Party Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-cv-00572, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01089-LAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Negotiable Instrument for Fraud. Bank of America, National Association -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Esq. Albert Chang, Esq. Anne Beste, Esq. Yury Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Rossiter Callaway, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 Marshall Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (650) 752-3100 Fax: (650) 853-1038 Email: dcallaway@goodwinlaw.com - and - Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 426-2500 Fax: (213) 623-1673 Email: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com The Third Party Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Danitz, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY. LLC 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-6000 Email: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Willrich Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as styled as J. Michael Willrich, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant; Jennifer Yick, Movant; Case No. 3:21-cv-00547, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01093-LAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Bank of America, National Association -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natasha N. Serino, Esq. Shannon Frances Nocon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Phone: (858) 485-6535 Fax: (858) 485-0608 Email: natashaserino@amslawoffice.com shannonnocon@amslawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 426-2500 Fax: (213) 623-1673 Email: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com - and - David Rossiter Callaway, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 Marshall Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (650) 752-3100 Fax: (650) 853-1038 Email: dcallaway@goodwinlaw.com The Third Party Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Danitz, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY. LLC 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-6000 Email: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JONES PLANTING CO. III, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00173, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00653-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, says the suit. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles F. Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and – Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com jcrevier@labaton.com - and – Jonathan P. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW, PLLC 121 Colony Crossing, Suite D Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 790-1505 E-mail: jpb@barrettlawms.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DARREN DUNCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00158, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00651-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, the suit says. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Leigh M. Perica, Esq. Connor P. Lemire, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 North Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com lmp@mccunewright.com cpl@mccunewright.com - and – Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE POTZNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00535 (S.D. Ill., June 2, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the market for "Crop Inputs" -- seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides -- used by American farmers is one of the largest markets in the world with annual sales in excess of $65 billion. Historically and through the present, the distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs enable the market participants to maintain supra-competitive prices in part by denying farmers accurate product information, including pricing information, which would allow them to make fully-informed purchasing decisions. As a result, the average price American farmers pay for Crop Inputs is increasing at a rate that dramatically outpaces yields. Recognizing these inefficiencies, several electronic Crop Inputs sales platforms were launched in the past decade. These electronic platforms aimed to provide a cheaper, more transparent way for farmers to buy Crop Inputs, circumventing the existing opaque, convoluted distribution system. For example, Farmers Business Network ("FBN"), a leading electronic sales platform and Silicon Valley startup, was extremely popular with farmers upon launch and has successfully raised millions of dollars from leading venture capital firms to build out capacity to meet that demand. These new platforms allegedly threatened the Defendants' dominant market positions and control over pricing. As a result, rather than compete fairly with the electronic platforms, the Defendants conspired to block the platforms' access to Crop Inputs by engaging in a group boycott. The Defendants blocked FBN's access to Crop Inputs by agreeing among themselves not to sell products to FBN, even though doing so would have opened a significant new sales channel for any individual manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer acting independently and would have been in Defendants' unilateral best economic interests. To ensure that this boycott was successful, the Defendants imposed strict penalties on retailers who made sales to FBN. Similarly, certain manufacturers audited authorized retailers to ensure that electronic platforms were not securing branded Crop Inputs by buying from an authorized retailer, the suit asserts. Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides, traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com -and- Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (332) 216-2101 Facsimile: (312) 2640-0100 E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Lex Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CHARLES LEX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00122, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00654-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, the suit says. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. King, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com - and – W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Stephanie A. Chen, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com sachen@locklaw.com - and – J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq. SCHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com bohlman@sagwlaw.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN C. SWANSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00046, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00655-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic platforms. They have been forced to continue paying supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, the suit says. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Delaware. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 120 North LaSalle, #3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and – Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com csanchez@nussbaumpc.com lkessler@nussbaumpc.com - and – Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Vienna Eqho Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VIENNA EQHO FARMS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; and TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00204, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00656-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic platforms. Instead, they are forced to continue paying artificially high prices for crop inputs purchased from local retailers subject to the Defendants' confidentiality requirements, says the suit. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Jr., Esq. Sterling Starns, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com - and – Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Victoria Sims, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com BBVA USA: California Court Allows Arbitration in Hill Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SARAH HILL, and TIMOTHY MILLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BBVA USA, an Alabama corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-1016 JLS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants Defendant BBVA USA's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiffs hold separate checking accounts with the Defendant, which offers retail banking services. They allege that the Defendant assessed overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw their bank accounts, and the Defendant charged more than one nonsufficient funds fee on a single transaction. The Plaintiffs contend that these practices breach the terms of their account contracts with Defendant and violate California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. The Plaintiffs, proceeding on behalf of a putative class, seek declaratory relief, monetary damages, and an order on behalf of the general public enjoining the Defendant from "misrepresenting and/or omitting material information as to its fee assessment practices." When the Plaintiffs opened their checking accounts with the Defendant, they agreed to the Defendant's Consumer Deposit Account Agreement. Section 3 of the Agreement is entitled Dispute Resolution, Arbitration. Additionally, the Arbitration Agreement includes the clause regarding class action, private attorney general, and representative actions. Finally, the Agreement provides the clause regarding the availability of remedies. The Defendant filed the present Motion alongside a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint. The Parties filed a Joint Motion requesting that the Court considers only the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and stay consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike until after the Court has ruled on the issue of arbitration. The Court granted the Joint Motion. The Defendant advances two arguments in support of its Motion to compel individual arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims. First, the Defendant argues that because the Arbitration Agreement permits the Plaintiffs to seek public injunctive relief in arbitration proceedings, California law does not prohibit enforcement of the Agreement. Second, it argues that the Plaintiffs do not seek a public injunction, and therefore California law does not provide a basis for avoiding arbitration. Because Judge Sammartino finds the Arbitration Agreement does not bar the Plaintiffs from seeking public injunctive relief, she need not address whether the Plaintiffs seek a public injunction. The Plaintiffs argue the California Supreme Court's decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), invalidates the Arbitration Agreement. The McGill court held that an arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable if it waives a plaintiff's statutory right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. Public injunctive relief is a remedy that has the primary purpose and effect of prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public. Such relief benefits the plaintiff, if at all, only incidentally and/or as a member of the general public. However, the McGill court made clear that a litigant proceeding as a "private individual" "on his or her own behalf" may "request public injunctive relief." Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has held that McGill "shows no hostility to, and does not prohibit, the arbitration of public injunctions." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant breached the terms of the Agreement with account holders and violated California's UCL. More specifically, they seek to enjoin the Defendant "from misrepresenting and/or omitting material information as to its fee assessment practices in the documents that it makes available to the public." They claim that the Arbitration Agreement precludes them from seeking this relief, and therefore the Arbitration Agreement is invalid under the McGill rule. The Plaintiffs argue the Arbitration Agreement improperly waives their right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. They claim that the Agreement's bar on representative, class, and collective actions prohibits them from seeking public injunctive relief for their UCL claim, and therefore the Agreement is invalid under the McGill rule. I Judge Sammartino holds that this argument was recently rejected by the Ninth Circuit in DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc., 988 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2021). In DiCarlo, the plaintiff could seek public injunctive relief despite the arbitration agreement's ban on representative actions because such a clause does not restrict the availability of public injunctive relief. The Dicarlo court clarified that public injunction claims are distinct from class actions and representative actions. As the McGill court held, a plaintiff proceeding "on his or her own behalf" may "request public injunctive relief." The type of action and the type of relief sought are separate inquiries. Therefore, an arbitration clause waiving representative actions does not, by itself, run afoul with the McGill rule. The Plaintiffs' argument is similarly unavailing, Judge Sammartino holds. She says although the Agreement prevents the Plaintiffs from joining their claims together, they may individually seek public injunctive relief that benefits the general public. The Arbitration Agreement provides that "nothing in this arbitration provision will limit certain other rights" the parties may have. The Agreement specifically provides that the Plaintiffs could "get an injunction." Because the Plaintiffs are free to seek public injunctive relief in arbitration, there is no conflict with McGill, and the Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, Judge Sammartino grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Because she finds all of the Plaintiffs' claims subject to arbitration, the Judge denies without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike. When arbitration is mandatory, courts have discretion to stay the case under 9 U.S.C. Section 3 or dismiss the litigation entirely. The Defendant requests the Court either enters an order compelling arbitration and staying the litigation or dismisses the action. The Plaintiffs request that the Court dismisses the case, rather than stay it, so they may pursue an appeal. An order compelling arbitration may be appealed if the district court dismisses all the underlying claims, but may not be appealed if the court stays the action pending arbitration. The Parties have not provided any argument why the Court should retain jurisdiction over the matter; therefore, the Judge concludes dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, she dismisses the action in its entirety. The Clerk of Court will close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pr4z2jtp from Leagle.com. BENJAMIN F. EDWARDS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benjamin F. Edwards & Company, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Benjamin F. Edwards & Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05184 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Benjamin F. Edwards & Company, Inc. -- https://benjaminfedwards.com/ -- operates as a wealth management company. The Company manages securities such as stock, bonds, and mutual funds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BENNETEK ECOMMERCE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bennetek Ecommerce Company. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bennetek Ecommerce Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-05188 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bennetek Ecommerce Company doing business as Natural Candy Store -- https://www.naturalcandystore.com/ -- offers 100% natural candy with no artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, or sweeteners.[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 BOLLINGER MOTORS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bollinger Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bollinger Motors, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05128 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bollinger Motors, Inc. -- https://bollingermotors.com/ -- is an automotive company designing and engineering Class 3 electric trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com CARDINAL MULTI: Mendoza Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO MENDOZA, MIGUEL MARTINEZ and KEVIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARDINAL MULTI SERVICES LLC and WILSON O. AGUILAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00685 (E.D. Va., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act by failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide meal breaks or pay premium in lieu thereof. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as construction employees. Cardinal Multi Services LLC is a provider of underground utility installation, asphalt, and traffic control services, located at 5504 Oakwood Road, Alexandria, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. Roseann R. Romano, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com CARRIZO OIL: July 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON CHISUM, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC., CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY, and CALLON PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00051-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Motion for Court Approved Notice and for Defendants to file their Response to same: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class Certification and Court Approved Notice be extended by fourteen days, from the current deadline of Friday, June 11, 2021 to Friday, July 2, 2021. 2. The deadline for Defendants to file a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Court Approved Notice be extended from seven days (Local Court Rule 7(e)) to 21 days, to Monday, July 23, 2021. 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Reply remains seven days (Local Court Rule 7(f)), and is Monday, July 30, 2021. Carrizo Oil explores for and produces natural gas and crude oil. Callon is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAWeNr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: David B. Jordan, Esq. Paige A. Cantrell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-9400 Facsimile: (713) 951-9212 E-mail djordan@littler.com pcantrell@littler.com CELTIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Penate Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ FIDEL PENATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELTIC SERVICES NYC INC.; WHITE STAR NYC INC.; KIERAN SLEVIN A/K/A CAMARON; and CARLOS MENDOZA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04863 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Penate was employed by the Defendants as laborer. CELTIC SERVICES NYC INC. provides general contracting services for residential and commercial properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718)353-8588 E-mail: jfan@hanglaw.com CENTRAL BUCKS: Marinello Suit Alleges Equal Pay Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- DAWN MARINELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02587 (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of rights under the federal Equal Pay Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged discrimination against female teachers, including the Plaintiff, by compensating male teachers more favorably than female teachers under the Salary Schedules. Ms. Marinello has been employed as a teacher by the Defendant since August 2016. Central Bucks School District is a public school district in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward S. Mazurek, Esq. THE MAZUREK LAW FIRM, LLC 717 S. Columbus Blvd., Suite 516 Philadelphia, PA 19147 Telephone: (267) 243-3393 E-mail: emazurek@mazureklawfirm.com CHARTER FOODS: Davis FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of AGMs ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM DAVIS and NIKLAUS RYKER SCHLEUFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FOODS, INC., CHARTER CENTRAL, LLC, and CHARTER FOODS NORTH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-159 (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of: "all individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants as an Assistant General Manager in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from three years prior to the filing date of this Complaint up until this State Class is finally certified by the Court, who have worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid at overtime rates." The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Assistant General Managers (AGMs) and were classified as exempt for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), making them ineligible for overtime pay. They worked considerable amounts of unpaid overtime, which the Defendants owe them because their classification as exempt was in violation of the FLSA and its implementing regulations. Because they are similarly situated to all other Charter AGMs, having all been victims of the same corporate misclassification policy, the Court should conditionally certify their proposed FLSA collective, the Plaintiffs contend. Charter Foods is located in Morristown, Tennessee and is part of the Fast-Food & Quick-Service Restaurants Industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xblTQM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer B. Morton, Esq. Maha M. Ayesh, Esq. JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC 8217 Pickens Gap Road Knoxville, TN 37920 Telephone: (865) 579 0708 Facsimile: (865) 579-0787 E-mail: jen@jmortonlaw.com maha@jmortonlaw.com - and - Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com CHIME FINANCIAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Richards Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, entered Final Judgment in the case, RYAN RICHARDS, RUBA AYOUB, BRANDY TERBAY AND TRACY CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIME FINANCIAL, INC., GALILEO FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and THE BANCORP INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-06864-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Judgment is entered for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order Granting Motion for Final Approval and Granting in part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, dated May 24, 2021, in the matter as to the following class of persons: All consumers who attempted to and were unable to access or utilize the functions of their accounts with Chime, as confirmed by a failed transaction or a locked card as recorded in Chime's business records, beginning on Oct. 16, 2019 through Oct. 19, 2019, as a result of the Service Disruption. The Judgment is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, as to the class of persons, Plaintiffs Ryan Richards, Ruba Ayoub, Brandy Terbay, and Tracy Cummings, and Defendants Chime Financial, Inc., Galileo Financial Technologies, LLC, formerly known as Galileo Financial Technologies, Inc., and The Bancorp Inc., on the terms and conditions of the class action settlement agreement approved by the Court's Final Approval Order. Judge Gilliam, for purposes of the Final Judgment, adopts the terms and definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement incorporated into the Final Approval Order, which Final Approval Order is incorporated in the Final Judgment as if restated in full, and which granted final approval to the Settlement Agreement and directed the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to implement the Final Approval Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All Released Claims of the Releasing Parties are released as against the Defendants and the Released Parties, as detailed in the Settlement Agreement. The claims of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice in accordance with the Court's Final Approval Order. The Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses are awarded as set forth in the Final Approval Order. The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees, except as otherwise set forth in the Final Approval Order. The Final Judgment document constitutes a final judgment and separate document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). Judge Gilliam finds, pursuant to Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Final Judgment should be entered and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final Judgment as to the Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, and the Defendants. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to enter Judgment forthwith and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/29n6pbsw from Leagle.com. CLOUDERA INC: Filing of Amended Complaint Due June 24 ----------------------------------------------------- Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that filing of amended complaint in the consolidated suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK, is due on June 24, 2021. On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK, and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK, were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and a consolidated complaint was filed on February 14, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff process. On July 27, 2020, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On September 22, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims against Cloudera and four individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint also asserted claims against Cloudera, Intel Corporation, and fourteen current and former officers and directors under the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleged that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. On April 2, 2021, the Court denied a motion filed by two additional plaintiffs seeking permission to file an additional class action complaint alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933. On May 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until June 24, 2021 to file an amended complaint. Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. CLOUDERA INC: Securities Class Suit in California Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CV348674. On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of Cloudera, and Intel Corporation. Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CV348674 and the consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 1, 2020, the court overruled Cloudera's demurrer to the consolidated amended complaint. On August 18, 2020, a purported shareholder class action captioned Stahl v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 20CV369480 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and was subsequently consolidated into the lead case. On November 5, 2020, the court entered a stipulated order certifying a class consisting of all persons who acquired Cloudera common stock in exchange for Hortonworks securities pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger and acquisition of Hortonworks. A further case management conference is currently scheduled for June 9, 2021. Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit. Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. COINBASE GLOBAL: Suspended Account Holders File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Arnab Shome, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that Coinbase, the crypto exchange that recently went public, is facing a class-action lawsuit in the United States which has been brought by users whose accounts were suspended by the exchange. Filed by six plaintiffs at a California district court, the lawsuit alleges that the San Francisco-headquartered crypto exchange has wrongfully suspended their accounts for several months. "Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members that Defendant locked out of their accounts or denied access to their funds were often unable to access their accounts for long periods of time, including but not limited to a span of a month or more," the lawsuit stated. Additionally, they alleged that their accounts were suspended after they made deposits to the exchange and could not even access their funds. One of the plaintiffs specified that he deposited $30,000 to purchase XRP, but later could not access his account as it was showing an error with invalid login details. "Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members who were locked out of their accounts and/or deprived of access to their funds suffered a diminution in the value of their cryptocurrency upon eventually being granted access to such accounts," the complaint added. Moreover, the defendants pointed out the incompetence of the exchange's customer support services and are seeking $5 million in compensation. A Dent In Reputation Coinbase is indeed the largest US cryptocurrency exchange. Despite its reputation, it is not a stranger to lawsuits. Last year, the company settled a legal complaint filed by the victims of the now-defunct crypto exchange, Cryptsy for around $1 million. Though a Coinbase spokesperson said that the exchange is looking into the fresh allegations, it is to be seen in the coming days if the class-action lawsuit can stand in court or not. [GN] COMMONWEALTH ELECTRICAL: Underpays Inspectors, Bellinger Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT BELLINGER, FRANK BONCORE, RAYNE DEGRE, STEVE LOMISON, and TERRY MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMONWEALTH ELECTRICAL INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00719 (W.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York Labor Law including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as electrical inspectors at multiple locations in New York at any time between 2007 and 2020. Commonwealth Electrical Inspection Services, Inc. is a national construction inspection company, with its headquarters located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 170 Doe Run Road in Manheim, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Alba, Esq. FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C. 74 Main Street P.O. Box 31 Akron, NY 14001 Telephone: (716)-542-5444 - and – Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 CONAGRA FOODS: Final Approval of Class Deal in Briseno Reversed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT BRISENO; CHRISTI TOOMER; KELLY McFADDEN; JANETH RUIZ; BRENDA KREIN; ALEXIS JUSTAK; LEONORA ULITSKY; ANNE COWAN; JULIE PALMER; PATTY BOYER; NECLA MUSAT; PAULINE MICHAEL; RONA JOHNSTON; CHERI SHAFSTALL; JILL CROUCH; ERIKA HEINS; MAUREEN TOWEY; MICHELE ANDRADE; ANITA WILLMAN; DEE HOPPER-KERCHEVAL; LIL MARIE-BIRR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. M. TODD HENDERSON, Objector-Appellant v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-56297 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's approval of the settlement. For many years, ConAgra, then-owner of Wesson Oil, labeled that product as "100% Natural." In 2011, Robert Briseno and others sued ConAgra, alleging that "100% Natural" was misleading because Wesson Oil contains ingredients made from genetically modified organisms ("GMOs"). Three years later, the Plaintiffs sought class certification. Relying on the expert report of Colin B. Weir, they argued that they overpaid for Wesson Oil based on the "100% Natural" label. ConAgra responded that its market research showed that less than 3% of consumers bought the product because of that label. Although Weir testified that hedonic regression could quantify the supposed price premium charged for that label, he did not try to calculate it at first. Unsurprisingly, ConAgra then challenged the admissibility of Weir's report. Enlisting its own expert, ConAgra asserted that historical price data showed that the label did not affect the price of Wesson Oil. According to ConAgra, if the public had cared about the "100% Natural" claim, then the price of Wesson Oil should have declined after ConAgra removed that claim from the product's label. The district court agreed, denying the Plaintiffs' first certification request. Still hoping to strike oil, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification. This time, however, they supplemented Weir's expert material with a supporting opinion by Dr. Elizabeth Howlett. Together, their experts asserted that consumers paid a 2.28% price premium for the allegedly mislabeled products. Furthermore, Dr. Howlett suggested that a conjoint analysis could help determine how consumers value "GMO content." The Plaintiffs, however, never submitted that conjoint analysis. ConAgra, again, sought to strike the Plaintiffs' experts and opposed class certification. This time, the court denied ConAgra's motions and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) damage class, though it refused to certify a 23(b)(2) injunctive class for lack of standing. ConAgra twice pursued Rule 23(f) interlocutory review of class certification. It lost both appeals and an attempt to seek certiorari. The parties began settlement negotiations shortly after that. Meanwhile, ConAgra agreed to sell Wesson Oil to The J.M. Smucker Company in May 2017. About two months later, ConAgra voluntarily removed the disputed label, and stopped marketing Wesson products as "natural." It maintains that this litigation played no role in either decision. In early 2018, the Smucker deal hit an insurmountable regulatory jam. Undeterred, ConAgra sought a new suitor for Wesson. At the same time, it engaged in mediation with the certified class. The district court assigned Magistrate Judge McCormick to help the parties grease the wheels of justice, and they emerged with an agreement-in-principle in November 2018. A month later, ConAgra agreed to sell Wesson to Richardson International. The deal closed in February 2019. The next month, the parties proposed a settlement agreement. ConAgra agreed to provide, in relevant part: (a) $0.15 for each unit of Wesson Oils purchased to households submitting valid claim forms (to a maximum of 30 units without proof of purchase, and unlimited units with proof of purchase) (b) an additional fund of $575,000 to be allocated to New York and Oregon class members submitting valid claim forms, as compensation for statutory damages under those states' consumer protection laws, and (c) an additional fund of $10,000 to compensate those in all classes submitting valid proof of purchase receipts more than 30 purchases, at $0.15 for each such purchase above 30, with Class Counsel paying any non-funded claims (i.e., claims above the $10,000 provided by ConAgra) from any attorneys' fees awarded in the case. With a class of nearly 15 million consumers, ConAgra claimed that it theoretically exposed itself to nearly $67.5 million in claims if every consumer submitted a claim. The settlement agreement established a fund on a claims-made basis -- i.e., ConAgra would pay out for only those claims submitted by consumers. The settlement, however, did not require ConAgra to identify or provide direct notice to class members. The settlement agreement also provided injunctive relief: Should ConAgra have seller's remorse and decide to reacquire the Wesson brand in the future, it agreed not to advertise or market Wesson Oil as "natural," unless the FDA permits the use of the term to describe oil derived from GMO seeds. Relying on Mr. Weir's analysis, the parties asserted that the "the value of the injunctive relief to the Classes" is $27 million. Finally, the settlement stated that the Plaintiffs would request -- and ConAgra would not contest -- $6.85 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. That amount would come directly from ConAgra and be separate from the class settlement fund. If the court, however, sliced the agreed-upon attorneys' fees, that reduction would revert to ConAgra rather than the class. The parties, thus, represented that their settlement could theoretically be worth over $100 million -- around $95 million in value to the class ($67.5 million in potential payout and $27 million in injunctive relief value), along with another $6.85 million for the attorneys. Yet, when the dust settled, ConAgra shelled out less than $8 million, with a mere $1 million of that going to the class. The Class counsel's fees swallowed $5.85 million, and expenses devoured another $978,671. Of the 15 million class members, barely more than one-half of 1% of them submitted a claim. Only one class member opted out of the settlement. M. Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago, objected to the settlement under Rule 23(e), arguing that attorneys hoarded 88% of the class's actual recovery. He asserted that the Ninth Circuit's precedent required it to treat the settlement as a constructive common fund (i.e., the settlement effectively establishes one common fund to pay out both the class members and their counsel). Henderson also contended that the settlement's "clear sailing" provision (i.e., ConAgra's refusal to challenge the agreed-upon attorney's fees) and "kicker" clause (i.e., any reduction in fees reverting to ConAgra, not the class members) raised the specter of collusion. He also objected to the stipulated value of the injunctive relief, describing it as "illusory." Likewise, Henderson castigated Mr. Weir, stating that his failure to conduct a price comparison rendered his opinion unreliable. The Plaintiffs sought final approval of the settlement in July 2019. Based on Mr. Weir's declaration, they valued ConAgra's label change at $19,080,000. They also contended that, if Wesson's new owner, Richardson, continued to refrain from labeling the product as "natural" for even a year, the value of the injunction would surge to $30.2 million. And for each year that Richardson did not label Wesson Oil as "natural," the class would obtain an annual benefit of over $11 million, according to Mr. Weir. The Plaintiffs argued that the fee request "represented approximately 25.4% of the parties' estimated value of the injunctive relief or 23% of the Plaintiffs' conservative estimate." They also calculated their own lodestar fee at around $11.499 million. When the claims deadline passed, class members made 97,880 timely claims for $418,919, a shadow of the $67.5 million potential liability that ConAgra touted in seeking approval of the settlement. Even with separately funded pools for New York and Oregon, ConAgra would pay class members a maximum of $993,919. Out of a class of 15 million consumers, fewer than 100,000 would receive a single cent. The district court held its final fairness hearing in October 2019. Henderson and the class counsel remained loggerheads on almost every issue. The parties disputed whether Henderson as an objector, or the Plaintiffs as proponents, bore the burden of establishing that the settlement satisfied Rule 23(e). Henderson argued that the "kicker" demonstrated ConAgra's willingness to settle for roughly $8 million, and that the class counsel bargained away absent class members' rights in exchange for much of the settlement. The district court disagreed. It maintained that the record in the case sufficiently dispels the possibility that the class counsel bargained away a benefit to the class in exchange for their own interests. Henderson timely appealed. The Ninth Circuit opines that the parties crammed into their settlement agreement a bevy of questionable provisions that reeks of collusion at the expense of the class members: The Class counsel will receive seven times more money than the class members; an injunction touted by an expert as worth tens of millions of dollars appears worthless, the Defendant agrees not to challenge the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees amount; any reduction in those fees by the court reverts to the Defendant; and on and on. While courts should not casually second-guess class settlements brokered by the parties, the Ninth Circuit states that they should not greenlight them, either, just because the parties profess that their dubious deal is "all right, all right, all right." It reverses the district court's approval of the class settlement because the agreement raises a squadron of red flags billowing in the wind and begging for further review. It holds that under the newly revised Rule 23(e)(2) standard, courts must scrutinize settlement agreements -- including post-class certification settlements -- for potentially unfair collusion in the distribution of funds between the class and their counsel. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/c3mza3z8 from Leagle.com. Theodore H. Frank -- ted.frank@hlli.org -- (argued) and Melissa A. Holyoak, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, in Washington, D.C., for Objector-Appellant. Samuel Issacharoff (argued), in New York City; Robert Klonoff, Portland, Oregon; Ariana J. Tadler -- atadler@milberg.com -- A.J. de Bartolomeo, and Brian R. Morrison, Tadler Law LLP, in New York City; Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- and Amy E. Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, in Chicago, Illinois; David Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP, in Irvine, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcquirewoods.com -- (argued) Alston & Bird LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, for Defendant-Appellee. Mark Brnovich, Attorney General; Oramel H. Skinner, Solicitor General; Kate B. Sawyer, Assistant Solicitor General; Keena Patel, Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; Steve Marshall, Kevin G. Clarkson, Leslie Rutledge, Lawrence G. Wasden, Curtis T. Hill Jr., Daniel Cameron, Jeff Landry, Eric Schmitt, Dave Yost, Mike Hunter, Alan Wilson, and Ken Paxton Attorneys General; as and for Amici Curiae Attorneys General of Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. CONNECTED PET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Connected Pet Company, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Connected Pet Company, LLC doing business as: Toto, Case No. 1:21-cv-03285 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Toto Pet Insurance -- http://www.totopetinsurance.com/-- offers pet health insurance plans which are offered and marketed by The Connected Pet Company, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Legacy Sports Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20 C 4149 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs are a barbershop, barbering school, and upscale hair salon that have similar insurance policies with Continental. Legacy Barbershop and Legacy Academy are located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, while Panach is found in Santa Monica, California. The Plaintiffs bring the action seeking coverage under the Policies for losses suffered because of COVID-19. They seek coverage under the Policies' Business Income and Extra Expense coverage provisions, which supply coverage for losses as the result of "direct physical loss of or damage to the Covered Property." The Plaintiffs also seek coverage under the Civil Authority coverage provision, which provides coverage for losses as the result of the government prohibiting access to the insured's premises due to "direct physical loss of or damage to" another property. Finally, they seek coverage under a "Sue and Labor" provision, which requires the insured to mitigate damages after a covered loss and keep a record of expenses "for consideration in the settlement of a claim." The Plaintiffs allege that the presence of COVID-19 on their premises required repairs and alterations to their properties. Specifically, they allege that they installed a new air filtration system, built a new outdoor patio to accommodate patrons outside, installed social distancing barriers and germ sanitation stations, and removed 60% of their workstations to allow for social distancing indoors. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that the presence of COVID-19 at properties other than their own necessitated shutdown orders by the state governments, which prohibited access to their properties. The Plaintiffs allege that they lost business income and incurred extra expenses because of the presence of COVID-19 in their businesses, the necessary alterations, and state mandated closure orders. Based on these events, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC seeking a declaratory judgment that their losses are covered under the Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor provisions of the Policies. Additionally, they allege that Continental breached the Policies by denying coverage under those provisions. Continental now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Continental argues that each of the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because there was no "physical loss of or damage to" the properties. It also argues that any losses caused by a virus are excluded under the Policies. Legal Analysis I. Loss of or Damage to the Properties Each of the Plaintiffs' claims hinges upon the meaning of "direct physical loss of or damage to" the Properties. Continental argues that there is no "loss of or damage to" the properties because that phrase requires physical damage or alteration, and Continental says the Plaintiffs do not allege physical damage or alteration to the properties. The Plaintiffs respond that allegations of physical damage or alteration are not needed and, even if they are, Plaintiffs have alleged just that. While he agrees with Continental that the Policies' language requires physical damage or alteration, Judge Kocoras believes the Plaintiffs have alleged the requisite physical damage and alteration. He says the Plaintiffs allege more than just loss of use. They allege that COVID-19 was present on their properties and that their properties underwent physical alterations. Thus, the Judge believes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Properties underwent a "distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration" and therefore suffered "physical loss of or damage to" the Properties. T he Motion to Dismiss on this basis is thus denied. II. Policy Exclusion The Defendant next argues that any losses due to COVID-19 are excluded from coverage. Judge Kocoras explains that the burden is on the insurer to establish that a policy exclusion applies, and its applicability must be definite and free from doubt. In the case, he does not believe that the policy language is "clear, sweeping, and all-encompassing" or that its applicability is "definite and free from doubt." The Policies do not specifically exclude from coverage damage caused by viruses, but instead exclude from coverage damage caused by the "presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of 'fungi,' wet or dry rot, or 'microbes.'" It is not clear whether "microbe" as defined under the Policies includes a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 because that virus, of course, can spread from person to person. The Judge therefore does not believe Continental has established that the claims are excluded from coverage at this stage. In sum, Judge Kocoras believes that the Plaintiffs have alleged that they may be entitled to coverage under the Policies. He emphasizes that the Plaintiffs have merely pled enough facts to proceed with discovery. Discovery will shed light on the merits of the Plaintiffs' allegations, including the nature and extent of COVID-19 on their premises. Accordingly, Continental's Motion to Dismiss is denied. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Kocoras denies Continental's motion to dismiss. Continental must answer the FAC within 21 days of the Order. Telephonic status is set for July 13, 2021 at 10:40 a.m. It is so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wd277dz from Leagle.com. CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CLAUDIA RAMIREZ, ESMERALDA LIZBETH MENDEZ LOZANO, LILIAN CABRERA, ANA ROSA MENDOZA, ALICIA FERNANDEZ, DULCE NIETO, ROSA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, PLY GEM WINDOWS, PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION, PLY GEM RESIDENTIAL SOLUTIONS, SIMONTON DOORS & WINDOWS, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00298527-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:21-at-00626 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages for time worked, failure to provide duty-free meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages due and owing during employment and upon termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements and to maintain requisite payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices. Cornerstone Building Brands is a manufacturer of exterior building products, headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. Ply Gem Windows is an exterior home building products manufacturer, headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation is an exterior home building products manufacturer, headquartered in Auburn, Washington. Ply Gem Residential Solutions is an exterior home building products manufacturer, headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. Simonton Doors & Windows is a replacement window and patio doors manufacturer based in Cary, North Carolina. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Martin D. Bern, Esq. C. Hunter Hayes, Esq. David W. Moreshead, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: martin.bern@mto.com hunter.hayes@mto.com david.moreshead@mto.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on Ruling to Remand Nevarez Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the appeal on the decision to remand the case, Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), is still pending. In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand is being appealed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937, is pending. On June 23, 2020, a putative class action was filed against the Company, the Board of Directors, the Costco Benefits Committee and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937. The class is alleged to be beneficiaries of the Costco 401(k) plan from June 23, 2014, and the claims are that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the operation and oversight of the plan. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On September 11, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 21 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the defendants have also moved to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Edwards Labor Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the case Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.), is pending. In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In May 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina and a third-party payor in Ohio, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 42 states and American Samoa. Similar actions were commenced against the Company in state courts in Utah (2019) and Texas (2021). Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of these matters. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in the consolidated "Johnson" and "Chen" suit, is pending. The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020. An appeal in the Ninth Circuit is pending. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. DELL TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Class V Transaction Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL). On December 28, 2018, the Company completed a transaction (the "Class V transaction") in which it paid $14.0 billion in cash and issued 149,387,617 shares of its Class C Common Stock to holders of its Class V Common Stock in exchange for all outstanding shares of Class V Common Stock. The non cash consideration portion of the Class V transaction totaled $6.9 billion. As a result of the Class V transaction, the tracking stock feature of the Company's capital structure associated with the Class V Common Stock was terminated. The Class C Common Stock is traded on the NYSE. Four purported stockholders brought putative class action complaints arising out of the Class V transaction. The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers' Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0115-JTL). The four actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court into In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), which names as defendants the Company's board of directors and certain stockholders of the Company, including Michael S. Dell. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former stockholders. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of damages, fees, and costs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making substantially similar allegations to those described above. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September 2019. The court denied the motion in June 2020 and the case is currently in the discovery phase. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on May 3, 2022. Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors, printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products. Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas. DELL TECH: Pivotal Software Acquisition Related Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company, VMware, Inc. Michael S. Dell, and certain officers of Pivotal Software, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: Pivotal Software, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 2020-0440-KSJM). On December 30, 2019, VMware, Inc. completed its acquisition of Pivotal Software, Inc. from the Company by merger. Two purported stockholders brought putative class action complaints arising out of VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal Software, Inc. on December 30, 2019. The two actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court into In re: Pivotal Software, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 2020-0440-KSJM). The complaint names as defendants the Company, VMware, Inc., Michael S. Dell, and certain officers of Pivotal. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the former holders of Pivotal Class A Common Stock in connection with VMware, Inc.'s acquisition of Pivotal by allegedly causing Pivotal to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of Pivotal's controlling stockholders at the expense of such former stockholders. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of damages, fees, and costs. Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors, printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products. Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas. DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Laptop Upgradeability Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Chandraveer Mathur, writing for NewsBytes, reports that Apple makes it clear that to get an upgrade, customers have to buy a new MacBook. Meanwhile, in 2019, Dell's subsidiary Alienware launched the Area-51m R1 laptop claiming that it offered "unprecedented upgradeability". A distraught customer has filed a class-action suit against Dell over the "false and misleading" marketing that promised the laptop's core components could be upgraded in the future. 2020 laptop components weren't available as upgrades for 2019 variant Dell's Alienware Area-51m debuted at CES 2019 with 8th and 9th-generation Intel CPUs (including the i7-8700, i7-9700K, and i9-9900K processors) mated to NVIDIA's RTX 2070 and RTX 2080 GPUs. When the Area-51m R2 laptop launched in 2020, its internals including the 10th generation Intel CPUs, RTX 2070 Super, and RTX 2080 Super GPUs weren't available as upgrades for the R1. Dell promised support for Intel processors compatible with Z390 chipset Back in 2019, Dell specified that the laptop will only support Intel processors that use its Z390 motherboard chipset. The chipset is compatible with the processors that the R1 shipped with, but Intel's new 10th generation processors used a new 400-series chipset. Intel usually releases a new motherboard chipset and processor pairing every year, and that is not in Dell's control. Claim applies to low-end laptops upgraded using higher-spec siblings' parts Thanks to Intel's annual chipset redesign, the R1 can't borrow the R2's components. Coming to the GPUs, Dell told The Verge in 2019 that it would "like to be able to say yes (to upgradeability); right now, we have no idea." Essentially, Dell's "unprecedented upgradeability" claim holds good for upgrading low-end R1 laptops using components available for the higher-end R1 laptops. Suit alleges that Dell knew laptop couldn't accommodate future components Robert Felter's lawsuit alleges that since Dell works closely with Intel and NVIDIA, it should have known the product specifications prior to public launch. "With full knowledge that the design of the Area-51m R1 could not accommodate future Intel and NVIDIA chipsets, Dell launched a global campaign to mislead the public that the Area-51m R1 was upgradeable," the suit alleges. Dell didn't disclose that highest-spec laptops wouldn't be upgradeable In an email, Felter's lawyer told Tom's Hardware that "Dell's advertisement to the public didn't place any restrictions on the upgradeability of the laptop". "They also never disclosed that those with the highest-spec CPU and/or GPU that their device would not be upgradeable," the lawyer added. Robert Felter is reportedly asking the court for a jury trial. Plaintiff is seeking damages, attorney fees for himself, other customers The Verge reported that Alienware customer Robert Felter has sued the company in California court. Felter alleged that Dell "intentionally misled and deceived" buyers. He is seeking damages, relief, and attorney fees for himself and affected customers in California and eight other states. [GN] DHL EXPRESS: Martin Sues Over Misleading Delivery Charges --------------------------------------------------------- NOAM MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. MER-L-001161-21 (N.J. Super., June 2, 2021) is an action challenging the Defendant's deceptive uniform policy in the delivery of goods purchased from retailers outside the United States which are delivered by DHL to recipients inside the US. According to the complaint, under the Defendant's uniform policy, DHL sends the recipient a written notice imposing an additional charge which the notice falsely represents to be reimbursement for import duties advanced by DHL, but which in reality includes an undisclosed and unauthorized $17 service charge imposed by DHL which is not any type of import duty, tax, or other government-mandated charge or fee. In actuality, the written description of the additional charge demanded in such DHL email notices as a "duty" and "import duty" advanced by DHL is allegedly false, deceptive and misleading. Dhl Express (USA), Inc., doing business as DHL Express, provides mail services. The Company offers addressed letters, parcels, air and ocean freight, contract logistics, warehousing and distribution, and packages services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com DILLY KEY: Acosta Suit Claims Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- GISELLE ACOSTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DILLY KEY RESTAURANT HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-10056 (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated restaurant servers and bartenders appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Ms. Acosta has been employed by the Defendant as a restaurant server and bartender since January 2020. Dilly Key Restaurant Holding, LLC is an owner and operator of multiple restaurants located at 103900 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, 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 ECWID INC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecwid, Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ecwid, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05145 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ecwid -- https://www.ecwid.com/ -- is a software-as-a-service e-commerce company that provides online selling solutions for small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal EDIE PARKER: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edie Parker LLC. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Edie Parker LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05147 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Edie Parker -- https://edie-parker.com/ -- is a collection of acrylic clutch handbags and home decor, founded and designed by Brett Heyman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elias Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- AMBROSE ELIAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV21278 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failure to provide meal period; failure to provide rest period; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to timely pay all wages owed; and failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee until December 2, 2019. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC is a provider of car rental services based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. Hilary Silvia, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com hilary@koullaw.com FIGURE TECHNOLOGIES: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Figure Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Figure Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05148 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Figure Technologies -- https://www.figure.com/ -- is an American financial technology company that provides financial services using blockchain technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FLORIDA HEALTH: 2nd Amended Doyle Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT DOYLE, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SOLUTION, CORP., and MOBILITY TECHNOLOGIES USA, CORP., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-24013-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: (i) denied as moot Defendant FHS' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"); and (ii) denied its Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. On Sept. 27, 2019, Plaintiff Doyle filed the class action against FHS for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On Feb. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against FHS, again alleging violations of the TCPA. FHS moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Barr v. Am. Assoc. Political Consultants. The Court granted the motion in part and stayed the action. On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Barr, holding that the government-debt exception to the TCPA was unconstitutional. The Court then lifted the stay in the matter. On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a SAC, adding Mobility as a defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that FHS sells "credit health savings plans" and that Mobility transmits telemarketing calls on behalf of its clients, including FHS. However, for the bulk of the SAC, the Plaintiff does not differentiate between FHS and Mobility and merely alleges that the "Defendants" used prerecorded telemarketing calls to market the Defendants' business. The SAC sets forth two counts for violations of the TCPA: Count I against FHS and Count II against Mobility. On Nov. 1, 2020, FHS moved to dismiss the SAC arguing that it fails to adequately allege a violation of the TCPA and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act precludes application of the TCPA to FHS. On Feb. 5, 2021, FHS filed the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss arguing the Supreme Court's ruling in Barr rendered the entire TCPA invalid and, as a result, destroyed the Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims. Discussion I. Jurisdiction FHS argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the entire TCPA was rendered invalid by Barr. According to FHS, the Plaintiff cannot assert claims based on conduct that occurred while the TCPA was invalid. Jude Gayles holds that FHS' argument is without merit. As the Supreme Court explained in Barr, the robocall restriction functioned independently and fully operated as a law for 20-plus years before the government-debt exception was added in 2015. Therefore, severing the government-debt exception does not destroy the pre-existing robocall restriction. Thus, robocalls made between November 2015 and July 2020, not made for the purpose of collecting a government debt, are enforceable under the TCPA. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's TCPA claims. II. Shotgun Pleading Jude Gayles has reviewed the SAC and finds that it violates federal pleading standards. To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought." Additionally, "a party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." The federal pleading standards thus require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that, his adversary can discern what he is claiming and the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted." Judge Gayles finds that the SAC is an impermissible shotgun pleading because it lumps together the "Defendants" without identifying which of the Defendants is responsible for specific acts or omissions. As a result of these pleading deficiencies, the Jude is unable to ascertain whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim against both Defendants. Therefore, the SAC will be dismissed against FHS without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Based on the foregoing, Judge Gayles denied Defendant FHS' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. He dismissed the SAC against FHS without prejudice. The Plaintiff will file a Third Amended Complaint by June 11, 2021. The Judge denied as moot Defendant FHS' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. The Judge denied Defendant FHS' Motion to Stay Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88uura8 from Leagle.com. GENERAL MILLS: Judge Tosses Mislabeling Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a California federal judge has shot down a proposed deal to resolve a class action alleging that General Mills Inc. mislabels its fruit-flavored snacks as having no artificial flavor, saying the deal shows signs of collusion as it offers the class of consumers no money and a large payout to its attorneys. [GN] GENESIS FINANCIAL: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesis Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genesis Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05157 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Genesis -- https://www.genesis-fs.com/ -- is the nation's leading provider of private-label credit programs for non-prime consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GEO GROUP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that one tactic to defeat a class action is to assert that the named plaintiff is not an appropriate or proper representative for the class. These initiatives are not often successful, but defense counsel should always be looking for them. A defendant employer is doing just that by asserting that a lead plaintiff does not share a sufficiently commonality with the rest of the class to allow the case to proceed. The cases are entitled Washington v. GEO Group Inc. and Nwauzor et al. v. GEO Group Inc. and were filed in federal court in the Western District of Washington. The defendant filed the motion to decertify the class one day before the trial was scheduled to begin, an interesting tactic in its own right. The lead plaintiff had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but he had previously been found by the court to be competent to be the class representative. Now, the defense lawyers are asserting that the man's condition had "deteriorated significantly" and a referral for him for inpatient treatment indicated he was possibly looking at a "possible long-term civil commitment." The defendants claimed that Mr. Nwauzor was not a proper class representative because "his claims are not typical of the class as a whole." The Company argued that this person only worked in a single job, i.e. a shower cleaner in the time he was confined. Thus, the defendants assert that "his experience is too narrow — both in time and in the scope of his VWP experience. As the sole class representative, Nwauzor represents participants in only one out of more than a dozen VWP positions and only about seven percent of the class period." Alternatively, the defendant contended that even if the class is not de-certified, it should be limited to only those workers who occupied the same position as the lead plaintiff. The timing of the motion to de-certify is interesting, as stated above, as jury selection was supposed to start a day later. The employer had fought long and hard for a totally in-person hearing. The employer offered the example of the Derek Chauvin as proof that such an in-person trial could be accomplished safely. The Takeaway This is an interesting tactic and it is one that does not often fall into the hands of a defendant employer. If the motion is successful, the class is eliminated, and the individual is left to vindicate only his own claim. The lesson is if there exists an opportunity to find a magic bullet to get rid of the entire class action, the employer should avail itself of it. Keep looking for that magic bullet . . . [GN] GLOBAL PLASMA: Boeing Study Cited in Federal Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Jewett and Lauren Weber at Kaiser Health News report that aerospace giant Boeing tested two kinds of ionization technologies -- like those widely adopted in schools hoping to combat Covid-19 -- to determine how well each killed germs on surfaces and decided that neither was effective enough to install on its commercial planes. Boeing noted in its conclusion that "air ionization has not shown significant disinfection effectiveness." Companies that make the air purifiers say they emit charged ions, or "activated oxygen," that are said to inactivate bacteria and viruses in the air. Boeing did not test the technology's effectiveness in the air, only on surfaces. It also used a "surrogate" for the virus that causes Covid-19. The Boeing study has been cited in a federal lawsuit filed by a Maryland consumer against Global Plasma Solutions, maker of the "needlepoint bipolar ionization" technology that a Boeing spokesperson said its engineers tested. The proposed class-action lawsuit says GPS makes "deceptive, misleading, and false" claims about its products based on company-funded studies that are "not applicable to real world conditions." A GPS spokesperson said the lawsuit is "baseless and misleading" and that the company will aggressively defend against it. He added that Boeing "researchers deemed the study 'inconclusive.'" "Plaintiff's Complaint throws the proverbial kitchen sink at GPS in the hopes that something might stick," the air purifier company says in court documents filed May 24 as part of its motion to dismiss the proposed class action. "But it is devoid of any concrete, specific allegations plausibly alleging that GPS made even a single false or deceptive statement about its products." The plaintiff's case cites a KHN investigation that found that more than 2,000 U.S. schools had bought air-purifying technology, including ionizers. Many schools used federal funds to purchase the products. In April, a covid-19 commission task force from The Lancet, a leading medical journal, composed of top international health, education and air-quality experts, called various air-cleaning technologies -- ionization, plasma and dry hydrogen peroxide -- "often unproven." Boeing said in its report that with ionization there is "very little external peer reviewed research in comparison to other traditional disinfection technologies" such as chemical, UV and thermal disinfection and HEPA filters, all of which it relies on to sanitize its planes. The controversy is getting the attention of school officials from coast to coast. They include one California superintendent who cited the lawsuit and switched off that district's more than 400 GPS devices. For worried parents and academic air-quality experts who regard industry-backed studies with skepticism, the Boeing report heightens their concerns. "This [study] is totally damning," said Delphine Farmer, a Colorado State University associate professor who specializes in atmospheric and indoor chemistry who reviewed the Boeing report. "It should just raise flags for absolutely everyone." 'No reduction' in bacteria GPS pointed to another study, one conducted in the weeks before Boeing began its study in September, by a third-party lab. It completed a study of two devices — powered by GPS technology — that another aviation company now markets to clean the air and surfaces in planes. That study looked at the effect of the ionizers on the virus that causes Covid-19 when used on aluminum, a type of plastic called Kydex and leather. The test report shows it was conducted in a sealed, 20-by-8-foot chamber, with airflow speeds of 2,133 feet per minute -- or about 24 mph. At the end of 30 minutes, "the overall average decrease in active virus" was more than 99 percent. "Given the specific environment this was tested in, the quality of the materials, and the method in which the virus was dispersed, it is safe to say that the bipolar ionization system used in this experiment has the ability to deactivate SARS-CoV-2 with the given ion counts," the Aug. 7 report from the third-party lab says. The following month, Boeing began its own testing of GPS devices and another kind of ionization technology. The Boeing study cites a GPS white paper that says its device killed 99.68 percent of E. coli bacteria in one test in 15 minutes. GPS records show the test was done on bacteria suspended in the air. The Boeing engineers used the company's technology to try to kill E. coli on surfaces in a lab but found "no observable reduction in viability" after an hour. The Boeing study notes it "was unable to replicate supplier results in terms of antimicrobial effectiveness." GPS cautioned that the Boeing tests examined disinfection of surfaces, not the air: "While GPS products do have the ability to help reduce pathogens in air and on surfaces, GPS products are not chemical surface disinfectants." Yet surface tests comprise half of the test results the company lists on its "pathogen reduction" webpage, a GPS spokesperson confirmed. Boeing researchers found another lab result they could not replicate: While the GPS white paper reported a 96.24 percent reduction in Staphylococcus aureus in 30 minutes, Boeing engineers found "no reductions" in the bacteria in an hourlong test. Boeing found minimal or no reduction on surfaces in four other pathogens it tested with GPS ionizers for an hour in a Huntsville, Alabama, lab. Notably, Boeing's tests in Huntsville detected no hazardous ozone gas from the GPS unit, the report says. The "corona discharge" ionization technology from another vendor that Boeing also studied did emit ozone at levels that "exceeded regulatory standards." A University of Arizona lab test described in the Boeing study found that the GPS device showed a 66.7% inactivation of a common cold coronavirus on a surface after an hour of exposure at up to 62,000 negative ions per cubic centimeter. That ion level is far higher than the amount of ions company leaders have said the devices tend to deliver to a typical room. Those levels have ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 and even up to 30,000 ions per cubic centimeter when an HVAC system is running, according to records provided to KHN and statements made by company representatives. In a presentation during a Berkeley Unified School District meeting in California, a physicist who appeared with executives said a level of more than 60,000 ions per cubic centimeter "has been shown to be not healthy." GPS noted that Boeing deemed the 66.7 percent effectiveness rate in killing the common cold virus "statistically significant." A GPS spokesperson said the result validates needlepoint bipolar ionization's "effectiveness against certain pathogens." In its report, Boeing called the test results "inconclusive" due to "lack of experimental confirmation." A GPS spokesperson also highlighted a passage in the Boeing report's conclusion that said: "There remains significant interest in air ionization due to lack of byproduct production, minimal risk to human health, minimum risk to airplane materials and systems, and the potential for persistent disinfection of air and surfaces under specific flow conditions." The Boeing study concluded in January. In April, GPS published the results of additional tests it funded at a third-party lab showing its technology "is highly effective in neutralizing the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen." Boeing engineers said their study highlights the need for those in the ionization business to standardize the evaluation of the technology "to allow comparison to other proven methods of disinfection." Ripple effects of the Boeing study On May 7, law firms representing a man who spent over $750 on a GPS air cleaner in Texas filed the "fraudulent concealment" lawsuit against GPS in U.S. District Court in Delaware. The lawsuit claims that the defendant's "misrepresentations and false statements were woven into an extensive and long-term advertising campaign . . . accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic." "People are being victimized by these companies for profit," said Mickey Mills, a Houston attorney for the plaintiff. "People are scared because of covid, and they capitalize on it." In filing a motion to dismiss the case, GPS told the court the lawsuit was an "attempt to distort the facts and assert baseless claims, doing grave damage to GPS's business in the process." The GPS court document also says the disclaimers on its website "make it unreasonable for any consumers to believe that the efficacy demonstrated in GPS studies will necessarily be the same for their particular application." It asserts that most of the GPS statements identified in the plaintiff's lawsuit -- such as "safe to use" and "cleaner air" -- amount to "non-actionable puffery" as they are "vague generalities and statements of opinion." The lawsuit spurred a Newark, California, school district to turn off its GPS devices, according to a May 18 memo from Superintendent Mark Triplett to district families. The district spent nearly $360,000 on the devices, an April board presentation shows. The roughly 5,500-student district bought GPS units for every school HVAC system, Triplett said in a March school board meeting in which he noted the technology "arguably is much better than any filter." By May, he said in the memo the district had become aware of the lawsuit "alleging the misrepresentation" of the devices and would continue to monitor the situation. A company spokesperson noted GPS appreciates Newark's concerns and has reached out to share additional data and answer questions, as well as extended "an offer to conduct onsite testing to verify the safety of this technology and the added benefits." Megan McMillen, vice president of the Newark Teachers Association and a special education preschool teacher, said it was disheartening to know the cash-strapped district in the Bay Area spent so much on the devices instead of other safety measures or services to mitigate learning loss after the chaotic pandemic year. "For such a big chunk of that [money] going to something potentially ineffective . . . is really frustrating," she said. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Gift Cards Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- David Collins, writing for LawStreet, reports that defendants Alphabet, Inc., Google, Inc., Google Payment Corp., and Google Arizona LLC filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Transfer Venue, and/or Strike Class Allegations in the Central District of California. They did so in response to an ongoing class-action lawsuit against their alleged "refus[al] to redeem Google Play gift cards in accordance with California law." In the notice, the defendants explained that "Google Play is Google's online platform through which sellers can sell apps, games, movies, and other digital content", and that Google Play gift cards are bound to the "Gift Card TOS", which incorporates the Google Play Terms of Service and the Google Terms of Service. The defendants emphasized that the Google TOS has a forum selection clause that states: "disputes will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California." Google argued that their forum selection clause should be "enforced either by dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or by transfer to the Northern District of California", claiming that they have a "significant corporate footprint there" and that they "employ thousands of employees at [their] various offices in the Northern District." The defendants argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed "in its entirety for failure to state any viable claim." They claimed that California's Unfair Competition Law and the breach of contract claims "are not governed by the Gift Certificate Law." Furthermore, they suggested that each putative class member be verified as a Google Play gift card holder, so that Google can check whether their individual accounts were subject to "improperly applied" security measures. The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. They are seeking class action certification, restitution, an award for damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Google is represented by Cooley LLP. [GN] HANNAFORD BROS: Prinzo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JUDITH PRINZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Case No. 2183CV00323, was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plymouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-10968-JGD to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC is a supermarket chain based in Scarborough, Maine. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher M. Pardo, Esq. Elizabeth L. Sherwood, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 60 State Street, Suite 2400 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 648-2800 Facsimile: (617) 433-5022 E-mail: cpardo@HuntonAK.com esherwood@HuntonAK.com HORMAN'S PICKLES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horman's Pickles, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Horman's Pickles, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05167 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Horman's Pickles, Inc. -- https://hormansbestpickles.com/ -- delivers variously flavored pickles.[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 HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mobile Emergency Housing Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed in Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al. v. HP, Inc. On December 17, 2020, a putative consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates. The complaint alleges seven claims under federal and California law: (1) violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") for allegedly causing "damage without authorization" to the plaintiffs' printers; (2) violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) violation of the "fraudulent" prong of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) violation of the "unfair" prong of the UCL; (6) violation of the "unlawful" prong of the UCL; and (7) trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide injunctive-relief class of "all persons in the United States who own a Class Printer" and a monetary relief subclass of those who experienced an error message due to third-party cartridge incompatibility resulting from a firmware update, defining "Class Printers" to include the "HP Color LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281, and all other models affected" by the firmware updates described in the complaint. On February 10, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and in response, on March 2, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended complaint added an additional named plaintiff, a California state consumer subclass, and a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the new plaintiff and the state consumer subclass. Plaintiffs subsequently filed Second and Third Amended Complaints respectively on March 19 and April 8, 2021. The Third Amended Complaint adds allegations pertaining to data collection—specifically, that HP allegedly collected data on the type of third-party cartridges that Plaintiffs used on their printers without their knowledge, in violation of the FAL and UCL and in a manner giving rise to a trespass of chattels. The Third Amended Complaint also pleads new claims under the CFAA and CDAFA based on these data collection allegations, as well as a new claim under the CDAFA based on the theory that HP lacked authorization to issue the firmware updates at issue. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief. On May 24, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit Underway in Israel --------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc. On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers." Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers." On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Oral Argument on Appeal in Parziale Suit Set for July 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that oral argument on the appeal made in Parziale v. HP Inc., is scheduled on July 29, 2021. On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. sections 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges." On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in full with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument for July 29, 2021. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103 Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 19, 2021, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies business, including alleged statements made about changes to HP's channel inventory management and sales practices, and stabilization of printing supplies revenue. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP's printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: York County Putative Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. On February 11, 2021, the court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On April 21, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business, including information about HP's channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. I.C. SYSTEM: New York Court Dismisses Teitelbaum FDCPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted ICS' motion to dismiss the case, BORUCH TEITELBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-3272 (PKC) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.). Some time prior to June 23, 2020, Plaintiff Teitelbaum incurred a debt to New York State Electric & Gas Corporation ("NYSEG") for electric and gas services. NYSEG contracted with Defendant I.C. System ("ICS") to collect this debt. On June 23, 2020, ICS sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding a debt owed on his account with a utility company. The letter told the Plaintiff: "The account information is scheduled to be reported to the national credit reporting agencies in your creditor's name. ICS will not submit the account information to the national credit reporting agencies until the expiration of the time period described in the notice below." The Plaintiff asserts that ICS's letter, particularly the combination of the first and last sentences of the second paragraph, implies that Defendant ICS will be reporting to the credit reporting agencies after the expiration of the time period in addition to the original creditor submitting as well. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the letter misleadingly represents that two companies will report the same debt to the credit reporting agencies at the same time, i.e., that the same debt would be reported twice. On July 21, 2020, the Plaintiff brought suit individually and on behalf of a putative class against ICS, alleging a single violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. On Sept. 21, 2020, ICS moved for a pre-motion conference to discuss a proposed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff responded. By order dated Oct. 9, 2020, the Court construed ICS' motion for a pre-motion conference as a motion to dismiss and directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs. Following supplemental letter briefing, the Court took the motion under submission. Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint does not plausibly state a violation of the FDCPA. She says the Plaintiff's proposed interpretation of the collection letter tortured and "idiosyncratic," one that even the most naïve and unsophisticated consumer could not reasonably reach. The letter does not state that NYSEG will be reporting any debt or account information to the credit reporting agencies. Rather, the plain language of the letter makes clear that ICS, and not the creditor NYSEG, will be reporting the relevant information: it states that "the account information is scheduled to be reported to the national credit reporting agencies in your creditor's name," and then, in the same paragraph, makes clear that "ICS will not submit the account information to the national credit reporting agencies until the expiration of the time period described in the notice below." The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's argument reads into the statement something that it does not say, and ignores that two sentences later, in the same paragraph, the letter explicitly identifies ICS as the entity that will be submitting "the account information" to the national credit reporting agencies. Even the least sophisticated consumer is deemed to be willing and able to read a collection letter in its entirety and with some care. In short, only a consumer in search of ambiguity, and not the least sophisticated consumer relevant in the case, would interpret ICS' collection letter in the idiosyncratic and illogical way the Plaintiff posits. Indeed, a lawyer in search of ambiguity is even more likely than a consumer in search of ambiguity to find fault with this entirely accurate and innocuous debt collection letter. Assuming that the collection letter is read as a whole and with some care, even the least sophisticated consumer could not reasonably interpret it to say that both NYSEG and ICS will be reporting the consumer's "account information" to the credit reporting agencies or that the debt will be reported twice to these agencies. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a plausible violation of the FDCPA under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, and is dismissed with prejudice. For these reasons, Judge Chen granted the motion to dismiss is granted, and dismissed the Complaint. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of all the Defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yes82sf9 from Leagle.com. IMMUNOVANT INC: IMVT-1401 Related Putative Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Immunovant, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action suit related to the false and misleading statements regarding the safety of IMVT-1401. In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the Company's securities from October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the safety of IMVT-1401 and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On April 20, 2021, three movants filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, one of which was subsequently withdrawn on April 23, 2021. No hearing date has been set for the lead plaintiff motions. Following appointment of lead plaintiff, defendants, including the Company, expect the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint and defendants, including the Company, to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously and has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote. Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on enabling normal lives for people with autoimmune diseases. The company is developing a novel, fully human monoclonal antibody, IMVT-1401 (formerly referred to as RVT-1401), that selectively binds to and inhibits the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor ("FcRn"). The company is based in New York, New York. INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS: Ogden Suit Transferred to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled STEVEN BRETT OGDEN and BRANDON MICHAEL MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS COMPANY LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP, THE ANSUL COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., NATIONAL FOAM, INC., KIDDEFENWAL, INC., KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC., US PUMP COMPANY, LLC, WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, NSK LIMITED, NSK CORPORATION, NSK PRECISION AMERICA, INC., NSK-AKS PRECISION BALL COMPANY, and APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00273, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01703-RMG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and gross negligence and strict products liability by designing, manufacturing, and marketing of an industrial firefighting foam that contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Plaintiffs and Class members were allegedly exposed to PFAS and suffered injuries after the Defendants' industrial firefighting foam was used to put out a fire at Intercontinental Terminals Company's tank yard in Deer Park, Texas on March 17, 2019. Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC, is a premier terminal services company, headquartered in Deer Park, Texas. Johnson Controls Inc. is a producer of electronics and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, headquartered in Wisconsin. Tyco Fire Products, LP is a fire protection and general industrial machinery company based in Pennsylvania. The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. US Pump Company, LLC is a provider of industrial fire solutions based in New York. Williams Fire & Hazard Control is a provider of fire protection equipment supplies based in Texas. NSK Limited is a machinery manufacturing company based in Tokyo, Japan. NSK Corporation is a machinery manufacturing company based in Tokyo, Japan. NSK Precision America, Inc. is a manufacturer of metal products based in Franklin, Indiana. NSK-AKS Precision Ball Company is a manufacturer of metal products based in Franklin, Indiana. Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. is a global company that focused on the distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control solutions, and other industrial supplies, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. David W. Hodges, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com dhodges@hftrialfirm.com - and – William R. Oden, Esq. FARRAR & BALL, L.L.P. 1117 Herkimer Street Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 221-8300 Facsimile: (713) 221-8301 E-mail: bill@fbtrial.com - and – Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq. Spencer T. Speed, Esq. HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3812 Telephone: (713) 626-3700 Facsimile: (713) 626-3709 E-mail: choussiere@hdhtex.com sspeed@hdhtex.com IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: PERSM Named Lead Plaintiff in Habelt Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK HABELT, Plaintiff v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00776-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (PERSM)'s unopposed motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel. The federal securities class action was filed on Feb. 1, 2021. The Defendants in the action are iRhythm and Kevin M. King, iRhythm's President, CEO, and a member of the iRhythm's board of directors. The complaint charges the Defendants with violating sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 for misrepresenting on two occasions, in December 2020 and January 2021, iRhythm's business and operations with respect to U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's rules regarding payment policies and payment rates for certain iRhythm products and services. On April 2, 2021, Gang Chen, Bryan Hawkins, and PERSM filed competing motions to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs. Messrs. Hawkins and Chen withdrew their motions on April 16 and 30, respectively. Discussion A. Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), the Court should appoint as lead plaintiff whoever has the "largest financial interest" in the relief sought by the class, provided they also satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 (typicality and adequacy). Judge Chen holds that all three of these factors weight in favor of appointing PERSM in the instant case. First, it is undisputed that PERSM has the "largest financial interest" in this action, under any relevant metric. PERSM spent $7,944,181 to purchase 35,160 shares of iRhythm, retained 26,269 of those shares, and incurred a monetary loss of $1,809,061 during the relevant class period. Second, the claims of PERSM are typical of the class because it purchased iRhythm stock during the relevant class period and alleges that it suffered losses because of the drop in the iRhythm stock price caused by the December 2020 and January 2021 corrective disclosures alleged in the complaint. There are no allegations that PERSM's claims are not typical or that it is subject to affirmative defenses that the other class members are not subject to. Finally, there are no allegations that PERSM is inadequate to serve as the Lead Plaintiff, such as it having a conflict of interest. To the contrary, significant losses give PERSM a sufficient stake in the litigation that will ensure vigorous prosecution. Before withdrawing his motion, Mr. Chen argued that PERSM was an inadequate lead plaintiff because it has been appointed lead plaintiff in 14 cases, 12 of which were commenced in the last three years, contravening the PSRLA's restriction against being appointed lead plaintiff in "more than 5 securities class actions during any 3-year period." But courts in thie district routinely waive this "five-in-three" restriction for institutional investors like PERSM. Judge Chen exercises his discretion to waive the five-in-three requirement because PERSM is presumptively the most adequate Lead Plaintiff and no other plaintiff opposes PERSM's motion. B. Lead Counsel The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject to the Court's approval. The Court should interfere with the Lead Plaintiff's selection only when necessary "to protect the interests of the class." In the case, PERSM selected Pomerantz as the Lead Counsel for the Class. As its resume reflects, Pomerantz is highly experienced in the areas of securities litigation and class actions and has successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities fraud class actions on behalf of investors. There is no basis for the Court to conclude that Pomerantz will be unable to protect the interests of the class in the instant case. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Chen grants PERSM's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and selection of Pomerantz as the Lead Counsel. To ensure efficiency, the Judge adopts the following protocols. First, other than Pomerantz, no other law firm will work on the action for the putative class without prior approval of the Court. Motions for approval of additional Plaintiffs' counsel will identify the additional Plaintiffs' counsel and their background, the specific proposed tasks, and why Pomerantz cannot perform these tasks. Second, any individuals who will seek fees in the case, including staff, consultants, and experts, will maintain daily, contemporaneous time records. This means that block-billing will not be permitted, and time records must account for every tenth of an hour (not a quarter of an hour). "Contemporaneous time records" means that each individual who works on the case must record their time no later than seven days after they complete each task. Third, Pomerantz will take every effort to minimize costs and expenses through lean staffing (e.g., number of attorneys attending and billing for each deposition and court appearance) and imposing limits on travel expenses (e.g., coach air fare, no luxury hotels), etc. Finally, the Court may, in its discretion, call upon the counsel to submit records as to any of these protocols and/or a report for the Court's independent review. The Order disposes of Docket No. 22. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9an6x5hc from Leagle.com. JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Device Causes Addiction, Mendones Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- GUALBERTO MENDONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; PAX LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-13, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01700-DCN (D.S.C., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for design defect, failure to warn, negligence and/or gross negligence, wanton and willful conduct, fraud, civil conspiracy, outrage, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants designed an electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) or e-cigarette allegedly intended to create and sustain nicotine addiction. JUUL e-cigarettes are designed to be inhaled easily and to deliver substantially higher doses of nicotine than cigarettes. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff developed a severe nicotine addiction through use of the Defendants' e-cigarette device. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., Esq. H. Cooper Wilson, III, Esq. MCLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC 3 Morris Street, Suite A P.O. Box 21624 Charleston, SC 29413 Telephone: (843) 277-6655 Facsimile: (843) 277-6660 - and – Peter M. McCoy, Jr., Esq. MCCOY LAW GROUP, LLC 15 Prioleau Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 459-8835 JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio District Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NORTHWESTERN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04411 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Northwestern Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 7571 North Elyria Road in West Salem, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio School Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SOUTHEAST LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04373 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Southeast Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 9048 Dover Road, Apple Creek, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: N.Y. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAMDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04402 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Camden Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located on 51 Third Street in Camden, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Md. School District Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cecil County Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04371 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Cecil County Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 201 Booth Street in Elkton, Maryland. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Tenn. School Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Humphreys County School System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04405 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Humphreys County School System is a unified school district with its offices located at 2443 Highway 70 East in Waverly, Tennessee. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------- BRISTOL TENNESSEE CITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04375 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. Bristol Tennessee City Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 615 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Bristol, Tennessee. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ASHLAND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04409 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. School District of Ashland is a unified school district with its offices located at 2000 Beaser Avenue in Ashland, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KATIONX CORP: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KationX Corp. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KationX Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-05155 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kationx -- https://www.kationx.com/ -- is a fast growing, Florida based, technology company that manufactures environmentally safe products for the Wastewater Treatment and Horizontal Directional Drilling industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal KIRKLAND'S STORES: Miles Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA MILES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-01559-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 6, 2021 to enter an order: 1. determining that a class action is proper as to all causes of action in the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); 3. certifying the following Class(es) and/or Subclass(es): a. All of the Defendant's past and present non-exempt, hourly-paid employees in California from May 24, 2014 through the present; b. All of Defendant's past and present California non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who spent time going through a security check/bag check process while off-the-clock from May 24, 2014 through the present; c. All of Defendant's past and present California non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who performed work, or otherwise were required to wait to perform work, prior to clocking in or after clocking out for their shift from May 24, 2014 through the present; d. All of Defendant's past and present California non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who worked more than five hours in a shift from May 24, 2014 through the present; e. All of Defendant's past and present California non- exempt, hourly-paid employees who worked more than eight hours in a shift from May 24, 2014 through the present; f. All of Defendant's past and present California non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who received an itemized written wage statement at any time from May 24, 2014 through the present; and g. All of Defendant's past and present California non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who were required to use their personal cell phone for work from May 24, 2014 through the present; 4. Finding Plaintiff Ariana Miles to be an adequate representative and certifying her as the class representative; 5. Finding Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms, namely Carolyn H. Cottrell, David C. Leimbach, and Michelle S. Lim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, and Edwin Aiwazian and Arby Aiwazian of Lawyers for Justice, PC, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel Kirkland's Stores, Inc. operates as a home furnishing store. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pLgDRy at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative Class, Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California, are: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com - and - Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com arby@calljustice.com KODIAK CAKES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kodiak Cakes, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kodiak Cakes, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05182 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kodiak Cakes -- https://kodiakcakes.com/ -- is a brand of pancake and waffle mix.[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 KOHL'S CORP: Mollett Sues Over Unpaid OT for Call Center Agents --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANA MOLLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00707-PP (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas common law by failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide meal breaks or pay premiums in lieu thereof, and failing to provide rest breaks or pay premiums in lieu thereof. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a call-center employee in San Antonio, Texas from approximately October 2010 until January 2021. Kohl's Corporation is an omnichannel retailer headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Gregory P. Stratz, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com gstratz@hq-law.com - and – Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com LAWLINE: Zwerin Files ADA Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawline, et al. The case is styled as Steven Zwerin, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lawline, a New York corporation; ALM Media Holdings, a Delaware corporation; TRT CLE, a New York corporation; Case No. 2:21-cv-00780-JRC (W.D. Wash., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lawline -- https://www.lawline.com/ -- is the leading provider of online continuing legal education offering legal intelligence to attorneys in all 50 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Waldo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN F WALDO 2108 MCDUFFIE STREET HOUSTON, TX 77019 Phone: (206) 849-5009 Email: johnfwaldo@hotmail.com - and - Roger M Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 3670 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 652-8660 Fax: (206) 652-8290 Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com LEARJET INC: Wood Wins Conditional Collective Action Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WOOD AND DENNIS PARR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LEARJET, INC. AND BOMBARDIER, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02621-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification; 2. directing the Defendants to provide, to the extent not previously provided, the last known home mailing addresses, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers of all potential class members; 3. directing the Defendants to provide the last four digits of social security numbers for all members of the class whose mailed notices are returned undeliverable; 4. approving Mark Woods and Dennis Parr as the class representatives; and 5. directing parties to confer and submit an Agreed Notice to the Court to be sent to the class members by United States mail and email. The Court declines to narrow the collective class to these limited circumstances. Although Plaintiffs contend that Defendants engaged in a pattern of placing older employees on subjective PIPs and then terminating their employment when they failed to reach those expectations, Plaintiffs also contend that some employees were threatened with placement on a PIP and left employment because they believed that they would be constructively discharged. In addition, the Plaintiffs include allegations that Defendants stated their intention to reduce the average age of the BFTC workforce, and shortly after stating this intention, several older employees were terminated and told that their terminations did not relate to poor job performance. Accordingly, the Defendants' proposal is too restrictive. In sum, the Court finds that the following class definition is appropriate: "all persons who were non-bargaining unit personnel employed in the Bombardier Flight Test Center in Wichita, Kansas on April 2, 2016, and whose employment thereafter ended, and were forty years of age or older at the time their employment ended." The Plaintiffs Mark Wood and Dennis Parr, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring a claim against the Defendants Learjet, Inc. and Bombardier, Inc. under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They claim that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination culminating in their terminations. This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs meets the standard for conditional certification, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zobG5u at no extra charge.[CC] LEONARD DIPASQUALE: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancer Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI ANN QUAGLIARIELLO, MARIA SIMON, and CHRISTLYNN KARNS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. LEONARD DiPASQUALE, individually and t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and/or TAVERN IN THE GLEN, JOHN DOE t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DUANE CRAIG, and JOSEPH SHOEMAKER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00699-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this action as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and to permit Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice to the potential members of the collective: "all current and former exotic dancers who provided services at Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club at any time from April 27, 2017 through the entry of final judgment in this case." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iOCCFZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq. Matthew Mobilio, Esq. MOBILIO WOOD 900 Rutter Ave., Box 24 Forty Fort, PA 18704 Telephone: (570) 234-0442 Facsimile: (570) 266-5402 E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com matt@mobiliowood.com - and - Alex Pisarevsky, Esq. Erika R. Piccirillo, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: ep@njlawfirm.com ap@njlawfirm.com LEVY ELECTRIC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Levy Electric Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Electric Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05156 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Levy -- https://www.levyelectric.com/ -- is primarily focused on direct-to-consumer electric scooters but started expanding into rental fleets in 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal LIBERTY INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Horn Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JACOB HORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as assignees of Ican Benefit Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company, ROBERT VETTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as assignees of Ican Benefit Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-12525 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment to Liberty. The appeal requires the Court of Appeals to interpret an insurance agreement between iCan, a Florida company, and its insurance provider, Liberty Insurance. It must determine, under Florida law, whether a policy exclusion barring coverage for claims arising out of an invasion of privacy excludes coverage for claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") in which the complaint repeatedly alleges that the defendants invaded the privacy of the Plaintiffs. The class action lawsuit at issue in the appeal revolved around iCan sending "unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones without the consent of the recipients." The class complaint, brought by class representative Horn, specifically alleged two causes of action -- both for TCPA violations: one for violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), and one for violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(B). The complaint alleged that iCan not only invaded the personal privacy of the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Classes, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA. It also alleged that iCan has caused consumers actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and that the text messages disturbed Horn's use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware (including the phone's battery) and the consumption of memory on Horn's phone. The class action sought actual and statutory damages for the alleged TCPA violations. At the time the class action was filed, iCan was insured by Liberty. Under the liability policy provision of their insurance agreement, Liberty was obligated to "pay on behalf of iCan Loss which the Company becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of any Claim for any Wrongful Acts by the Company taking place prior to the end of the Policy Period." The insurance policy defined the term "Claim" as, among other things, "a civil proceeding against any Insured commenced by the service of a complaint or similar pleading." The policy also listed several exclusions to the liability provision. After the class action was filed, iCan asked Liberty to defend and indemnify it in the lawsuit, but Liberty declined to do so. Liberty wrote iCan a letter that included several justifications for denying coverage under the policy -- one of which was that the invasion of privacy exclusion applied because the complaint was based upon allegations that the class members' privacy rights were violated by iCan sending unsolicited text messages. After iCan received the coverage denial letter from Liberty, it entered into a settlement agreement with the class Plaintiffs. iCan agreed it was liable to the class for $60,413,112. That aggregate amount was not broken down into "actual" versus "statutory" damages, nor was the amount broken down into loss that arose from privacy harms versus loss that arose from nuisance, annoyance, or property damage. The agreement provided that "the Judgment may not be satisfied from or executed on any assets or property of iCan," but "shall only be satisfied from Liberty." The agreement assigned iCan's rights against Liberty under its insurance policy to the class Plaintiffs. After a fairness hearing, the district court approved the class action settlement. To recover under the settlement agreement, the class Plaintiffs filed an action against Liberty seeking declaratory relief that it was entitled to recover under the policy. After Liberty's motion to dismiss the action was denied, both parties moved for summary judgment. The class Plaintiffs argued that iCan's insurance policy covered the class action, which meant that Liberty had a duty to defend and indemnify iCan in the lawsuit, while Liberty argued that the invasion of privacy exclusion applied to the class action and precluded recovery. Liberty also argued, in its opposition to the class Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, that the class could not recover under the policy in any event because iCan failed to allocate between covered and noncovered losses in the settlement agreement. The district court granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the insurance policy's invasion of privacy exclusion applied to the class action lawsuit and barred coverage for the entire action. The district court also concluded, in the alternative, that even if only some of the settled losses were precluded by the invasion of privacy exclusion, iCan's failure to allocate the underlying settlement agreement into covered and noncovered loss precluded recovery for any remaining covered loss. The class Plaintiffs appealed. Discussion To resolve the appeal, the Eleventh must interpret the insurance policy exclusion which provides that Liberty "shall not be liable for Loss on account of any Claim made against iCan based upon, arising out of, or attributable to any actual or alleged invasion of privacy. The class Plaintiffs argue that the class action is not excluded from coverage by the invasion of privacy exclusion because the class action alleged harms other than invasion of privacy, TCPA claims do not include an element of invasion of privacy, and, at the very least, the exclusion is ambiguous and should be resolved in favor of coverage. To give the invasion of privacy exclusion its "full meaning and operative effect," the Eleventh Circuit focuses its analysis on three of the operative terms in the invasion of privacy exclusion: (1) "Claim"; (2) "arising out of"; and (3) "invasion of privacy." A. "Claim" Interpreting the term "Claim" is simple because the insurance policy itself clearly and thoroughly defines the term as "a civil proceeding against any Insured commenced by the service of a complaint or similar pleading." In the case, therefore, the claim is the civil proceeding against iCan commenced by the service of the class action complaint. Accordingly, if any of the allegations of the complaint are excluded from coverage, the entire lawsuit is excluded, even if the complaint contains allegations that would otherwise be covered. This interpretation -- that the "claim" is the entire "civil proceeding" -- is quite broad. But the rule requiring the Eleventh Circuit to construe exclusions narrowly does not mean that expansive definitions in insurance policies are impermissible. And although it may be more "desirable to the insured" -- or the class Plaintiffs -- to read the term "Claim" narrowly in the case, the clear policy language prevents us from doing so. If the Eleventh Circuit finds the civil proceeding "arose out of an invasion of privacy," Liberty is not liable for any of the consent judgment. B. "arising out of" The Eleventh Circuit states that "arising out of" is a term of art regularly used in insurance policies. The Supreme Court of Florida has interpreted the phrase broadly and held that it is "broader in meaning than the term 'caused by' and means 'originating from,' 'having its origin in,' 'growing out of,' 'flowing from,' 'incident to' or 'having a connection with.'" Florida's broad interpretation of the phrase "arising out of" means that if the class action even "has a connection with" the invasion of privacy, the lawsuit falls under the invasion of privacy exclusion. C. "invasion of privacy" The final step in the analysis is for the Eleventh to determine whether the class action arose out of an "invasion of privacy." It concludes that it did because the class complaint specifically alleged that iCan intentionally invaded the class members' privacy and sought recovery for those invasions. These allegations show that the class claim clearly "has a connection with" the invasion of privacy. Accordingly, as the "civil proceeding" in the case "arises out of" an "invasion of privacy," the invasion of privacy exclusion in the insurance policy applies. Like the district court, the Eleventh Circuit need not determine whether TCPA violations are per se invasions of privacy to reach the conclusion that, in the case, the "civil proceeding" arose out of an "invasion of privacy." The class Plaintiffs and the dissent assert that the invasion of privacy exclusion is ambiguous, and should be construed in the favor of coverage, because one reasonable interpretation is that, by listing multiple common law tort causes of action but not statutory causes of action like the TCPA, the exclusion does not reach a TCPA claim. In other words, the class Plaintiffs and dissent argue that the exclusion applies only to common law torts, and the complaint does not allege the common law tort of invasion of privacy. The Eleventh Circuit finds this argument is unavailing. The insurance policy does not cabin the invasion of privacy exclusion to claims alleging those listed tort causes of action, rather it broadly excludes "civil proceedings" "arising out of" an "invasion of privacy." Notably, the dissent omits that phrase from its analysis and suggests that a plaintiff must state a common law tort claim to trigger the coverage exclusion provision. That position contravenes the Florida Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the phrase because it would transform the phrase "arising out of" or "having a connection with" into "for" any "invasion of privacy" in the tort sense. But the policy as written cannot bear that interpretation, and it is not our role to modify the terms of a contract. Accordingly, although the Eleventh Circuit acknowledges that "invasion of privacy" is the name of a common law tort, it cannot simply analyze the phrase, as the dissent proposes, without heeding the interpretive constraints imposed by the other terms in the policy. Conclusion Because the invasion of privacy exclusion barred coverage for the class action, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment to Liberty. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ft58v2hn from Leagle.com. LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Sues Over Refinery's Environmental Disasters ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFFORD BOYNES, CHRIS CHRISTIAN, MARGARET THOMPSON, DELIA ALMESTICA, CARLOS CHRISTIAN, MINOR CHILD "J.M.M.", MINOR CHILD "V.M.", MINOR CHILD "Z.R.C.", MINOR CHILD "M.M", MINOR CHILD "O.N.", ANNA REXACH-CONSTANTINE, MERVYN CONSTANTINE, NEAL DAVIS, EDNA SANTIAGO, GUIDRYCIA WELLS, O'SHAY WELLS, AARON G. MAYNARD, VERNE MCSWEEN, ROCHELLE GOMEZ, JOAN MATHURIN, MYRNA MATHURIN, ANN MARIE JOHN-BAPTISTE, WARRINGTON CHAPMAN and LEOBA JOHN-BAPTISTE PELLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC; LIMETREE BAY REFINING, LLC; LIMETREE BAY TERMINALS, LLC; ARCLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; FREEPOINT COMMODITIES, LLC; EIG GLOBAL ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00253 (D.V.I., June 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, abnormally dangerous condition, response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, public nuisance, private nuisance/trespass, statutory private nuisance, medical monitoring, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Virgin Islands Air Pollution Control Act and the Virgin Islands Water Pollution Control Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful operation of the Limetree Bay Refinery, which caused environmental disasters that threatened the citizens and local economy of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been subjected to unreasonable odors, gases, vapors, and fumes which contain toxins due to the Defendants' unlawful operation of the refinery. The Defendants' discharge of oil and other chemicals, toxins, and particulates, into the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' residences and other properties, interfered with their use and enjoyment of their homes and properties, damaged their homes and properties, and caused personal injuries, the suit alleges. Limetree Bay Ventures, LLC is an energy facility with its headquarters located in the Virgin Islands. Limetree Bay Refining, LLC is an operator of an oil refinery based in Virgin Islands. Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC is a joint venture that operates the Limetree Bay Terminal in the Virgin Islands. Arclight Capital Partners, LLC is a member of the joint venture that owns and operates the Limetree Bay facility with its headquarters located in Massachusetts. Freepoint Commodities, LLC is a member of the joint venture that owns and operates the Limetree Bay facility with its headquarters located in Connecticut. EIG Global Energy Partners, LLC is a private investments private equity company, with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. BP Products North America, Inc. is a company that involves in the operation of an oil refinery, headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER JONES 9003 Havensight Mall, Ste. 319 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-7386 Facsimile: (340) 714-5080 E-mail: jjones@vienvironmentallaw.com - and – Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com pthibodeaux@fishmanhaygood.com hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com - and – Hugh Lambert, Esq. J. Christopher Zainey, Esq. Brian Mersman, Esq. THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com czainey@thelambertfirm.com bmersman@thelambertfirm.com MAPCO EXPRESS: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Female Store Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY VASSER, and AMY LUSANE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MAPCO EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00665 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional collective action certification of their Equal Pay Act claim against Mapco pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. conditionally certifying the following collective action class definition: "All female Store Managers at Defendant Mapco Express, Inc.'s and other similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles at Mapco's locations nationwide at any time from the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint, June 4, 2017 to the present;" 3. approving notice to issue in the form and method proposed by Plaintiffs to all members of the collective; 4. directing MAPCO to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel a computer readable file (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with the name, mailing address, phone number, dates of employment, store(s) location, Social Security Number, and employee ID number for each such worker, and to conspicuously post the notice in each store. 5. directing that the requested information be provided by MAPCO to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the Court's Order granting conditional certification; 6. giving 90 days during which putative collective members may post-mark their consent forms, with the 90 days to commence when the notice is mailed to the putative collective members; The Plaintiffs, all of whom are women, worked at Mapco in the Store Manager position during the relevant time period. The Plaintiffs allege and intend to prove that they were paid less than men in the same positions performing the same work which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions. Mapco Express is located in Franklin, Tennessee and is part of the Gas Stations Industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zpKIL4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212)545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com The Attorneys for the Defendant are: J. Christopher Anderson, Esq. Patricia J. Martin, Esq. Allan G. King, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450 Nashville, TN 37201 E-mail: chrisanderson@littler.com pmartin@littler.com agking@littler.com MCDONALD'S CORP: BIPA Class Action Lands in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------- Kristin L. Bryan, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that BIPA is a frequently litigated data privacy statute, and as readers of CPW know, we've been covering BIPA litigations for some time (for some of our prior coverage, check out here, here and here). Often these claims are brought in the context of a preexisting employee-employer relationship, where employees allege that their employer improperly collected their data in violation of BIPA for timekeeping purposes. A recent BIPA lawsuit against McDonalds filed on behalf of customers alleging that the fast food chain utilized drive-thru voice assistants in Illinois which captured and stored customers' biometric voiceprint identifiers without their written consent breaks with this trend. Carpenter v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02906 (N.D. Ill.). Read on to learn more. First, a quick recap. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") was enacted in 2008 and has standards regarding the retaining and handling of the biometric data of Illinois residents. At its core, BIPA protects the "biometric information" of Illinois residents, which is any information based on "biometric identifiers" that identifies a specific person -- regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared. 740 ILCS 14/10. Biometric identifiers are, "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry." Id. (collectively, with "biometric information," "biometric data"). The Carpenter complaint, which was initially filed in Illinois state court, alleges that "[i]n an effort to reduce costs and staff, beginning sometime in 2020 McDonald's implemented an artificial intelligence (AI) voice assistant in the drive through of various McDonald's restaurants across the nation, including in Illinois." The crux of Plaintiff's claim is that "McDonald's AI voice assistant's voice recognition technology collects customers' voiceprint biometrics in order to be able to correctly interpret customer orders and to identify repeat customers to provide a tailored experience." However, "McDonald's has failed to comply with BIPA's regulations and does not notify its customers that when they interact with McDonald's AI voice assistant their voiceprint biometric information is used and collected, nor does McDonald's obtain their consent to do so." Plaintiffs proposed class includes "[a]ll individuals whose voiceprint biometric identifiers or biometric information were collected, captured, stored, transmitted, disseminated, or otherwise used by or on behalf of Defendant within the state of Illinois any time within the applicable limitations period and for whom Defendant did not have any written record of consent to do so." While disputing Plaintiff's allegations, McDonald's had the case removed to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). There, the court will address whether Plaintiff's Complaint should make it past the pleading stage and enter discovery, assuming McDonald's moves to dismiss. Ultimate questions of liability will depend largely on McDonald's business practices, and whether it was simply collecting voiceprints to understand customers' orders or alternatively if it was "connecting the dots" to ascertain customers' exact identities. For instance, the Complaint alleges that, "McDonald's AI voice assistant goes beyond real-time voiceprint analysis and recognition and also incorporates 'machine-learning routines', that utilize voiceprint recognition in combination with license plate scanning technology to identify unique customers regardless of which location they visit and present them certain menu items based on their past visits." Of course, whether that allegation is well-founded based upon McDonald's actual practices remains to be seen. For more on this litigation, stay tuned. As more states continue to enact biometric laws with a private right of action, more entities will find themselves named in similar litigation. CPW will be there to keep you in the loop. Stay tuned. [GN] MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Personal Injury Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF KAY COUNTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00176, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04382-CRB to the proceeding. In this class suit, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages caused by the opioid epidemic, including but not limited to (1) costs for providing medical care, additional therapeutic and prescription drug purchases, and other treatments for patients suffering from opioid-related addiction or disease, including overdoses and deaths; (2) costs for providing treatment, counseling and rehabilitation services; (3) costs for providing treatment of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions; (4) costs of providing care for children whose parents suffer from opioid-related disability or incapacitation; (5) costs associated with law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid epidemic; and (6) costs associated with drug court and other resources expended through the judicial system. McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consulting firm, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert G. McCampbell, Esq. Jeffrey A. Curran, Esq. Kyle D. Evans, Esq. GABLEGOTWALS Fifteenth Floor One Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7101 Telephone: (405) 235-5500 Facsimile: (405) 235-2875 E-mail: rmccampbell@gablelaw.com jcurran@gablelaw.com kevans@gablelaw.com - and – James L. Bernard, Esq. David M. Cheifetz, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-5400 Facsimile: (212) 806-6006 E-mail: jbernard@stroock.com dcheifetz@stroock.com MDL 2389: Fund Distribution Plan in FB IPO Securities Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. IPO SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:12-md-02389-CM-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan. The Lead Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order approving a distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund in the securities class action. Having reviewed and considered all the materials and arguments submitted in support of the motion, including the Memorandum in Support of Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and the Declaration of Adam D. Walter in Support of Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan, Judge McMahon approved the Lead Plaintiffs' plan for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants. Accordingly: (a) The administrative recommendations of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd. (A.B. Data). to accept the Timely Eligible Claims set forth in Exhibit E to the Walter Declaration, the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims set forth in Exhibit F to the Walter Declaration, and any pending defective Claims that are cured 30 days prior to the Initial Distribution, are adopted. (b) The Claims Administrator's administrative recommendations to reject the Rejected Claims as set forth in Exhibit G to the Walter Declaration, including the Disputed Claims discussed in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the Walter Declaration and Exhibit D to the Walter Declaration (except for any pending defective Claims that are cured 30 days prior to the Initial Distribution, which will be accepted), are adopted. (c) Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, A.B. Data is directed to conduct the Initial Distribution of approximately 95% of the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting all payments previously allowed and the payments approved by the Order, and after deducting the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow tees, while maintaining approximately a 5% reserve from the Net Settlement Fund to address any contingencies that may arise (the Initial Distribution). (d) To encourage Authorized Claimants to cash their distribution checks promptly, all distribution checks will bear the following notation: CASH PROMPTLY. VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED BY [DATE 120 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE]. The Lead Counsel and A.B. Data are authorized to take appropriate action to locate and contact any Authorized Claimant whose distribution check is not cashed within said time as detailed in paragraph 41(b) footnote 12 of the Walter Declaration. (e) Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution checks within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in paragraph 41(b) footnote 12 of the Walter Declaration will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds allocated to all of these stale-dated checks will be available to be distributed to other Authorized Claimants in the Second Distribution. Similarly, Authorized Claimants who do not cash their second or subsequent distribution checks, should such distributions occur, within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in paragraph 41(b) footnote 12 of the Walter Declaration will irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the Net Settlement Fund. (f) After A.B. Data has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their Initial Distribution checks, as provided in paragraph 41(b) footnote 12 of the Walter Declaration, but not earlier than six months after the Initial Distribution, A.B. Data will, after consulting with Lead Counsel, conduct the Second Distribution in which any amount remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Initial Distribution. Additional distributions, after deduction of costs and expenses as described and subject to the same conditions, may occur thereafter in six-month intervals until the Lead Counsel, in consultation with A.B. Data, determine that further distribution is not cost-effective. (g) When the Lead Counsel, in consultation with A.B. Data, determines that further distribution of the funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, if sufficient funds remain to warrant the processing of Claims received after Jan. 2, 2021, those Claims will be processed, and any otherwise valid Claims received after Jan. 2, 2021, as well as any earlier-received Claims for which an adjustment was received within the 30 days prior to the Initial Distribution or after the Initial Distribution and resulted in an increased Recognized Claim amount, will be paid in accordance with subparagraph (h). If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after payment of these late or late-adjusted Claims, the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in administering the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be contributed to the National Consumer Law Center; and (h) No new Claims may be accepted after Jan. 2, 2021, and no further adjustments to Claims received on or before Jan. 2, 2021, that would result in an increased Recognized Claim amount may be made for any reason within the 30 days prior to the Initial Distribution or after the Initial Distribution, subject to the following exception. A.B. Data's fees and expenses incurred in connection with providing notice and the administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, as stated in the invoices attached as Exhibit II to the Walter Declaration, are approved. The Lead Counsel are directed to pay out of the Settlement Fund the outstanding balance of $3,527,228.73, plus accrued interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund, to A.B. Data, and its estimated fees and expenses for work to be performed on behalf of the Class in connection with the Initial Distribution in the amount of $113,997.46. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, A.B. Data may destroy the paper copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year after the Second Distribution, and one year after all funds have been distributed A.B. Data may destroy electronic copies of the same. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications concerning the administration of the Settlement, and any other and further relief that it deems appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/43fuucb6 from Leagle.com. MISSOURI: $113-Mil. Judgment in Hootselle v. MDOC Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS HOOTSELLE, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MISSOURI CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Respondents v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, Case No. SC98252 (Mo.), the Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc, affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the Cole County circuit court awarding a class of Missouri corrections officers approximately $113 million, plus post-judgment interest for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs are a class of corrections officers employed by the Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC") and the corrections officers' collective bargaining unit, the Missouri Corrections Officers Association ("MOCOA"). The class covers approximately 14,000 officers employed within 21 correctional facilities. MDOC employs the corrections officers to supervise, guard, escort, and discipline offenders incarcerated in Missouri prisons. Before arriving at their posts to perform these duties, however, the corrections officers have long been required to perform a variety of other tasks. These tasks are known within the MDOC as preshift activities. As part of their preshift activities, the officers log their arrival, scan identification, sign entry and exit records or submit to biometric identification, pass through security, report to a supervisor, retrieve equipment, walk to their posts, and exchange information with other corrections officers. Corrections officers execute these same tasks in reverse upon leaving their posts. When performed after leaving a post, these activities are referred to as postshift activities. MDOC has never paid officers for time spent performing preshift and postshift activities and has consistently denied requests for overtime pay for time spent completing these activities. In 2007 and 2014, the corrections officers, through MOCOA, entered into labor agreements with MDOC. The labor agreements govern a wide array of corrections officers' rights and duties as MDOC employees and the agreements incorporated MDOC's procedure manual's definitions and terminology. The manual defines how state compensatory time and federal overtime are earned by corrections officers. Together, the agreement and the manual provide that MDOC will comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) regarding the accrual and payment of overtime. The procedure manual also states its purpose is to ensure departmental compliance with the FLSA and that the corrections officers must be compensated for "time worked." In 2012, the corrections officers filed a class action lawsuit, alleging MDOC breached its statutory obligations under the FLSA and its contractual duties under the labor agreements to pay the corrections officers for preshift and postshift activities. As amended, the corrections officers' petition contains seven counts. Counts I and II asserted freestanding claims for violations of section 105.935.3, RSMo Supp. 2005, and the FLSA, respectively. Count III alleged MDOC breached a contract created by operation of section 105.935.3, RSMo Supp. 2005, and 1 C.S.R. 20-5.010(1)(E) by failing to pay the corrections officers for preshift and postshift activities. Counts IV and V alleged claims for damages under unjust enrichment and quantum meruit theories, respectively. In Count VI, MOCOA alleged MDOC breached the 2007 and 2014 labor agreements by failing to pay the corrections officers for preshift and postshift activities under the FLSA. In the alternative to Count VI, MOCOA sought a declaration in Count VII that MDOC was contractually obligated to compensate the corrections officers for preshift and postshift work time pursuant to the labor agreements. In 2014, MDOC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts I and II, which the circuit court sustained. MDOC next moved for summary judgment in 2016, claiming the corrections officers' breach of contract claims should be treated the same as freestanding claims for violations of the FLSA and dismissed. The motion was overruled. In June 2018, the corrections officers filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claims, Counts III and VI of the petition. Essentially, they sought to have the circuit court determine MDOC was liable on its breach of contract claims and leave the issue of damages to be decided by a jury. As authorized under Rule 74.04(c)(6), the circuit court sustained the corrections officers' motion, entering a partial summary judgment that determined MDOC was liable for all preshift and postshift activities under the terms of the agreements requiring compliance with the FLSA. It further held the only issue remaining for trial was a computation of the corrections officers' damages. Before trial, the corrections officers filed a motion seeking to exclude the expert testimony of MDOC's experts, Dr. Chester Hanvey and Elizabeth Arnold, on grounds their testimony did not meet the statutory requirements of section 490.065.2, RSMo Supp. 2018. The circuit court sustained the corrections officers' motion, and the case then proceeded to trial in August 2018. During trial, the corrections officers presented the expert testimony of Dr. William Rogers, who opined the corrections officers sustained actual damages of approximately $113 million. MDOC again sought to introduce the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Hanvey and made an offer of proof outside the jury's presence, but the circuit court ruled MDOC's expert testimony would remain excluded. The jury returned a verdict awarding the corrections officers approximately $113 million. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the corrections officers on Counts III and VI, the breach of contract claims. Counts IV and V were dismissed. The judgment also adjudicated Count VII and declared the parties' contractual rights and obligations under the labor agreements. Among other things, the judgment declared the parties' labor agreements imposed a contractual duty on MDOC to pay compensation for all work performed by the corrections officers as required by the FLSA, including preshift and postshift activities. The circuit court further ordered MDOC to pay overtime compensation for preshift and postshift activities prospectively and to implement a new department-wide timekeeping system to track time spent performing preshift and postshift activities. MDOC appealed, and the Court granted transfer after an opinion by the court of appeals. MDOC raises several issues on appeal, including claims that the circuit court erred in: sustaining the corrections officers' motion for partial summary judgment because preshift and postshift activities are not compensable under the FLSA; sustaining the corrections officers' motion for partial summary judgment because they cannot maintain a private cause of action; excluding MDOC's expert witnesses; overruling MDOC's motion to decertify the class; and granting the corrections officers declaratory and injunctive relief on an expired contract. The Supreme Court concludes that the corrections officers' statement of undisputed material facts in support of their motion for partial summary judgment demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the retrieval of keys and radios and the supervision of inmates while walking to and from the corrections officers' daily posts are integral and indispensable to their work as correction officers. Under the continuous workday rule, all preshift and postshift activities after the first and before the last principal activity of either retrieving or returning keys and radios or supervising inmates are also compensable. The undisputed material facts do not establish, however, the chronological order of the preshift and postshift activities to permit a determination of which preshift and post activities are compensable under the continuous workday rule, the Supreme Court finds. Additionally, the undisputed facts are insufficient to show all the other preshift and postshift activities are compensable as principal activities, as a matter of law, so the circuit court's determination that all preshift and postshift activities are compensable was erroneous. The award of damages and the circuit court's declaratory and injunctive relief were based on that erroneous finding of liability, so those rulings are also erroneous. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the circuit court's judgment determining MDOC must compensate the corrections officers for time spent retrieving keys and radios and time spent monitoring and supervising offenders while not on post is affirmed. It vacated the remainder of the circuit court's judgment. The cause is remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynb9vh59 from Leagle.com. NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Narrows Claims in Veterans Rideshare Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VETERANS RIDESHARE, INC.; CAR CHAMPS FINANCE, LLC; YOUR LEASING SOLUTION, LLC, Plaintiffs v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORP.; NAVISTAR, INC.; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01304-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Navistar Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court on May 26, 2020. The Defendants removed the action to the Court on July 10, 2020 and subsequently moved to dismiss the Complaint. On Aug. 21, 2020, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") conditionally transferred the action to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The court approved a class-wide settlement in January 2020 that resolved most of the MDL disputes. As to the cases that opted out of the settlement, including the instant action, the Northern District of Illinois suggested remand to the Judicial Panel on MDL because they involved case- and fact-specific discovery and motion practice. The Panel thereafter ordered the action remanded. The Court then reopened the case and ordered a briefing schedule on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs leased 141 MaxxForce Engine Vehicles ("Subject Vehicles") from Sutton Leasing, Inc., a Michigan corporation, which purchased them from Navistar. Plaintiff Veterans Rideshare is a trucking company that offers specialized custom logistics" while the other two Plaintiffs, Car Champs and Your Leasing, are in the business of leasing vehicles to individual truckers and/or their companies. The Plaintiffs' Complaint arises from the allegedly defectively designed emissions system in the engines of the Subject Vehicles, which were manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Navistar. They allege that the Defendants elected to design the engines of the Subject Vehicles using only an older technology called "Exhaust Gas Recirculation" ("EGR") to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") emissions standards. EGR technology cools and then recirculates part of an engine's exhaust gas back into the engine cylinders, which lowers the in-cylinder temperatures during combustion and reduces the amount of nitrogen oxide produced. The Plaintiffs claim that Navistar made multiple representations in marketing materials that its engines were reliable, would ensure optimal long-term performance, and would be both fuel efficient and low-cost. However, the Plaintiffs allege, the EGR technology caused the Subject Vehicles' engines to create more "particulate matter," or soot, and required the cooling system to reject more heat into the atmosphere ("heat rejection"), which overloaded the emissions components and caused them to fail. The failures included clogged and cracked EGR coolers and valves, leading to "engines shutting down or losing power, EGR cooler or valve failures, turbocharger failures, diesel particulate filter clogging, and other issues that led to excessive downtime of Navistar Trucks." They also claim that the sudden breakdowns required drivers to attempt emergency maneuvers and can cause coolant and exhaust fumes to leak into the passenger compartment of the trucks, posing a risk of poisoning the drivers. The Plaintiffs allege that Navistar knew about the defect as early as 2004, when they received complaints and ultimately a lawsuit from Ford regarding defects in EGR-only diesel engines used in its vehicles. In addition, they claim a securities lawsuit alleged that employees informed management about the limitations of EGR-only engines, but that the information was ignored and suppressed by management. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs contend, Navistar could not design the engines to comply with EPA emissions standards and were required to pay non-conformance penalties ("NCPs") to the EPA. The Plaintiffs bring causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, and a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). Analysis In their Motion, the Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs have alleged claims sounding in tort but seek to recover only economic damages, all claims are barred by California's economic loss rule. Additionally, regarding the fraud claims (negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and fraud in the inducement) and the related UCL claim, the Defendants contend that the alleged misrepresentations are puffery and therefore not actionable as fraud, and that the claims themselves fail to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Lastly, they seek to dismiss the UCL claim and the request for attorneys' fees as deficient as a matter of law. A. Economic Loss Rule The Defendants move to dismiss all claims on the basis that the Plaintiffs cannot seek only economic damages for tort claims pursuant to California's economic loss rule. The Plaintiffs respond that the economic loss rule does not apply because the parties are not in privity, and therefore the law allows for recovery in tort where Navistar's lack of ordinary care resulted in harm to Plaintiffs' economic interests. Judge Bashant finds that the absence of privity between the Plaintiffs and Navistar renders the economic loss rule inapplicable to the instant claims. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' negligence claim independently survives dismissal because a "special relationship" exists between the parties to establish a duty owed by Navistar to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have established a duty under the special relationship analysis to sustain their negligence claim for economic losses. B. Puffery As part of their negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, and UCL claims, the Plaintiffs claim that Navistar made false misrepresentations as to the quality of the EGR-only engines on which theys reasonably relied, to their detriment, when they entered into contracts to lease the Subject Vehicles from Sutton Leasing. The Defendants allege these statements are puffery and therefore cannot form the basis of fraud claims as a matter of law. Because the Plaintiffs do not proffer any counterarguments as to why the other statements in the Complaint are not puffery, Judge Bashant understands the Plaintiffs to waive their claims to the extent they rely on these misrepresentations. Therefore, she only addresses whether the above three statements are actionable. The Judge finds that the alleged public statement that MaxxForce engines in the Subject Vehicles would meet the 2010 EPA Standards goes beyond mere puffery because it makes a specific assertion about the engines that is measurable against a national standard. Thus, the Defendants' alleged misrepresentation regarding the ability of the MaxxForce engines to meet EPA standards is actionable. The Judge does not find the Defendants' alleged statement that the EGR-only system was a "proven technology" is actionable. She says the Complaint states only that the Defendants described EGR as "proven technology," without any specifics as to how, when, where, or by whom the technology was proven. This is the type of imprecise assertion that "can neither be demonstrably true nor false." Thus, the Judge finds this assertion is non-actionable puffery on which no reasonable consumer could rely. Lastly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs can sustain their fraud claims on the alleged EPA statement and Navistar's purported assertion about "optimized" EGR. She holds that the more specific and technical description of the product's attributes is a more concrete representation on which a reasonable consumer could rely and does not constitute puffery. To the extent any fraud claims are based on any other alleged misrepresentations, they are dismissed with leave to amend. C. Sufficiency of Fraud Claims Under Rule 9(b) Alternatively, the Defendants argue that even if the alleged misrepresentations are not puffery, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) for fraud-based claims. The Defendants argue that none of the fraud claims state with particularity these details. Specifically, they contend that the Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged omissions fail because they have not identified the necessary legal duty owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs to maintain these claims. Judge Bashant finds that only the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the "Maintenance Information Guide" identify with the requisite particularity the allegedly fraudulent material such that Defendants can adequately respond. The remaining claims regarding unspecified statements on Navistar's website and particular assertions in "marketing materials" do not provide the requisite detail to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard and are therefore dismissed with leave to amend. Judge Bashant further finds that she can reasonably infer that the Defendants had exclusive knowledge about the EGR-only engines that was unavailable to the public, and that consumers such as the Plaintiffs "only became aware of the problem if they actually experienced it first-hand. She says the Plaintiffs are not imputing exclusive knowledge on Defendants only by virtue of their involvement in the design of the engine; rather, the Complaint incorporates specific allegations about Navistar's intentional decision to suppress information about the defect and prevent the development of alternative technologies despite repeatedly being informed of engine failures and the limitations of using EGR-only technology. These claims are therefore sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b) and denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims based on omissions. D. UCL Claim The Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs cannot show they are in possession of their money or property to recover restitution under the UCL. The Plaintiffs agree that they are not entitled to restitution. However, they assert that they have alleged the necessary ongoing injury to state a claim for injunctive relief under the UCL because they are "still suffering ongoing harm based on Defendants' past conduct." In reply, the Defendants allege that this insufficiently states injury for purposes of injunctive relief because tge Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are subject to a real and immediate threat of future injury remediable by an injunction. Judge Bashant holds that the Plaintiffs can state a claim for injunctive relief on the basis that they are experiencing ongoing harm. However, the Complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for injunctive relief on this basis. The Complaint therefore provides insufficient factual matter from which the Judge can infer the Plaintiffs are suffering ongoing injuries entitling them to injunctive relief. Accordingly, she grants the Defendants' Motion and dismisses the Plaintiffs' UCL claim, with leave to amend, for failing to adequately allege injury that satisfies the standing requirement for injunctive relief. E. Attorneys' Fees Lastly, the Defendants request dismissal of the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees because they have not cited to any legal authority for an attorneys' fees award. The Plaintiffs oppose on the basis that they may seek fees as a private attorney general under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. Judge Bashant finds that the Defendants do not address in their Reply whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees under this provision. As such, she denies their motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees as premature. Conclusion Judge Bashant finds that while some of the allegedly fraudulent statements in the Complaint are non-actionable as puffery, the Defendants' arguments in support of dismissal of the Plaintiffs' negligence and fraud claims largely lack merit and do not warrant dismissal. In addition, she agrees the Plaintiffs' UCL claim inadequately pleads standing for injunctive relief, but finds the Defendants prematurely seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees. Accordingly, Judge Bashant denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the basis of the economic loss rule; granted in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims based on affirmative representations (the fraud in the inducement claim and part of the negligent misrepresentation claim based on affirmative representations) as nonactionable puffery and for failing to state a claim under Rule 9(b); denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims based on fraudulent omissions (the fraudulent concealment claim and part of the negligent misrepresentation claim based on omissions) for failing to state a claim under Rule 9(b); granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claim for failing to satisfy the standing requirement for injunctive relief; and denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees as premature. If the Plaintiffs elect to amend their deficient claims, their deadline to file an amended complaint was June 15, 2021. If they do not file an amended complaint or request an extension to do so by this deadline, the Defendants are required to file an answer by June 29, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8tatbpae from Leagle.com. NESTLE USA: Saldivar Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee-Mate Products -------------------------------------------------------------- ELAINE SALDIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-04162-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its dairy coffee creamer under its Coffee-mate, Natural Bliss brand, purporting to be "natural" and flavored mostly or exclusively by natural vanilla ("Product"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the promises that the Product contains natural vanilla and natural flavor, the Product contains no appreciable or detectable amount of natural vanilla, and is flavored almost exclusively by artificial flavor. By placing the term "Natural Flavor" directly below "Vanilla," consumers will expect most, or all the flavoring to be from the natural flavor of vanilla. The Defendant's representations cause consumers to not expect added flavoring that purportedly provides a vanilla taste to be from non-vanilla sources. Although the flavoring used to simulate the Product’s characterizing vanilla flavor is (1) not from vanilla beans, (2) from an artificial petrochemical source and (3) made through an artificial process, Defendant pretends otherwise, conflating the natural and artificial flavoring and deceiving consumers, the suit says. Defendant also fails to disclose the addition of synthetic flavoring ingredients. Defendant knows consumers will pay more for the Product because it contains pictures of vanilla, the representations and omits that it is artificially flavored, added the suit. Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates, confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice creams, and frozen food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM, LLC 1900 S Norfolk St Ste 350 San Mateo CA 94403 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 Facsimile: (301) 620-1018 E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com OCWEN LOAN: July 9 Extension of Class Certification Hearing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued to July 9, 2021. Ocwen provides mortgage loans. The Company offers consumer home, reverse mortgage, and investment property loans. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iOJh2X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 900-1288 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara Louise Markert, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER 1920 Main Street, Ste. 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Telephone: (949) 223-7245 Facsimile: (949) 437-8845 E-mail: sara.markert@bclplaw.com - and - Brian V. Otero, Esq. Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq. Ryan A. Becker, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0005 Telephone: (212) 309-1000 Facsimile: (212) 309-1100 E-mail: botero@HuntonAK.com sblacklocks@HuntonAK.com rbecker@HuntonAK.com OREGON: Court Denies Bid to Remand Moore v. ODOC Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL MICHAEL MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00599-SB (D. Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denies the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, motion to expand the putative class action, and motions for a preliminary injunction. Mr. Moore, a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC"), filed the civil rights action on behalf of himself and three other adults in custody. Moore is currently housed at Snake River Correctional Institution. On Feb. 2, 2021, Moore filed the action in the Multnomah County Circuit Court, alleging that ODOC knowingly exposed the Plaintiffs to COVID-19 and that ODOC's failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights. The following day, co-plaintiffs Stuart Hamilton, Emmanuel Olmos-Cruz, and Juan Manuel Perez, each filed separate motions for a preliminary injunction, alleging that ODOC officials threatened and harassed them, and requesting transfer to a different ODOC facility. On April 21, 2021, ODOC removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). On April 30, 2021, Moore filed a motion to remand this action to state court, and on May 13, 2021, Moore filed a motion to expand the putative class action to add four additional AICs as co-plaintiffs. Discussion I. Motion to Remand ODOC removed the case to federal court on federal question grounds under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Section 1331 provides district courts with "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Under 28 Section U.S.C. Section 1367, district courts "have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." Judge Mosman opines that the the requirements for both federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction are met. First, Section U.S.C. 1331. Second, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' negligence claim against ODOC, as it involves the same set of facts and events as the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim. In addition, ODOC has complied with the procedural steps for effecting removal of the action by filing a notice of removal in federal court, filing a copy of the notice in state court, and serving the Plaintiffs with a copy of the Notice of Filing. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is denied. II. Motion to Expand Class Action Mr. Moore filed a motion to add four additional AICs to the putative class action. However, a self-represented plaintiff may not represent other plaintiffs in litigation. Accordingly, judge Mosman denies Moore's motion to expand the putative class action to include additional AICs. III. Preliminary Injunction Motions Before ODOC removed the case to federal court, co-plaintiffs Hamilton, Olmos-Cruz, and Perez each separately filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in state court, alleging that ODOC officials targeted, harassed, and intimidated them by subjecting them to unwarranted disciplinary action. As relief, the co-plaintiffs request transfer to a different ODOC institution. Judge Mosman concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted because the co-plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of immediate injunctive relief. As noted, the co-plaintiffs allege that ODOC officials "knowingly target, harass, and even manipulate Plaintiffs," but they do not offer specific, concrete allegations that support a finding of irreparable future harm. Accordingly, the Judge denies the motions for a preliminary injunction. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Mosman denies the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, the Plaintiffs' motion to add parties to the putative class action, and the Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/m85m9hc6 from Leagle.com. OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Parducci Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff will move the Court on September 15, 2021, to enter an order: 1. certifying a Class and subclass; 2. appointing him as Class Representative; and 3. appointing the law firms of Insurance Litigators & Counselors, PLC, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, and Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a California Class of insureds based upon his allegations that AMCO's inflation of the replacement cost value of its insureds' homes violates California's Unfair Competition Law and Elder Abuse Law, constitutes an intentional and negligent misrepresentation and breaches the duty of good faith and fair dealing. As a result of AMCO's practices, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class: "All owners of a homeowners insurance policy issued by AMCO Insurance Company that insured a dwelling in California on a replacement cost basis utilizing AMCO or its agent's survey, appraisal or inspection methodology to calculate the dwelling coverage limits and whose "Change in Coverage" following the survey, appraisal, or inspection was less than zero." The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass: "All owners 65 years of age or older of a homeowners insurance policy issued by AMCO Insurance Company that insured a dwelling in California on a replacement cost basis utilizing AMCO or its agent's survey, appraisal or inspection methodology to calculate the dwelling coverage limits, whose "Change in Coverage" following the survey, appraisal, or inspection was less than zero, and whose Coverage A Dwelling amount was not lowered as a result." Richard Parducci began handling insurance matters for his grandparents around 2008, first power of attorney, and later, as trustee. In 2018, he was appointed conservator for his grandmother. Around 2015, he hired an attorney to review his grandparents' insurance policies and first learned that their home’s replacement cost value was inflated, causing the trust to pay excessive premiums to AMCO. Overland Solutions provides insurance underwriting support services. AMCO provides auto, home, motorcycle insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xdUbTG 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 - and - Lawrence G. Papale, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE 1308 Main Street, Suite 117 Saint Helena, CA 94574 Telephone: (707) 963-1704 E-mail: lgpapale@papalelaw.com - and - Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. 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: rgm@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com PACIFIC GAS: Wong Sues Over Improper Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------- REGAL WONG; JULIO FONG; OSCAR MIRANDA ORTIZ; ROBERTO SANTOS VILLEGAS; ROGELIO FLORES; JOSE LUIS GALEAS; JORGE GARCIA; JOSE ABRAHAM LORENZO; MYNOR BOTEO; JOSE PRECIADO; ISMAEL ESCOTO; and CESAR HERNANDEZ JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHARD COLE; MURRAY COLE; EVANS DAVIDSON LLC; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-591962 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendants improperly imposed to the Plaintiffs water and electricity charges. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs operate auto repair and iron work related business in the property of the Defendants Cole known as "Little Tijuana" located the County of San Francisco. The Plaintiff rented the property and executed a contract where the Plaintiffs paid the Defendants the rent, electrical and water utility services. However, the Defendants' billing practices for electricity and water allegedly fail to comply with established statutory norms. There is a single meter for water and single meter for electricity. The single meter is utilized by various unrelated properties according to placement of master meters and water meters utilized by adjacent properties controlled by the Defendants. The physical inspections of the single meters would clearly indicate that the usage of electricity and water residential as well as commercial. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, doing business as PG&E, provides utility services. The Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial users. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julio J. Ramos, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS 35 Grove Street, Suite 107 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 948-3015 Facsimile: (415) 469-9787 PACIFIC MERCANTILE: SEC Filings Mislead Stockholders, Parshall Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP, JAMES F. DEUTSCH, BRAD R. DINSMORE, MANISH DUTTA, SHANNON F. EUSEY, MICHAEL P. HOOPIS, DENIS P. KALSCHEUR, MICHELE S. MIYAKAWA, DAVID J. MUNIO, STEPHEN P. YOST, and ANNE MCCALLION, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01015 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance of a false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which recommends Pacific Mercantile Bancorp's (PMB) stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of the company by Banc of California. The proxy statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) PMB's and Banc of California's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by PMB's financial advisor Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (KBW); and (ii) potential conflicts of interest of KBW. PMB's public stockholders, including the Plaintiff, will be irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed transaction, the suit says. Pacific Mercantile Bancorp is a bank holding company based in Costa Mesa, California. [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 - and – Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September 11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 28, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Peloton's Tread+ product was a serious safety risk to small children and pets, resulting in multiple incidents of injury to both including the tragic death of one child. The Company knew about the safety risk but did not treat safety as a priority, failing to recall or suggest a usage halt of the Tread+. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced that the Tread+ represented a serious risk to public safety and urged consumers with small children to stop using the product. The CPSC also found that the Tread+ represented a safety risk to consumers that lost their balance. 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 Peloton, 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] PINTEREST INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest" or the "Company") (NYSE: PINS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04220, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Pinterest securities between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Pinterest securities during the Class Period, you have until June 28, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Pinterest operates a platform that purports to provide inspiration for its users' lives. Monthly active users are the number of Pinterest users who interact with Pinterest at least once during the 30-day period ending on the date of measurement. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) user growth was already slowing; (ii) as a result, the Company expected user engagement to slow in the second quarter of 2021; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On April 27, 2021, after the market closed, Pinterest announced its first quarter 2021 financial results and reported that global monthly active users grew only 30% year-over-year to 478 million, a decline from the prior quarter's 37% year-over-year growth. During a conference call held the same day, Pinterest's Chief Executive Officer stated that "[a]s pandemic lockdowns were eased in some parts of the world during mid-March, we began to see signs of less engagement and user growth on Pinterest." On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.25 per share, or 14.5%, to close at $66.33 per share on April 28, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] PROVENTION BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 7 disclosed that purchasers of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB) securities between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until July 20, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Provention Bio class action lawsuit, Paxton v. Provention Bio, Inc., No. 21-cv-11613 (D.N.J.), which is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Provention Bio securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Provention Bio class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Provention Bio class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Provention Bio class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Provention Bio class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Provention Bio class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Provention Bio class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Provention Bio class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 20, 2021. Provention Bio is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. Provention Bio's product candidates include, among others, PRV-031 teplizumab and monoclonal antibodies, in Phase III clinical trial for the interception of type one diabetes ("T1D"). In November 2020, Provention Bio completed the rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA"). The Provention Bio class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Provention Bio's teplizumab BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure FDA approval; (ii) accordingly, Provention Bio's teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support Provention Bio had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) Provention Bio had thus overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, Provention Bio's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 8, 2021, Provention Bio issued a press release "announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2, 2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time." On this news, Provention Bio's stock price fell nearly 18%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked Robbins Geller as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered and total number of class action settlements for shareholders every year since 2010. The SCAS 2020 Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] PURECYCLE TECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against PureCycle Technologies, Inc. for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 12, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. PureCycle's management team had previously taken six companies public, each of which imploded shortly thereafter. The Company's motivation in going public was to secure tens of millions of dollars and tradeable shares whether the deal was favorable or unfavorable. The Company faced intense competition for feedstock which it misled investors about. The Company's patent did not hold the value it led investors to believe. The Company's pressurized process was not yet functional at production scale, and remained dangerous. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about PureCycle, investors suffered damages. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com URL: http://www.schallfirm.com[GN] PURELY ELIZABETH: Faces Consumer Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of a proposed group of California consumers alleges that Purely Elizabeth, LLC's products, including granola, oats, and waffle and pancake mixes, are misbranded and deceive consumers by making false claims related to their protein content. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the products contain up to 25% less protein than declared. Some of the products' statements of identity advertise them as protein products, i.e., "Grain-Free Protein + Collagen Pancake & Waffle Mix," and all include a statement on the principal display panel declaring the protein content. Plaintiffs also allege that the protein content declaration constitutes a protein claim which would require that the percent daily value (%DV) of protein that the product provides be declared. (See 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.9(c)(7); California has adopted all of federal food labeling regulations). Furthermore, the protein content used to compute the %DV must be corrected for by PDCAAS score, a measure of protein digestibility. The products allegedly do not declare the %DV of protein and contain proteins with low PDCAAS scores (i.e., less digestible proteins) such as collagen and amaranth that would further reduce the %DV of protein that they provide. This is the second class-action lawsuit related to protein content that has been filed recently. Food companies should remember that a protein claim triggers a mandatory protein %DV declaration which must take into account the PDCAAS score of the protein source(s). [GN] REV GROUP: Settlements in 2017 IPO Related Suits Awaits Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that settlement in the consolidated federal and state putative securities class suits related to the January 2017 initial public offering (IPO), awaits preliminary approval. A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a consolidated state putative securities class action are pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its January 2017 IPO, purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018. The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of the consolidated federal action. On May 19, 2021, the parties to the consolidated federal and state putative securities class actions executed a stipulation of settlement for a class settlement with the court and moved for preliminary approval. The settlement payment is expected to be fully covered by the Company's insurers. The payable under the proposed settlement and the related insurance proceeds are recorded in other current liabilities and other current assets, respectively, in the Company's Condensed Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2021. REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November 2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ROMEO'S PIZZA: August 11 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), Plaintiff Bradley Dietrich moves the Court to extend the deadline to file a Rule Motion for Class Certification to August 11, 2021. The Plaintiff says that he requires additional time for discovery surrounding the issues relevant to Rule 23 class certification pertaining to the remaining defendants. The requested extension will enable him to more fully present his position regarding class certification, and is not sought for purposes of undue delay or prejudice. The current deadline is June 11, 2021. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gwTCxq at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class, are: Nathan Spencer, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya et al., Lose Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; PHILIP PRESSEL; and WYLENE HINKLE; individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00054-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order denying the motion for class certification because the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently identify an ascertainable and adequately defined class. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' may file a renewed motion for class certification, with a more defined class, within 30 days of entry of this order, says Judge Miller. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs, who are individuals with disabilities, filed a putative class action complaint asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Unruh Act. In the operative Second Amended Complaint it is alleged that the Plaintiffs have found their access to San Diego's sidewalks diminished by the proliferation of dockless electric vehicles currently in use in the City. They allege that people using the dockless electric vehicles either travel on the sidewalks or block paths of travel because the vehicles are discarded in the middle of sidewalks or at other rights-of-way, making it difficult for people with disabilities to safely traverse the pathways. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zk5GL3 at no extra charge.[CC] SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Naler Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WILLIAM NALER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01164104-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01019 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code by failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. is a provider of transportation & logistics services, headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PA: Faces Class Action Over Prothonotary Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Marchiano, writing for tnonline.com, reports that Schuylkill County Commissioners approved retaining the law firm McNees Wallace & Nurick, which has offices in Harrisburg and other locations, to represent them in a class-action lawsuit filed against the county and Prothonotary Bridget Miller and many prothonotaries statewide. County solicitor Chris Hobbs said the lawsuit, Chester Upland SD et al. vs. Rossi et al., challenges certain fees the prothonotaries charge. Hobbs said he "believes fees that have been charged in Schuylkill County are legitimate." The legal fees will be paid by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and divided by the counties that opt for the firm to defend them. Hobbs said Glenn Roth, first assistant solicitor, was more well versed on the matter. However, Roth was not available for comment. [GN] SEALED AIR: New York Court Narrows Claims in Funds Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, UA LOCAL 13 PENSION FUND, UA LOCAL 13 & EMPLOYERS GROUP INSURANCE FUND, and PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 267 PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEALED AIR CORPORATION and WILLIAM G. STIEHL, Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 10161 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' Corrected Amended Complaint. The case is a putative securities class action. The Corrected Amended Complaint ("CAC") asserts two claims: one against both Sealed Air and Stiehl for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and one against Stiehl for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (control person liability). The Plaintiffs contend that Stiehl and Sealed Air made numerous statements that were rendered false or misleading by Stiehl's alleged interference in the company's auditor selection process, by which Stiehl ensured that Ernst & Young ("EY") was selected as the company's auditor. The Plaintiffs call that alleged interference the "bid-rigging scheme." The CAC alleges that the statements about Sealed Air's retention of EY, made in Sealed Air's November 2014 Form 8-K and 2015 Proxy Statement, were false and misleading because the selection process was actually neither competitive nor comprehensive and did not actually involve several accounting firms. The CAC then alleges that the bid-rigging scheme renders false or misleading statements defendants made about three different sets of Sealed Air's corporate procedures in the company's SEC filings. First, Sealed Air's Form 10-K filings for 2014 through 2017 and Form 10-Q filings for the first quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2018, each signed by Stiehl, stated that the company designed and maintained disclosure controls and procedures that satisfied SEC requirements and that the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") concluded they were effective at the "reasonable assurance" level. Second, the company's 2014 through 2011 Form 10-K filings incorporated its Codes of Conduct and Ethics. The CAC alleges that Stiehl's involvement in the bid-rigging scheme showed excerpts from those Codes to be false or misleading. Third, in the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications to Sealed Air's third quarter 2017 through second quarter 2018 Form 10-Q filings and 2017 Form 10-K filing, Stiehl attested to four statements that the CAC alleges were made false or misleading by his participation in the bid-rigging scheme. Finally, the CAC alleges that Sealed Air's disclosures in its SEC filings necessary to comply with SEC Regulation S-K Items 303 (17 C.F.R. Section 229.303) and 105 (id. Section 229.105, formerly Item 503 at id. Section 229.503) were false and misleading because they omitted information about the bid-rigging scheme. Discussion The Defendants move to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' CAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. They argue that the CAC alleges neither the falsehoods or misleading statements in question, nor their authors' states of mind, with sufficient particularity to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(1)-(2). A. EY Retention Statements The Defendants first contend that the CAC does not describe with enough detail the bid-rigging scheme that the Plaintiffs allege rendered fraudulent Sealed Air's repeated statement that it chose Ernst & Young to be "the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2015" by "a competitive search process" that "involved several international registered public accounting firms." Judge Stanton opines that the CAC sufficiently alleges the bid-rigging scheme, and that Sealed Air's statements that it retained EY after a competitive search involving several accounting firms were false or misleading. The existence of the bid-rigging scheme is inferred not only from the criminal and SEC investigations, but also from their apparent direct connection with Sealed Air's firing of Stiehl and EY. B. Corporate Procedures The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs also do not adequately explain why the company's statements about its policies and procedures were rendered false by omission. a. The Statements About Disclosure Controls and Procedures The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that the controls and procedures were inadequately designed, insufficient or not followed, nor the actions which should have been taken to avoid violation of the controls. Judge Stanton holds that the Plaintiffs' allegation that the disclosure controls and procedures were not designed to ensure that employees accurately communicated required information but rather permitted the Company to file reports pursuant to the Exchange Act with the SEC that misstated and/or omitted material facts required to be disclosed by SEC rules and regulations is sufficient at the pleading stage. It does not identify the deficient language. But that is a matter of evidence, which does not have to be pleaded, and the CAC states the nature of the claim. b. Codes of Conduct and Ethics The Defendants argue that the statements in the company's Codes of Conduct and Ethics are aspirational, inactionable puffery. Judge Stanton finds that despite an appearance of gravity and solemnity, these statements are similarly undefined and abstract: "interests" are without limits, conduct must be "honest and ethical," and federal and company regulations requiring accurate reports must be complied with. They create no new obligations specific enough to support a lawsuit if not observed, beyond the requirements of present law. They are puffery. C. Sarbanes-Oxley Certifications The Defendants' only challenge to the Plaintiffs' allegation that the Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications were false or misleading is that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently "describe what was fraudulent" about the alleged bid-rigging scheme. As Judge Stanton found that the Plaintiffs have alleged the big-rigging scheme with sufficient particularity, this challenge fails. D. Items 303 and 105 The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants failed to disclose in their SEC filings material uncertainties and events they were required to disclose by SEC Item 303, 17 C.F.R. Section 229.303, and risk factors they were required to disclose under SEC Item 105, id. Section 229.105, and that these omissions rendered false or misleading the disclosures that the Defendants otherwise made in accordance with Items 303 and 105 in their SEC filings. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead what information was required to be disclosed. Judge Stanton finds that the CAC alleges that the Defendants' omission of the following information about the bid-rigging scheme and its attendant consequences violated Items 303 and 105. That describes, with sufficient particularity to state a 10b-5 claim premised on a violation of Items 303 and 105, the omitted material events and uncertainties and risk factors thatthe Plaintiffs allege the Defendants were required to disclose. E. Scienter and Primary Liability The Defendants next contend that the Plaintiffs do not "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the Defendant acted with the required state of mind." a. EY Retention Statements The Defendants argue that they did not make the EY retention statements with the requisite state of mind because Stiehl is the only Sealed Air employee who the Plaintiffs allege knew of the bid-rigging scheme and he neither signed the documents in which the statements were made nor had ultimate authority over the statements. Judge Stanton opines that Stiehl was Sealed Air's Chief Accounting Officer ("CAO") and Controller when the company said in its SEC filings that it chose EY to be its "independent registered public accounting firm." Stiehl's position as the company's top accountant strongly implies that he was involved in the crafting and approval of the company's statements about its search for and selection of an accounting firm. Accordingly, his knowledge of the EY retention statements' falsity can plausibly be imputed to Sealed Air at this stage of the litigation. The CAC thus states facts creating a strong inference that Sealed Air made the EY retention statements with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, but does not state a 10b-5 claim against Stiehl with regard to the EY retention statements because he did not make them. b. Stiehl-Signed Statements The CAC therefore also states fact which raise a strong inference that Stiehl and Sealed Air had the requisite state of mind when they made the remaining statements, the Judge holds. S tiehl signed those statements on Sealed Air's behalf and they were published in Sealed Air's various SEC filings. Stiehl and Sealed Air thus made the remaining statements. As the alleged perpetrator of the bid-rigging scheme, there is a strong inference that Stiehl was aware that the scheme rendered those statements false or misleading. He thus acted with the requisite scienter, and that scienter may be imputed to Sealed Air. c. Control Person Liability Finally, Judge Stanton holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged (1) a primary violation by Sealed Air, (2) Stiehl's control of Sealed Air, first as CAO and Controller and then as CFO,3 and (3) Stiehl's culpable participation in the bid-rigging scheme, his failure to rectify the EY retention statements when he knew they were false or misleading, and his false or misleading statements. Thus, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled control person liability against Stiehl for all surviving claims. Conclusion Judge Stanton granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as to the Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5 claim against Stiehl for the EY retention statements and the Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5 claims against both defendants based on Sealed Air's Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics. The Judge denied the motions are as to the Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5 claim against Sealed Air for the EY retention statements, the Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5 claim against both the Defendants based on the disclosure protocol statements, the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, and the Item 303 and 105 disclosures, and the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim against Stiehl to the extent it is premised on any of those statements. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r9wskt7w from Leagle.com. SERCO INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $1.2 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Barney, writing for PlansSponsor, reports that Navy defense contractor Serco Inc. has reached a $1.2 million settlement agreement in the excessive fee lawsuit that was filed against its 401(k) plan last year. After nearly a year of discovery and motions following private mediation that began in November, the parties have agreed to what the class calls "fair and reasonable terms." The settlement includes an injunction on the plaintiffs from filing additional lawsuits on the same grounds as the original case. The settlement funds will be dispersed through a qualified settlement fund, with restorative money being given to participants in the Serco 401(k) plan and paper checks valid for 180 days to those who have left the plan. It awaits court approval. The settlement agreement notes that the class wants to settle. In it, the defense denies all allegations and all liability for the allegations and claims. The original Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The proposed class action complaint accused Serco of failing to provide its 401(k) plan participants with the most cost-effective mutual fund shares, among other issues. According to the complaint, the unnamed issuer of the mutual funds in the plan offered a lower-cost share class for at least 21 of the 30 funds in the lineup, and those funds consistently achieved higher returns. "The plan, however, inexplicably failed to select these lower fee-charging and better-return producing share classes," the complaint stated. "As well, the administrative fees charged to plan participants by the recordkeeper, also unnamed, were consistently greater than the fees of more than 90% of comparable 401(k) plans, when fees are calculated as cost per participant or when fees are calculated as a percent of total assets." The complaint went on to state these "investment options and unreasonable fees cannot be justified. "Their presence confirms more than simply sloppy business practice; their presence is the result of a breach of the fiduciary duties owed by Serco Inc. to plan participants and beneficiaries," the lawsuit continued. "Prudent fiduciaries of 401(k) plans continuously monitor administrative fees against applicable benchmarks and peer groups to identify unreasonable and unjustifiable fees." The lawsuit said that for plans with between $250 million and $500 million of assets, the mean expenses were 0.41% of assets under management (AUM), but the plan's fees averaged 0.81%. [GN] SILVER BOURBON: Kikuchi FLSA-LWPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LAUREN KIKUCHI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. SILVER BOURBON, INC. D/B/A SCORES GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, SECTION: "H," Civil Action No. 20-CV-2764 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Kikuchi filed the proposed class and collective action against her former employer, Defendant Silver Bourbon, for whom she worked as an exotic dancer from 2017 to 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the relevant time, she and her co-workers were misclassified as independent contractors. She brings the action for damages arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act1 ("FLSA") and the Louisiana Wage Payment Act ("LWPA"). Now before the Court is Defendant Silver Bourbon's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). In the Motion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate her claims when she signed a document titled "Negotiated Independent Entertainer/Dancer Contract." The Contract bears the handwritten signature of the "Dancer/Independent Contractor" and the handwritten signature of the representative for "N'Awlins Entertainment Group." The Defendant also provides two Affidavits of Kaycee Fruchtnicht to authenticate the document and identify the dancer's signature as the Plaintiff's. Finding the parties' initial briefing insufficient, on April 28, 2021, the Court Ordered that the parties submit additional briefing to the Court addressing whether the contract theories of agency and third-party beneficiary should apply to the interpretation of the Contract. The parties filed their supplemental briefings as directed. In support of the Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum, the Defendant attaches a third affidavit, the Affidavit of P.J. Olano, to verify that the signatory for N'Awlins Entertainment Group had the authority to sign the Contract on behalf of Defendant Silver Bourbon. In both the original and supplemental briefings, the Defendant asks the Court to find that the Contract's arbitration clause precludes the Plaintiff from pursuing her claims in the Court and dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against it. The Plaintiff opposes. Discussion The question before the Court is whether the Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration. This inquiry is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which broadly applies to any written provision in "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction." I. The Parties Agreed to Arbitrate this Dispute. A. A Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists. The Plaintiff provides the Court with two primary arguments as to why the Contract presented by the Defendant does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. First, she asserts that the Affidavit of Kaycee Fruchtnicht does not properly authenticate the Contract. Second, she argues that, even if the Contract is properly authenticated, the Contract does not evidence mutual intent to arbitrate. Judge Milazzo finds that the Fruchtnicht Affidavits sufficiently authenticate the Contract. In the Affidavits, Fruchtnicht states that she is the custodian of the records, that such records are kept in the ordinary course of business, and that she has personal knowledge that the Contract is signed by the Plaintiff. The Fruchtnicht Affidavits thus demonstrate that Fruchtnicht is an individual with personal knowledge of the Contract through whom the Contract could be admitted as evidence under the business records exception. Further, the Judge finds significant the fact that Plaintiff only attacks the form, not the substance, of the Affidavits. As the Plaintiff has not presented a counter affidavit or other evidence contradicting the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiff signed the Contract, the Judge finds that the Fruchtnicht Affidavits sufficiently authenticate the Plaintiff's signature. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate her claims against the non-signatory Defendant. N'Awlins Entertainment had actual express authority to enter into the Contract on behalf Defendant Silver Bourbon and that the nature of this agency relationship was disclosed to the Plaintiff. As evidence of N'Awlins' express authority to contract on Silver Bourbon's behalf, the Judge finds sufficient the Affidavit of P.J. Olano, the President of Defendant Silver Bourbon, wherein Olano swears that "N'Awlins Entertainment Group and the person who signed the Arbitration Agreement on behalf of N'Awlins Entertainment Group had the actual specific authority to sign on behalf of Silver Bourbon d/b/a Scores." Finally, the Contract requires the Plaintiff to resolve by arbitration "any dispute that should arise in connection with this contract and/or their working at any of the subject clubs. The Plaintiff's current lawsuit for damages under the FLSA and LWPA against the Defendant, a listed member club, falls squarely within the scope of the provision. Thus, the Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate her claims against the non-signatory Defendant. B. The Dispute in Question Falls Within the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Finding the Contract and its arbitration provision valid and enforceable, Judge Milazzo must next determine whether this dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision.49 The Contract's arbitration provision states: "It is agreed between the Dancer/Independent Contractor and N'Awlins Entertainment Group that should any dispute arise in connection with this contract and/or their working at any of the subject clubs that said dispute will be resolved by arbitration only." As the Judge found, the Plaintiff's claims that she was misclassified and improperly compensated under the FLSA and LPWA by the Defendant, a "subject club," clearly fall within the scope of the arbitration provision. II. No Federal Statute or Policy Renders the Claim Non-arbitrable and Dismissal is Appropriate. Finally, Judge Milazzo must determine "whether any federal statute or policy renders the claims nonarbitrable." She holds that the Court is not aware of any federal statute precluding arbitration of the Plaintiff's FLSA or LWPA claims, and the Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any contrary policy. The Judge thus finds this inquiry satisfied. III. Whether the Court Should Dismiss or Stay the Case. Under the FAA, "a stay is mandatory upon a showing that the opposing party has commenced suit upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration." However, "when all of the issues raised in the case are referable to arbitration, courts may dismiss, rather than stay, the case." Under such circumstances, "dismissal is within the court's discretion; it is not required." In the case, Defendant Silver Bourbon asks that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's case and the Plaintiff has not alternatively asked that the matter be stayed. Accordingly, Judge Milazzo finds that the matter should be dismissed without prejudice. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Milazzo granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She dismissed the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/jf7cxhu6 from Leagle.com. SKILLZ INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Skillz Inc. for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 7, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. The three games that comprised the majority of Skillz's revenue had suffered from a significant decline. The Company's financial condition was misrepresented by its revenue recognition policy. The Company's growth projections, especially in the Android market, were unrealistic. 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 Skillz, investors suffered damages. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com URL: http://www.schallfirm.com Contact Information: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] STAMPS.COM: Agreement in Principle Reached in Karinski Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 28, 2021, that an agreement in principle has been reached in Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828 class action suit. On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action complaints were filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without prejudice, and the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, continued as previously disclosed in our SEC filings, including the Form 10-K filed on February 26, 2021. On May 16, 2019 and May 21, 2019, two purported shareholder derivative suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, and the two cases were consolidated as In re Stamps.com Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case 2:19-cv-04272, and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; on October 3, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed against us in a case titled Harvey v. Kenneth T. McBride, et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-01861-CFC, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; and on February 3, 2021, the Court consolidated such cases as In re Stamps.com Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-01861-CFC. Also, as previously disclosed, on August 19, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed against us in a case formerly titled City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Kenneth T. McBride, et al, Case No. 2019-0658-AGB (and now titled Macomb County Employees' Retirement System v. Kenneth T. McBride, et al. Case No. 2019-0658), in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 28, 2021, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Action, the Company and each of the other defendants in the Securities Class Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8, 2019, inclusive, would release the Securities Defendants from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Action and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $100 million to or on behalf of the class by the Company (a portion of which is expected to be funded by insurance proceeds). The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and approval by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Stamps.com said, "If these conditions are satisfied, the proposed settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Action against the Company and each of the other Securities Defendants. In the event that we are unable to execute a final stipulation of settlement and obtain Court approval, we and all other Securities Defendants will continue to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action." On June 3, 2021, the plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions, the Company and each of the defendants in the Derivative Actions executed a Term Sheet whereby they agreed to settle the claims in the Derivative Action pursuant to the Term Sheet. Among other things, the Term Sheet provides that Derivative Plaintiffs would release the Derivative Defendants from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Derivative Actions, in exchange for: (i) payment of $30 million of insurance proceeds to the Company on behalf of certain of the Derivative Defendants from D&O insurance policies purchased by the Company for the benefit of its directors and officers and the Company; and (ii) the implementation of certain corporate governance changes by the Company. The Term Sheet also provides that the parties will negotiate in good faith concerning a fee and expense award to Derivative Plaintiffs' counsel. The Term Sheet remains subject to certain conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement, notice to the Company's stockholders, and approval by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Stamps.com said, "In the event that we are unable to execute a final stipulation of settlement and obtain Court approval, the Derivative Defendants will continue to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions." Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California. SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Budde Suit Moved From D. Kan. to E.D. Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MELINDA BUDDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION, BAYER CROPSCIENCE INCORPORATED, BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, CORTEVA INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, CARGILL, INCORPORATED, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED, CHS INCORPORATED, NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., GROWMARK, INCORPORATED, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INCORPORATED, TENKOZ INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., Case No. 2:21-cv-02095, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00657-SRC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to deprive farmers of a free and open market and to artificially increase the price of crop inputs such as seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to boycott electronic platforms. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Bayer CropScience Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Corteva Incorporated is an American agricultural chemical and seed company, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Univar Solutions, Incorporated is a global chemical and ingredients distributor based in Illinois. CHS Incorporated is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in Colorado. GROWMARK, Incorporated is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Simplot AB Retail Sub, Incorporated is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Idaho. Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com - and – Isaac Diel, Esq. Greg Bentz, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 6900 College Blvd., Suite 285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: idiel@midwest-law.com gbentz@midwest-law.com TURQUOISE HILL: Bid for Protective Order in Securities Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE TURQUOISE HILL RESOURCES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-8585 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the TRQ Defendants' motion for a protective order. Defendants Turquoise Hill, Ulf Quellmann, Brandan Lane, and Luke Colton ("TRQ Defendants") moved for a protective order directing Lead Plaintiff Pentwater Funds, until the conclusion of the litigation, from "ceasing all communications with Turquoise Hill concerning Oyu Tolgoi (including by calling or emailing management, Board members, or the Investor Relations department) and prohibiting it from posing questions -- or proposing questions for others to ask -- on Turquoise Hill's earnings calls and during other presentations to investors or analysts. Turquoise Hill is an international mining company focused on the operation and development of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in Southern Mongolia. Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited own 50.8% of Turquoise Hill through their subsidiaries. Pentwater holds a 9.3% equity stake and has been an active investor in Turquoise Hill. On Oct. 14, 2020, a lawsuit was filed against the TRQ Defendants, Rio Tinto plc, Rio Tinto Limited, Rio Tinto International Holding, Ltd., Jean-Sebastien Jacques, and Arnaud Soirat alleging securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Jan. 15, 2021, the Court granted the motion of Pentwater to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA. Pentwater filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2021, and the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) on May 17, 2021. The PSLRA stay of discovery is in effect. The TRQ Defendants complain that Pentwater representatives, including the CEO of Pentwater's internal investment advisor, Pentwater Capital Management, have contacted individuals in Turquoise Hill's investor relations department and sought answers to a number of questions about the Oyu Tolgoi mine. The CEO of Pentwater Capital, Matthew Halbower, made at least five attempts by phone and email to gather information about operations at the Oyu Tolgoi mine directly from Turquoise Hill, asking questions such as whether underground work was expected to resume and whether TRQ representatives had negotiated with the government of Mongolia. The communications between Pentwater and Turquoise Hill do not come in a vacuum. Pentwater has been a substantial shareholder in Turquoise Hill for the past eight years and, throughout that period, it has regularly communicated with Turquoise Hill senior management, including its CEO, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer as well as with its investor relations personnel and members of its board of directors. According to Pentwater, Turquoise Hill affirmatively reached out to Pentwater directly even after Pentwater's appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. Discussion The TRQ Defendants ask the Court to enter an order directing Pentwater to cease all communications with Turquoise Hill regarding the Oyu Tolgoi mine -- Turquoise Hill's "only material asset." For its part, Pentwater has made clear that, absent court order, it intends to continue to pursue its rights as a shareholder to "monitor its continuing investment and ask questions about the Company's ongoing operations" including by "raising questions in public shareholder forums about the Company's current and future business." It also intends to "write public letters to the Company about these matters." It notes that these are "important rights for current investors." The TRQ Defendants lodge no complaint to Pentwater continuing to make public statements, and Pentwater has indicated that its needs as a shareholder can be met without engaging in one-on-one questions with Turquoise Hill employees. Judge Liman will deny the request is denied. He explains the Court has the authority, where appropriate, to direct counsel to cease from engaging in conduct that is unethical, such as causing its client to engage in unauthorized communications with the opposing party or in communications with guile or disguise. It also has "both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties." However, even in a case governed by the PSLRA, the counsel continues to have the right, and may have the duty, to investigate its client's claims. The communications at issue do not implicate the concerns addressed in Gulf Oil. They do not threaten the proper functioning of the class action. The communications also do not implicate the rules of professional conduct. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer herself from communicating directly with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer or causing another to do so. The Judge opines that there is no evidence that counsel in the case contacted the Defendants or caused Pentwater to do so, either directly or indirectly. The question therefore is whether a lead plaintiff, who is also a shareholder of a corporate defendant, may continue to have communications with the corporation in its capacity as shareholder at the same time it has sued the corporation in its capacity as a representative of a class of persons who bought or sold the corporation's securities. The TRQ Defendants have not pointed the Court to any authority that would prevent such communications. The Judge concludes that such communications are not inconsistent with the PSLRA and are permissible so long as they comply with the ethics rules. The TRQ Defendants invoke the concern expressed by the Court in its prior opinion appointing the Lead Plaintiff about Pentwater wearing two hats, as the largest minority shareholder in Turquoise Hill and as class representative. The Court's concern, however, was markedly different from the concern that Turquoise Hill presents. The Court's concern was that Pentwater's position as a large minority shareholder and/or Turquoise Hill's motivation to rid itself of a gadfly would put pressure on the two to strike a deal between themselves and to the prejudice of the class. In short, the Judge finds that the concern that Turquoise Hill presents here is very different. It does not seek to protect the interests of the absent class members from a conflict but rather to protect itself either from questions posed to it by a current shareholder, or, accepting Turquoise Hill's argument, from an aggressive prosecution of the case. As the Court previously concluded, Pentwater's large interest in Turquoise Hill does not disable it from prosecuting Turquoise Hill; it enhances its ability to do so. As long as Pentwater's counsel abides by the ethical rules (including those regarding contact with represented parties), the Court will not prohibit Pentwater from acting in the best interests of its investors by asking questions to Turquoise Hill employees, officers, and directors in public and by issuing public letters. Conclusion For these foregoing reasons, Judge Liman denies TRQ Defendants' request for relief. He, thus, declines to direct Pentwater to cease seeking to elicit information from Turquoise Hill in its role as a shareholder. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52w9kx27 from Leagle.com. UBIQUITI INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Law firm Howard G. Smith Remind investors to: July 19, 2021 Deadline for filing plaintiffs in proceedings filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ubiquiti Inc. ("Ubiquiti" or "Company") (NYSE: UI) securities January 11, 2021 And March 30, 2021, Comprehensive ("class period"). Investors who have lost money on their investment in ubiquity are advised to contact the following law firms: Howard G. Smith Discuss legal rights in this class action in 888-638-4847 or email howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On March 30, 2021, After the market closes Krebs The security article has published an article titled "Whistleblower: Ubiquity Violation'Catastrophic'". January 2021 And, according to the "Third-party cloud provider claim was a forgery," the attacker "accessed the privileged credentials previously stored in the LastPass account of a Ubiquiti IT employee to all Ubiquiti AWS. I got root administrator access. [Amazon Web Services] An account that contains all S3 data buckets, all application logs, all databases, all user database credentials, and the secret required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies. 'Rather than getting credentials and forcing a reset and asking the customer to change their password the next time they log on. The news caused the company's stock price to fall $ 50.70, Or close at 14.5% $ 298.30 Per share March 31, 2021, About unusually large trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action not only made a materially false and / or misleading statement by the defendant during the class action, but also disclosed materially unfavorable facts about our business, operations and outlook. I insist that I didn't.Specifically, the defendant was unable to speak completely and honestly in his statement regarding the data breach because he did not disclose it to investors: (1) We downplayed the data breach. January 2021(2) An attacker gains administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and, among other things, access to all databases, all user database credentials, and the secrets needed to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies. Acquired the right. (3) As a result, the intruder already had the credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customer's system. (4) As a result of the above, Defendant's positive remarks regarding our business, business and outlook were significantly misleading and / or lacked reasonable grounds. If you purchase or otherwise acquire Ubiquity Securities during the class action period, you may move to court at the latest. July 19, 2021 If you meet certain legal requirements, ask the court to nominate you as the primary plaintiff. You do not need to do anything at this time to become a member of a class action proceeding. You can retain the lawyer of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action proceedings. If you would like to know more about this class action, or if you have any questions regarding this announcement or your rights or interests in these matters, Howard G. Smith, Esquire, Law firm Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by phone (215) 638-4847, toll free (888) 638-4847, or by email howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, Or visit the following website: www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered a lawyer advertisement in some jurisdictions under applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] UBIQUITI INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Ubiquiti Inc. ("Ubiquiti" or "the Company") (NYSE: UI) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 19, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ubiquiti downplayed the data breach it suffered in January 2021. The hackers had in fact gained administrative access to the Company's servers, which in turn gave them access to all databases, user credentials, and information needed to force single sign-on cookies. This level of access let attackers remotely access systems belonging to the Company's clients. 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 Ubiquiti, 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] UNITED PARCEL: Judge Hands Partial Victory in Labor Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a California federal judge on June 7 handed UPS a partial victory in a class action over meal and rest breaks for its workers, holding that the company's wage statements comply with labor law while allowing an employee's individual rest break claim to proceed. [GN] UNITED STATES: Morrison & Foerster Attorney Discusses IGRA Case --------------------------------------------------------------- James Sigel, Esq., of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Ninth Circuit elaborates on the Indian Gaming Regulation Act's "two-step determination" regarding the effects of a new casino on tribal land and clarifies when a post-certification class action settlement agreement is unfair and collusive. KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Court holds that the Secretary of the Interior may approve an Indian Tribe's application for an off-reservation casino under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act even if the new casino would have a detrimental impact on another nearby Tribe, so long as that impact is offset by benefits to the entire surrounding community. It also holds that the Secretary's decision to grant the Spokane Tribe's application in this case did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Panel: Judges Berzon, Christen, and Bade, with Judge Christen writing the opinion Key Highlight: "A showing that additional gaming may be detrimental to some members of the surrounding community, including an Indian tribe, does not dictate the outcome of the Secretary's two-step determination." Background: In 2001, the Spokane Tribe sought a permit from the Department of the Interior under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA) to enable them to open a casino in Airway Heights, WA. The nearby Kalispel Tribe of Indians objected to the proposed casino, as it would be located only two miles away from their Northern Quest Resort and Casino. Competition with the new Spokane casino, Kalispel argued, would reduce the revenue the Tribe derived from Northern Quest, seriously impairing its ability to pay its debts and provide for its members. In 2015, the Secretary of the Interior granted the Spokane Tribe's permit. As required by the IGRA, the Secretarial Determination found that the new casino 1) "would be in the best interest of the [Spokane] tribe" and 2) "would not be detrimental to the surrounding community." The Kalispel Tribe sued the Secretary of the Interior in federal court in 2017, alleging that the decision to grant the Spokane Tribe's permit -- and in particular the Secretary's "two-step determination" that the proposed casino "would not be detrimental to the surrounding community" -- violated the IGRA and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Spokane Tribe intervened in the matter, and both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court rejected Kalispel's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary and Spokane. Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Secretary's approval of the new Spokane Tribe casino. Kalispel argued that "any detriment to a nearby Indian tribe" precluded the Secretary from finding that a new casino "would not be detrimental to the surrounding community." The Court disagreed, holding that benefits to certain segments of the community can offset harm to other community members. The Court pointed to Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations defining "surrounding community" to include more than just nearby Indian tribes, and it reasoned that "requiring a complete alignment of interests in the surrounding community" would "frustrate Congress's purpose for enacting IGRA." Though harm to one entity could be so severe as to render it a net detriment to the community, "[a] showing that additional gaming may be detrimental to some members of the surrounding community . . . does not dictate the outcome of the Secretary's two-step determination." The Court also rejected Kalispel's claim that the Secretary had not adequately considered the threat to the Tribe and had put forward "implausible explanations that were inconsistent with the record." Rather, the Secretary's formal decision repeatedly referenced the possible loss of revenue by the Kalispel Tribe -- it had just found that they were outweighed by benefits to the rest of the community. And though Kalispel had submitted two private reports supporting its predicted economic injuries, the Secretary sided with the Department of Interior's own studies of the situation, which projected that the Kalispel Tribe's revenue would rebound after the new casino opened. Especially in light of the deference given to predictive judgments within an agency's area of expertise, the Court held that, though Kalispel's asserted injuries were "real and cognizable detriments," the Secretary's two-step determination was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA. BRISENO V. HENDERSON The Court extends its precedent in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation to post-certification class action settlement agreements, holding that such agreements are subject to heightened scrutiny for unfairness and collusion. The Panel: Judges Owens, Lee, and Ezra (W.D. Tex.), with Judge Lee writing the opinion Key Highlight: "While courts should not casually second-guess class settlements brokered by the parties, they should not greenlight them, either, just because the parties profess that their dubious deal is 'all right, all right, all right.' We reverse the district court's approval of the class settlement because the agreement raises a squadron of red flags billowing in the wind and begging for further review." Background: The plaintiffs in this case filed a class action lawsuit against ConAgra, alleging that its branding of Wesson Oil as "100% Natural" was misleading (since it contained ingredients from genetically modified organisms) and that the plaintiffs overpaid for the product because of that misleading label. The district court granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Shortly thereafter, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The agreement contained a so-called "clear sailing" provision, under which ConAgra agreed not to contest the $6.75M in attorney's fees for class counsel, and a "kicker" clause, stipulating that any reduction in the amount of attorney's fees would revert to ConAgra rather than augmenting the award for the class. And though the parties represented that the settlement was worth $100M, ConAgra actually only paid $8M, seven-eighths of which went to class counsel. A member of the class -- law professor M. Todd Henderson -- objected to the settlement, but the district court nonetheless accepted the agreement. Henderson appealed. Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court held that its standard for assessing the fairness of pre-certification class settlement agreements, set forth in the 2020 In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation case, also applies to post-certification settlement agreements. The Court noted that Rule 23(e)(2), which requires courts to ensure that class settlements are "fair, reasonable, and adequate," draws no distinction between pre-certification and post-certification settlement. And though the incentive for class counsel to collude with the defendant "reaches its apex pre-class certification," even after certification "class counsel still has the incentive to conspire with the defendant" while the defendant has every reason to go along "because it cares only about the total payout, not the division of funds between class and class counsel." In light of these incentives and Rule 23(e)(2)'s broad language, the Court held that the heightened scrutiny of the Bluetooth test also applies to post-certification settlements. Applying Bluetooth, the Court found that this settlement agreement "features all three red flags of potential collusion that we warned about in Bluetooth": counsel receiving a disproportionate amount of the settlement; a clear sailing provision; and a kicker clause. Though the Court clarified that these "red flags" are not per se unfair and may just "be elements of a good deal," district courts "must scrutinize them where they appear . . . . to ensure that the parties have not colluded at class members' expense." Accordingly, it remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Court also found that the injunctive relief included in the settlement agreement was "virtually worthless" and that the district court committed reversible error "by placing even 'some value'" on the remedy. The injunction in question prohibited ConAgra from marketing Wesson Oil as "100% Natural." But not only had ConAgra already stopped that practice well before the settlement agreement was reached, ConAgra did not even own Wesson Oil anymore. "ConAgra," the Court commented, "essentially agreed not to do something over which it lacks the power to do." The promise was illusory, and thus the injunction was "practically worthless." Finally, the court disagreed with Henderson that the district court had improperly shifted the burden to him to prove that the settlement was unfair. The Court reaffirmed that "Rule 23(e)(2) presumes that a class action settlement is invalid" and that applying the opposite presumption is reversible error, but it found that the district court had not made that error here (despite some infelicitous wording suggesting otherwise). [GN] VERVE INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Verve, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05133 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Verve Group -- https://verve.com/ -- is a privacy-first omnichannel ad platform offering programmatic solutions that connect advertisers and publishers to people in real time.[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 VIRGIN GALACTIC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 27 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPCE) securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 3021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Virgin Galactic investors have until July 27, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed by a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to "SPCE" (the "Business Combination"). On April 12, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued guidance advising that SPAC warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals. On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced in a press release "that it has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the 'SEC Statement')." The company further advised that "following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019." 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. The complaint filed 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) for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Virgin Galactic securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Virgin Galactic securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] VIRGIN GALACTIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on June 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPCE) securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 3021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Virgin Galactic investors have until July 27, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Virgin Galactic 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/virgin-galactic-holdings-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 October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed by a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to "SPCE" (the "Business Combination"). On April 12, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued guidance advising that SPAC warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals. On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced in a press release "that it has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the 'SEC Statement')." The company further advised that "following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019." 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. The complaint filed 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) for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 27, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, 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. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Nasta Files FDCPA Suit in W.D.N.C. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield and Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jody Nasta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield and Associates, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00276-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 371-4333 Fax: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com WALMART INC: Opioids Related Class Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend two class action suits regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5, 2021 purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those cases have been consolidated. Derivative actions were also filed by two of the Company's shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on February 9, 2021 and April 16, 2021 alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain of its current and former directors with respect to oversight of the Company's distribution and dispensing of opioids and also alleging violations of the federal securities laws and other breaches of duty by current directors and two current officers in connection with the Company's opioids disclosures. The Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the various Opioids Litigation and intends to vigorously defend these litigation matters. Walmart said, "Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurance as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected." Walmart Inc., is engaged in the operation of retail, wholesale and other units in various formats around the world. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based Company operates through three segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart International and Sam's Club. The Company was previously known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. on February 1, 2018. WASHINGTON DC: Seeks Filing Extension for Class Cert. Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNDAY HINTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-JDB (D.D.C.), the Defendant submits consent motion for an extension of time to respond to the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and class certification. The Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunction and class certification on May 11, 2021 and a supplemental memorandum in support of those motions on June 1, 2021. The Defendant's responses are currently due June 15, 2021, and plaintiff's replies are currently due June 22, 2021. The Defendant seeks a three-day extension to respond to plaintiff's motions, making the responses due June 18, 2021, and a three-day extension for plaintiff's replies, making the replies due June 25, 2021. There is good cause for the requested extensions because it would give the Parties adequate time to respond to each other's arguments in light of the press of other matters. The District is also reviewing the challenged policy and considering changes, the Defendant says. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vm3Gi5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Karl A. Racine, Esq. Fernando Amarillas, Esq. Pamela Disney, Esq. Brendan Heath, Esq. Andrew J. Saindon, Esq. 400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 807-0371 E-mail: pamela.disney@dc.gov XTO ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Brusamonti Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PETER BRUSAMONTI, et al., Plaintiffs v. XTO ENERGY INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-652 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs claim that, when the Defendant upgraded its oil and gas royalty-revenue calculation and check writing software, the new system (inadvertently, the parties presumably agree) shifted them from "gross royalty" lessors to "net royalty" lessors, i.e., they started having post-production deductions improperly withheld. It is not hard to imagine their reaction, when their check(s) were suddenly and significantly reduced. As a result, the Plaintiffs retained counsel, and the putative class-action, in diversity, followed. The Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs did not comply with a notice-and-cure provision in the lease, which required written notice of the lessor(s)' demands, and a 60-day cure period, as preconditions to suit. The Plaintiffs respond that there is no such impediment, because Defendant sent a letter -- in January 2019 -- acknowledging that its system upgrade may result in untimely and inaccurate payments. In light of this acknowledgement, the Plaintiffs say, the Defendant had actual notice of the defect(s), rendering the notice-and-cure provision inapplicable. Judge Bissoon does not believe that these issues properly may be resolved under Rule 12(b). She says all of the cases cited by the Defendant, save one, were resolved on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's unpublished decision in Linder v. SWEPI, LP was both decided on summary judgment, and is dicta. Along the same lines, the Judge finds that the Defendant has failed to persuade the Court that the Plaintiffs' "actual notice" argument is ineffectual -- or that it properly may be resolved under the relatively lenient standards now-applicable. In fact, she says the Plaintiffs' "actual notice" theory may go even further, given that the Defendant provided anticipatory and affirmative notice to the lessors of its awareness of potential defect(s). Whether viewed through the prism of detrimental reliance or otherwise, the Plaintiffs' position is not lacking under general equity principles. For these reasons, the Defendant has not persuaded the Court that dismissal is appropriate, and its Motion is denied. Rule 12(a)(4) now governs its answer deadline, but -- should the parties agree that an amicable resolution is worth exploring -- the Court will entertain a joint request to extend the deadline. Along the same lines, the Court would be willing to entertain a joint request to move the mandatory-ADR process to the fore. By all appearances, the case involves admitted payment-shortfalls, resulting from the vagaries of modern technology. The Defendant -- having made the (disputed) claim that the named Plaintiffs since have been made whole -- does not appear to resist paying those-affected what they are owed. While, unfortunately, litigation was necessary (whether actually, or as a matter of perception) -- and some reasonable compensation for the counsels' efforts is warranted -- this situation should not degenerate into one where litigation fees and expenses detract from the true and ultimate goal, namely, paying affected lessors what they are owed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wwcharap from Leagle.com. ZALE DELAWARE: Kaint Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zale Delaware, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tarvinder Kainth, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zale Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-10, Inclusive; Case No. CGC21592138 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 10, 2021). The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS". The Zale Corporation -- http://zalecorp.com/-- is an American jewelry retailer, incorporated in Delaware in 1993.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Dr., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-387-7200 Fax: 949-387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com ZOOM VIDEO: Kane ADA Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Russell Kane, Christopher Myers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-06136, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-04488-JST to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. -- https://zoom.us/ -- is an American communications technology company headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLC 201 Milwaukee Street, Ste. 200 Denver, CO 80206 Phone: (646) 964-9600 Fax: (212) 202-6364 Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David F. McDowell, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 892-5200 Fax: (213) 892-5454 Email: DMcDowell@mofo.com - and - Haimavathi V. Marlier, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 336-4409 Email: hmarlier@mofo.com ZUMIEZ INC: Mediation in Herrera Suit Set for June 23 ----------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the parties in Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., have scheduled a mediation with a private mediator on June 23, 2021. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to our petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn filed a reply in support of our petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento for further proceedings. The parties have scheduled a mediation with a private mediator on June 23, 2021. A status conference is scheduled with the court on July 22, 2021. Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so if mediation is unsuccessful." Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington. ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit related to the company's initial public offering (IPO). In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants Zuora and certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the underwriters of Zuora's IPO. The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Zuora's IPO and allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suits seek unspecified damages and other relief. In July 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two lawsuits, and the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims. In October 2020, the court denied defendants' demurrer as to the Section 11 and Section 15 claims and granted the demurrer as to the Section 12(a)(2) claim with leave to file an amended complaint. In November 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' demurrer to the Section 12(a)(2) claim was sustained with further leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until July 26, 2021 in which to file a further amended complaint. Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management platform. The company provides software that enables companies across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or transform to a subscription business model. Architected specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models, the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo, California. ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in California Putative Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the putative securities class suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In June 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming Zuora and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about Zuora's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims. In April 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who purchased or acquired Zuora common stock between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019 and who were allegedly damaged thereby. Discovery in this case is ongoing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management platform. The company provides software that enables companies across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or transform to a subscription business model. Architected specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models, the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo, California. [*] Ballard Spahr Attorney Discusses New CFPB Arbitration Rule -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Levin, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that Professor Jeff Sovern responded to our blog criticizing his proposal for a new CFPB arbitration rule by asserting that his proposed rule is not substantially the same as the prior CFPB rule that Congress vetoed and, therefore, the Congressional Review Act would not bar its promulgation. According to Professor Sovern: "I don't see how my rule giving consumers a choice to opt in to arbitration clauses, which could include class action waivers, could be substantially the same as the earlier rule which blocked consumers and companies from agreeing to class action waivers." In reality, however, the effect of Professor Sovern's proposed rule would be substantially the same as the CFPB rule. It may be dressed in sheep's clothing, but it is the same wolf. Much like the CFPB Rule, the ultimate goal of Professor Sovern's proposed rule is to allow consumers to bring class actions against companies. The now-defunct CFPB rule sought to achieve this in a straightforward manner by prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Professor Sovern's proposed rule seeks to achieve the same end by more indirect means, namely, by (a) disallowing companies from entering into consumer arbitration agreements unless the consumer opts in, while (b) overtly discouraging consumers from opting in by requiring companies to disclose on the first page of the contract in big print that the CFPB "recommends that you NOT sign below" and to read the opt-out aloud to the consumer. Professor Sovern candidly acknowledges the goal of his proposed rule is to make sure that "enough consumers didn't opt in so that class actions would make economic sense." There you have it. The whole point of Professor Sovern's proposed rule is to preserve and promote consumer class actions, just like the CFPB rule that Congress overrode. His comment that a class action waiver "could" be included in an arbitration agreement that a consumer opts into is simply illusory, since his proposal is designed to heavily rig the contracting process to ensure that consumers do NOT opt in. Professor Sovern's proposal is different from the CFPB rule in one respect. As we previously discussed, a consumer who does not opt in would not be a party to any arbitration agreement. But the CFPB rule would have allowed a consumer to enter into a predispute arbitration agreement that did not contain a class action waiver. That distinction obviously does not help Professor Sovern, since his proposal directly contradicts the conclusion of the CFPB and its 735-page empirical study that arbitration is not per se harmful to consumers or the general public. That in itself should dissuade the CFPB from acting on Professor Sovern's proposal. Finally, Professor Sovern does not quarrel with our showing that the CFPB's own data confirm that consumers fare much better in arbitration than they do in class action litigation. Still, he derides our showing as an "industry talking point" that is "deceptive" because "consumers rarely seek to arbitrate." But why aren't there more consumer arbitrations? Precisely because consumer advocates like Professor Sovern and the plaintiffs' class action bar for years have poisoned the well by repeatedly denigrating arbitration as an unfair and abusive practice - even though the statistics show otherwise. And, the CFPB itself, which encouraged its own employees to use alternative dispute resolution because it produces "faster and less contentious results," has failed to educate the public -- its very constituency -- on the many benefits of arbitration. That's what the CFPB should expend its resources on. [GN] [*] Butler Snow Attorney Discusses Class Rep Incentive Award ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle Miller, Esq., of Butler Snow LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that The scenario is all too familiar for manufacturers of consumer goods: * A plaintiff files suit on behalf of himself and seeks to have a class action certified to allow him to prosecute his claim on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers. * Litigation ensues; discovery is conducted. * At some point the defendant determines that the risk of a class being certified and a judgment being entered against it is too great to bear, so a class action settlement is reached. The defendant will pay a lump sum amount of money into a common fund. Class counsel will take from that fund their attorneys' fees (often north of 30% of the fund). The class representative will take from that fund an "incentive award" of a few thousand dollars as compensation for his inconvenience serving as class representative. The remainder of the common fund will be divided among the absent class members, often leaving them with meager amounts of compensation. Time and time again this scenario repeats itself and necessarily begs the question: Who is supposed to be protecting the interests of the absent class members in these settlements -- class counsel who is taking more than 30% of the total recovery (often in the millions) or the class representative recovering many times over what the absent class members are receiving? Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stripped the granting of an incentive award due to the fact that the award -- which the Court equated to a "bounty" -- created a conflict of interest between the class representative and the class he sought to represent. So far, the district courts outside the Eleventh Circuit have not followed this holding, but the analytical reasoning for refusing such awards is sound. Perhaps even more interesting, the Eleventh Circuit held that binding United States Supreme Court precedent required the disallowance of the incentive award. A Quick Primer on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class actions are an exception to the general rule that a plaintiff cannot prosecute the claim of another person. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (and its state corollaries) are grounded in the premise that when the claims of the named plaintiff are so similar to the claims of numerous others who are not parties to the litigation, the named plaintiff can be allowed to litigate not just his claims but the claims of all other similarly situated people. Let's put aside for this writing the debate over whether this underlying premise is well-founded and focus instead on one component of the analysis. Rule 23(a) sets forth four "prerequisites" to class certification. The plaintiff must establish the elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and representativeness. Numerosity is merely a question regarding the size of the class. The other three prerequisites all look at the cohesion of the class, the similarities in the claims, and the alignment of the proposed class representative's interests with the interests of the class. It is with regard to this last issue -- the alignment of interests -- where the granting of incentive awards undermines the class process. Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representative(s) must be able to adequately represent the absent class members. Specifically, it reads: "One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if . . . the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The terms "fairly and adequately" are squishy terms that are necessarily left open for interpretation. While the test may vary slightly from circuit to circuit in the federal system, one point holds true across the board: A class representative will not be deemed to fairly and adequately represent the class when the class representative has a conflict of interest with the class he seeks to represent. This is a good, common sense requirement—the person prosecuting the claim on behalf of the absent class members needs to have their interests fully aligned with those class members; if not, the class representative may be tempted to engage in self-dealing. The actual or potential conflict of interest between the class representative and the class he seeks to represent has thwarted many potential class actions. While the courts regularly and routinely recognize this requirement and the pitfalls associated with a class representative who has a conflict of interest, a blind spot emerged—the class representative's incentive award. The Incentive Award: In the modern-era of class actions, it is routine for a court to award the class representative an "incentive award" for serving as class counsel. These incentive awards are typically viewed as mundane and to some extent necessary for the class action system to work. Usually the amount that any individual class member recovers in a class action is minimal, and, as the Seventh Circuit recognized, "only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30." Accordingly, the interest of any one class member to sue to recover his own alleged damages is low from the start, let alone attempting to vindicate the rights of thousands of faceless strangers with similar claims. While the job of class representative is not necessarily an onerous one, the class representative has responsibilities that will consume considerable time -- answering written discovery, sitting for a deposition, testifying at trial, etc. The generally accepted view has been that it would only be "fair" to compensate the class representative for his time (i.e., a little extra compensation for his trouble; after all, the absent class members enjoy the fruits of the class representative's labor). When a case is taken through the class certification stage and through trial, the granting of an incentive award arguably does not in itself create a conflict of interest. From the filing of the complaint through the final verdict, the class representative's and the absent class members' fates were aligned. It is only after the verdict is obtained that the class representative is treated differently. But most class actions are not resolved by trial. The conflict of interest problem arises when the parties attempt to settle on a class-wide basis. The class representative is supposed to protect the interests of the absent class members. But when the class members are being offered little more than a coupon settlement and the class representative is being offered an incentive award of $1,000, has a conflict been created such that the class representative can no longer fairly and adequately represent the absent class members? Until next time In Part II, we will examine a recent federal appellate court decision that answered this question in the affirmative, finding that an incentive award does create a conflict. We will also examine the implications of that case for defendants who are seeking to settle a class action. [GN] [*] Shook, Hardy & Bacon Attorneys Discuss Class Action Report -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Anstoetter, Esq., M. Katie Gates Calderon, Esq., Lindsey Heinz, Esq. and James Muehlberger, Esq., of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., in an article for JDSupra, report that Shook Partner Cary Silverman has authored a report exploring the rise in class actions filed in New York, which, he explains, "is largely a result of lawsuits targeting businesses that sell food and beverages." Class Action Chaos: The Rise of Extortionate Consumer Class Action Lawsuits in New York, created in partnership with the New York Civil Justice Institute, details how "the percentage of class action lawsuits targeting products that New Yorkers place in their shopping carts, grab at a grocery store, or buy at a restaurant has gone up." "Lawsuits claiming that businesses mislead consumers in how they labeled, marketed, or advertised food made up about one-third of deceptive practices class actions in 2015. Now, these 'food court' lawsuits account for about 60% of New York's consumer class actions - exceeding deceptive practices claims against all other products and services combined. Over 100 food class actions were filed in New York in 2020 alone," Silverman explains. He breaks down which types of claims have been increasing -- e.g., ingredient-based claims such as lawsuits centered on the legitimacy of "vanilla" appearing on a label -- and which types of filings have been receding, such as excessive slack fill claims. Silverman goes on to pick "contenders for the dubious distinction of being named among the Top 10 most ridiculous consumer class actions filed in New York," including lawsuits alleging consumers believe that Yumions will contain real onions rather than onion powder or that carrot-cake donuts will contain real carrots. Silverman concludes by offering three steps to rein in abusive litigation, including actions the New York legislature can pursue. "Dubious consumer class actions are often settled or withdrawn before reaching a ruling on a motion to dismiss or soon thereafter," he notes. "Despite the cost, disruption, and risk, businesses must be willing to fight back in court against meritless claims. Otherwise, the sue, settle, and sue-again cycle will continue unabated." The report's conclusions have been amplified by coverage and commentary in the New York Post, The Center Square and the New York Daily News. Mike Durant, president and CEO of Food Industry Alliance, told the Daily News that the report should be "required reading for every lawmaker in New York." The editorial board of the Post agreed with Silverman's conclusions, asserting, "Lawmakers should be looking to rein in this kind of legal blackmail, not encourage it. New York's small businesses have enough troubles as it is." FDA Launches Food Traceability Challenge The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has "launched a challenge to spur the development of affordable, tech-enabled traceability tools to help protect people and animals from contaminated foods by enabling the rapid identification of their sources and helping remove them from the marketplace as quickly as possible." The agency has asked "food technology solution providers, public health advocates, entrepreneurs and innovators across the human and animal food supply chain to present food traceability solutions that utilize economic models that are affordable, with costs that are proportional to the benefits received and can scale to encourage widespread adoption." FDA will accept submissions until July 30, 2021, and will select up to 12 winners for the challenge. Winners "will have the opportunity to present their work publicly in a webinar planned for September and their videos will be posted for public viewing." JBS Targeted by Cybercriminal Group A Russian cybercriminal group known as a "ransomware as a service" organization attacked JBS SA, the world's largest meat processor, according to the FBI. The attack led several of the company's meat processing plants to halt production for several days. While JBS is "the largest food manufacturer yet to be hit by ransomware," according to the Associated Press, "at least 40 food companies have been targeted by ransomware gangs over the last year." A cybersecurity expert reportedly told the news outlet that food companies are at "about the same level of security as manufacturing and shipping. Which is to say, not very." FDA Issues Compliance Guide on Aflatoxins The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a compliance policy guide on aflatoxins in human food. "Aflatoxins may occur in food as a result of mold growth in susceptible raw agricultural commodities," the guide explains. "The growth of molds that produce aflatoxins is influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and extent of rainfall during the pre-harvesting, harvesting, or post-harvesting periods. Foods most susceptible to molds that produce aflatoxins include: peanuts, corn, some tree nuts including Brazil nuts and pistachios, and some small grains such as rice. Because aflatoxins are known carcinogens to humans, the presence of aflatoxins in foods should be reduced to the lowest levels attainable using modern agricultural and processing techniques." FDA issued guides for aflatoxins in brazil nuts, peanuts and peanut products, and pistachio nuts. [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 ***