/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 196 Headlines ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement ALBERT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Tel Aviv Over Fees ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Certification in Shackelford Suit Affirmed ANAHEIM ARENA: Judgment in Amaro Wage & Hour Class Suit Reversed ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina Files Suit in D. Utah ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline ANNOVIS BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 18 Deadline ARROWHEAD CENTRAL: Padilla Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages ASYSTEM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Testone Suit CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Brown Suit CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: C$83MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 CASSAVA SCIENCES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline COCA-COLA CO: Committed Wage Theft, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges ESTATE OF THOMAS BRINKWORTH: Compensation Experts Launch Suit GARDNER TRUCKING: Tate Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements GENERAC HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Battery Production Resumes GERBER PRODUCTS: Shepard Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia GOPLUS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Drivers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages INTERIOR DEFINE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Service Fees JUSTBRAND LIMITED: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KASIM INTERNATIONAL: Kelly Files Suit in S.D. New York LAFCO ENTERPRISES: Website Not Blind-accessible, says Crumwell LUCKY FEATHER: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK NAVISTAR INC: Kalbrier Files Suit in N.D. Illinois NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Teachers v. NYC DOE Suit Denied NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice NOVO NORDISK: Agrees $100M Settlement of Class Action Litigation OREGON HEALTH: Gipson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums OREGON: District Court Narrows Claims in Maney v. Brown Class Suit PALO ALTO, CA: City to Appeal Decision in Gas Rates Class Action PAYPAL HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline PEL-STATE BULK: Bid for Distribution of Notice Partly OK'd PENN NATIONAL: Court OK's FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certification Bid PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Niemczyk Suit Moved to N.D. New York QAD INC: Continues to Defend Nantahala Capital Suit RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to Certify Class in "Coachella Project" Suit RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: Gambrell Wins Class Certification Bid SAGINAW CITY, MI: Taylor Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Lacaprucia Seeks Initial OK of Settlement SELDAT DISTRIBUTION: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Taylor Says SEMPRA ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Property & Business Class Suit SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Myers Loses Bid for Class Certification SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extension Sought STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class STATE FARM: Munoz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending STRADA SERVICES: Reyes Bid for FLSA Collective Action Status Nixed TAMS MANAGEMENT: Bluestone Employees Get Class Certification TENDER CORPORATION: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York THAILAND: Restaurateurs File Class Action v. PM Over Lockdown TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius AC Smell Causes Class Action Lawsuit TRANSPORT CANADA: Travel Restrictions Leave Residents Stranded TULARE, CA: Settlement in Criswell Suit Gets Initial Nod UNITED STATES: Court Set to Rule in Class Action Against FBI UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022 UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Dragon Suit VALVE CORPORATION: Galway, Shoss Seek Certification of Class Action VERONIQUE GABAI: Crumwell Says Website Not Blind-accessible VILLAGE CARE: Veras Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations WASHINGTON: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 4, 2022 WEST ROAD: Calhoun Bid to Send Notice to Employees Nixed WESTCO CHEMICALS: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Nixed as Moot WESTERN REFINING: Court Tosses Schmidtberger's Class Status Bid WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class of Service Employees Certified in Mongue WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement in CA Suit Gets Initial Nod [*] Class Suits Seen in Mining Industry Before 2040 on Health Issue [*] Litigation Funding Sector Growing Up in United Kingdom Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee Criticizes Aldrich Pump's $545M Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Agrees to Pay $270MM to Settle Claims ********* ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed. Class Period: Aug. 4, 2016 - July 27, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 4, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ATVI Contact An Attorney Now: ATVI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The action challenges Defendant's repeated downplaying of Activision Blizzard's liability stemming from certain labor and employment matters, falsely characterizing these proceedings as merely "routine" and "are not significant." In truth, Defendants actively concealed that: (1) Activision Blizzard discriminated against female and minority employees, (2) the company fostered a "frat boy" workplace culture that continues to thrive, (3) numerous complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination and retaliation were made to the company's human resources personnel and executives that went unaddressed, and (4) the workplace culture would seriously impair the company's operations. The truth emerged on July 20, 2021, when the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") sued Activision Blizzard after a two-year investigation into the company's labor and employment practices. According to DFEH, the company's "frat boy" culture is a breeding ground for harassment and discrimination against female employees, who are subjected to constant sexual harassment, and high-ranking executives engaged in sexual harassment without repercussions. Most recently, on Sept. 20, 2021, Activision Blizzard announced the SEC issued subpoenas to the company and several current and former employees seeking information about the company's disclosures and employment-related conduct. These events drove the price of Activision Blizzard shares sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants lied about the seriousness of the company's employment practices," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Activision Blizzard, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Activision Blizzard should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ATVI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bay City News Service reports that a federal district court magistrate judge has given preliminary approval to the settlement, Settlement reached in Santa Rita Jail mental health care case. RBGG's Jeff Bornstein is quoted in the article: "Attorney Jeff Bornstein, one of the attorneys representing the jail's incarcerated people, said significant changes need to be made and they are underway. Already, a lot fewer people are in restrictive housing, he said. But, he said, 'We have a long way to go.' 'We're cautiously optimistic,' he said. The goal is to make things right at the jail rather than simply meeting the minimum requirements for the treatment of the incarcerated people there, Bornstein said. He said it would be great if people with mental illness didn't have to go to jail at all." San Francisco, CA - August 26, 2021 - Plaintiffs and the County of Alameda have reached a proposed settlement in Babu, et al., v. County of Alameda, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 5:18-cv-07677. Plaintiffs' counsel at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld (RBGG) filed a motion today in federal court seeking preliminary approval of a Consent Decree for Alameda County's Santa Rita Jail. If approved by the Court, the Decree will make significant changes to the Jail over the next two years and remain in effect for six years, primarily in connection with the delivery of mental health care, out of cell time, ADA accommodations for people with mental health disabilities, classification, use-of-force, discharge planning, coordinating emergency mental health care with John George Psychiatric Hospital, and suicide prevention including limiting the use of safety cells. "The Consent Decree was the product of a cooperative process with lawyers from Rosen Bien working closely with lawyers representing the Sheriff and the County", said Jeffrey Bornstein, a partner at RBGG. "The Decree requires fundamental and transformative changes at the Jail. The hope is that the cooperative foundation we have built with the County's lawyers will bring about the cultural change necessary to end the use of punitive measures such as isolation and lack of out of cell time and to ensure that there are vigorous mental health care, educational and other treatment program opportunities throughout the jail." "There has been no meaningful mental health care treatment in the Jail for many years," added Kara Janssen, senior counsel at RBGG. "The Consent Decree mandates comprehensive mental health services including, regular mental health rounds, electronic tracking of referrals, prompt delivery of medication, group therapy, treatment planning teams, creation of confidential spaces for services, and discharge planning including coordinating with community-based mental health services." The Motion for Preliminary Approval is presently set for hearing on September 22, 2021 before United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins. If preliminarily approved, the Court will set a date for a hearing on final approval. If the settlement is approved, the County will be required to: -- Ensure that people in the Jail receive adequate mental health care, including by ensuring adequate staffing, establishing levels of care, creating treatment plans for eligible individuals, providing treatment services, implementing an electronic system to track referrals, provide daily mental health rounds in Restrictive Housing units, and implementing Therapeutic Housing Unit(s) to provide additional mental health support to those who need it; -- Ensure that people in the Jail are offered adequate out-of-cell time each day, including a process for significantly increasing the amount of out-of-cell time offered at the Jail within three months of the effective date. The Jail will continue to increase the amount of out-of-cell time offered until the Jail reaches the new minimum out-of-cell times set out in the Consent Decree which require the Jail to offer at least: 14 hours out-of-cell time per week for people in Restrictive Housing, Recreate Alone Status (Step 1); 21 hours out-of-cell time per week for people in Restrictive Housing, Recreate Together Status (Step 2); and 28 hours out-of-cell time per week for people in General Population celled housing. Individuals housed in the most restrictive setting within the Therapeutic Housing Units will be offered at least 28 hours of out-of-cell time per week and people housed in the less restrictive, transitional units within the Therapeutic Housing Units will be offered at least 35 hours of out-of-cell time per week. The Jail will implement an electronic tracking system to allow for comprehensive tracking of out-of-cell time within one year. -- Take measures to prevent suicide and self-harm in the Jails, including severely curtailing the use of safety cells and limiting placement in them to no more than 8 hours - to be further reduced to no more than 4 hours after construction of suicide-resistant cells - and implementing procedures and assessments to identify individuals at risk upon arrival at the Jail; -- Ensure that individuals with mental health disabilities can access programs and services at the Jail consistent with their classification level, and ensure that those programs are offered throughout the Jail; -- Implement a new classification system that limits the use and duration of restrictive housing; -- Coordinate care for people in distress/crises sent on psychiatric holds to John George Psychiatric Hospital; and -- Implement systems, including through close coordination between Alameda County Behavioral Health Services and the Jail, to facilitate transition to community-based services upon release. Joint neutral experts and Class Counsel will monitor the County's compliance with the Consent Decree. The Department of Justice will also receive certain access to the Jail and documents in connection with its April 22, 2021 report of investigation. Today's court filings are available here. The proposed Consent Decree is set out as Exhibit A of the Janssen Declaration. Janssen Decl ISO PLAINTIFFS Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, 08-26-2021 Proposed Order re PLAINTIFFS Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, 08-26-2021 Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, 08-26-2021 [GN] ALBERT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Tel Aviv Over Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- MiddleEast.in.24 reports that the Tel Aviv District has approved the filing of a class action lawsuit against Albert. The plaintiff claimed that the daily rate charged by the company was calculated contrary to the agreements and according to a calculation based on 30 days a month, when in practice there were 31 days - which should have reduced the daily rate. [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Certification in Shackelford Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HOLLY SHACKELFORD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-21-0195 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, affirms the circuit court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Background In the interlocutory appeal, the Defendant challenges the circuit court's order granting the Plaintiff, Holly Shackelford, class certification in an action alleging, among other things, a violation of the Illinois judgment interest statute. The case emanates from the Plaintiff's underlying uninsured motorist claim against the Defendant and was previously before the Court (Allstate, 2017 IL App (1st) 162607 ("Shackelford I"). The Plaintiff presented an uninsured motorist claim to the Defendant for injuries she sustained while riding as a passenger in a policyholder's vehicle. The Plaintiff's claim was submitted to arbitration pursuant to the insured's policy, where an arbitrator ultimately entered an award of $16,000 in her favor. The award was subject to "all applicable setoffs and liens to be resolved by the Parties and their Attorneys." After the Plaintiff filed suit to enforce the arbitration award, defendant sent her a check for $14,000, which it claimed was the award amount minus an applicable setoff. According to the Plaintiff, however, that amount did not include the required statutory interest due as a result of the Defendant's late payment. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she sought confirmation of the arbitration award, as well as a judgment against the Defendant for the interest due on the award. In addition, the Plaintiff sought to represent other individuals similarly harmed by the Defendant's alleged nonpayment of the required statutory interest on their arbitration award or judgment. The circuit court, however, held that the Defendant's alleged nonpayment of the required interest was not an adequate claim for relief, and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. She appealed. In reversing the circuit court's judgment, a majority of the Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff's complaint was improperly dismissed as a matter of law because it stated a viable claim for entry of judgment confirming the arbitration award. While that holding necessitated remand, the Appellate Court, in the interest of judicial economy, also addressed whether the Plaintiff's complaint stated an adequate claim for interest on the arbitration award, ultimately holding that it did. Additionally, the Appellate Court's mandate contained the remand instructions with respect to that claim. The Appellate Court, however, did not consider the merits of the Plaintiff's request for class certification in its decision issued on Sept. 29, 2017. Nevertheless, the Defendant appealed our decision to the Illinois Supreme Court but was unsuccessful. On remand, the Plaintiff renewed her request for class certification. In her motion, the Plaintiff identified 66 potential class members who allegedly received payment from defendant on an arbitration award or judgment in Illinois that did not include the required statutory interest. The Plaintiff argued that whether they were entitled to statutory interest presented a legal question common to all class members that predominated over any questions affecting individual members. She further argued that a class action was appropriate given the generally small size of each member's claim, and that she was a fair representative of that class. In response, the Defendant argued, in the main, that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for class certification because the individual circumstances of each member's claim predominated over any commonality between them. The circuit court disagreed, holding that the Defendant's argument contradicted the Appellate Court's determination in Shackelford I that the right to interest on an arbitration award dominated over individualized award and setoff amounts. Additionally, the circuit court held that the 66 potential members satisfied numerosity, that the Plaintiff could fairly represent them and that their claims could be fairly and efficiently adjudicated in a class action. The court therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion, certifying the following class: All persons who made a claim arising from an incident involving a person insured by Allstate, who received an award or judgment in Illinois, which Allstate paid during the period of October 13, 2010 to the present without paying statutory interest pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1303. The circuit court's order granting class certification was entered on Jan. 25, 2021. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), which a majority of this court granted on March 19, 2021. The interlocutory appeal followed. Analysis Initially, the Appellate Court notes that the Defendant has not included a transcript or report of proceedings from the circuit court's class certification hearing, or an appropriate alternative under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c), (d), such as a such as a bystander's report or an agreed statement of facts. As the Appellant, the Defendant bears the burden of presenting a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings below to support its claims of error, and any doubts arising from the record's inadequacy are resolved against it. Furthermore, in the absence of a complete record, the Appellate Court must presume that the circuit court acted in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis for its ruling. The Appellate Court finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification where she satisfied the numerosity, commonality, adequacy of representation and appropriateness requirements needed to maintain a class action. As to numerosity, the Appellate Court holds that the Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate a precise figure for the class size so long as it was sufficiently numerous to make joinder of all members impracticable. Because she identified 66 potential class members with sufficient evidence, the Appellate Court concludes that the numerosity requirement was satisfied. Turning to commonality, the Appellate Court finds that because the Plaintiff's claim presented a legal question common to all class members, the successful adjudication of that claim would necessarily establish a right of recovery for them. Accordingly, it need not address the Defendant's arguments as to that issue. With respect to adequacy of representation, the Appellate Court finds that because the Defendant has offered nothing further to support its contention that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement, it cannot say that she failed to meet it. Finally, the Defendant's argument regarding appropriateness rests on a finding that the individual circumstances predominated over commonality in the case, and the Appellate Court has already determined that they didn't. And because the Plaintiff has satisfied the first three requirements for class certification, it concludes that it was reasonable for the circuit court to find that she had also met the appropriateness requirement. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, it affirms the circuit court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ky5whumu from Leagle.com. ANAHEIM ARENA: Judgment in Amaro Wage & Hour Class Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IREAN AMARO, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ANAHEIM ARENA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant and Respondent; RHIANNON ALLER, Intervener and Appellant, Case No. G058371 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Three, reverses the trial court's judgment due to the overbreadth of release and remands with directions. Plaintiff Irean Amaro filed the wage and hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit against Defendant Anaheim Arena Management (AAM) in 2017. At the time, there were already two existing class actions asserting the same claims. One had been filed in 2014 and the other in 2016. About a month after filing her lawsuit, Amaro and AAM reached a global settlement that covered the claims asserted in the two prior class actions. AAM operates the Honda Center, a large indoor arena in Anaheim that hosts sporting competitions, concerts, and other large events. In December 2014, interveners Manuel Navarro-Cabrera and Rhiannon Aller filed a PAGA and wage and hour class action against AAM in Orange County Superior Court (the Navarro/Aller action). Generally, the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller action alleged AAM was not paying its nonexempt employees for all the hours they worked. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller action asserted claims based on multiple violations of the Labor Code, including (a) failure to pay minimum wages (Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197), (b) failure to pay wages (Sections 201, 202), (c) failure to pay overtime (Sections 510, 1194), (d) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Section 226), (e) failure to provide meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512), (f) failure to permit rest breaks (Sections 226.7, 512), and (g) waiting time penalties (Section 203). They also asserted claims under PAGA (Section 2698 et seq.) and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. based on these Labor Code violations. After conducting some initial discovery, the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller action and AAM engaged in a mediation in November 2015. The mediation was unsuccessful, so the plaintiffs continued their discovery efforts. Meanwhile, in February 2016, intervener Denise Cassaro filed a substantially similar wage and hour class action against AAM in Orange County Superior Court. Cassaro and AAM mediated the claims in June 2016, without involving the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller action. During negotiations, however, AAM indicated to Cassaro that it wanted a settlement that would also cover the Navarro/Aller claims. After the parties failed to settle, Cassaro's counsel contacted counsel for the plaintiffs from the Navarro/Aller action. They agreed it was in the best interest of the class to consolidate the two cases and litigate them together. The court granted their motion to consolidate in February 2017. Plaintiff Amaro filed the PAGA and wage and hour class action against AAM on April 28, 2017, which largely asserted the same Labor Code violations and claims as the Navarro/Aller and Cassaro actions. Like those actions, Amaro alleged AAM's timekeeping system improperly shaved employees' time and that employees were not compensated for time spent on shuttles or waiting in line for security checks or to clock in. Similarly, she alleged employees either missed or had their meal and rest breaks cut short. Unlike the other two actions, Amaro also alleged AAM violated section 2802 by failing to reimburse employees for certain job-related expenses. After conducting the investigation but prior to filing the complaint, Amaro and AAM mediated the dispute with the Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock (Ret.). The parties were unable to settle at the mediation. Amaro rejected AAM's proposed terms and then filed this lawsuit. Judge Stock continued to work with the parties over several weeks, and she eventually made a proposal accepted by both sides. In June 2017, AAM filed a case management statement in the Navarro/Aller action, which indicated this action had settled and that its release would cover the claims asserted in the Navarro/Aller, Cassaro, and Gomez actions (the Maryarski action had not yet been filed). The settlement covered all nonexempt employees that worked for AAM between Dec. 1, 2010 until the date the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. AAM agreed to pay a gross amount of $1.75 million, with $40,000 of this sum allocated to Amaro's PAGA claim. The settling parties agreed to deduct various expenses from the gross amount, which were subject to court approval: $583,333 in attorney fees, which was one-third of the gross amount, and up to $15,000 in costs to Amaro's counsel, $30,000 in penalties to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) as required by section 2699, subdivision (i), $10,000 as an enhancement to Amaro, and up to $50,000 in administrative costs to a nonparty settlement administrator. Court approval of these deductions would have left $1,061,667 to split among the estimated 5,133 class members (as of April 2017), resulting in average payments of about $207 per member. In addition to the monetary component of the settlement, AAM agreed to make certain policy changes. It agreed to replace its timekeeping rounding system with one that paid employees based on their exact clock-in times. It also agreed to automatically add five minutes of paid time to each employee's shift to compensate them for any time spent waiting in lines for security checks or to clock in. Amaro's counsel estimated these policy changes would generate approximately $510,000 a year in extra wages to employees. The plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller and Cassaro actions (collectively, the interveners) filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit, which was granted. Following extensive briefing by the settling parties and the interveners, the court denied Amaro's motion for preliminary approval in June 2018. After the court denied preliminary approval of the initial settlement, Amaro's counsel engaged in further informal discovery. The settling parties then reconvened settlement negotiations with the assistance of Judge Stock. They eventually agreed to an amended version of the settlement in September 2018, and filed a new motion for preliminary approval. Similar to the initial settlement, the amended settlement covered nonexempt AAM employees that worked from Dec. 5, 2010 to the date the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. AAM agreed to pay a gross amount of $2,212,500, a $462,500 or 26.4% increase from the initial settlement. The proposed deductions for attorney fees and costs, administrative costs, and Amaro's enhancement remained the same. But the amended settlement allocated $240,000 to the PAGA claim, with 75 percent of this sum ($180,000) going to the LWDA and 25 percent ($60,000) going to the class per section 2699, subdivision (i). It also contained an escalator clause, which provided for an increase in the gross amount proportionate to any increase in the class size between the date of the settlement and the date of preliminary approval (there were an estimated 6,037 class members as of the settlement date). The policy changes to which AAM had previously agreed were included in the amended settlement and had already been implemented by AAM. The court granted preliminary approval of the amended settlement in December 2018 over the interveners' opposition. Based on the number of participating class members, the settlement administrator determined the smallest class member payment would be $1.68 (for people that worked only one shift during the class period), the average payment would be $231.67, and the largest payment would be $3,662.12. When Amaro moved for final approval of the settlement in March 2019, the gross amount of the settlement had increased by $41,780 to $2,254,280, which appears to be the result of the escalator clause. The court granted final approval over Aller's objection and issued a detailed minute order addressing the arguments. In connection with the motion, the court granted Amaro's counsel $583,333 in fees and $10,266.87 in costs. Amaro was awarded a $5,000 enhancement, and the settlement administrator was allowed $43,500 in costs. The court subsequently entered judgment in accordance with the settlement. Intervener Aller appeals on grounds the court erred in approving the settlement. First, she argues the scope of the release was impermissibly overbroad. Next, she asserts the settlement was the product of a collusive reverse auction. Finally, she contends the court erred by denying her request to take discovery as to whether the settlement was collusive. Discussion The Court of Appeals agrees the release was overbroad but is not persuaded by the other arguments. Ms. Aller appeals, claiming the court's approval of the settlement was erroneous for two reasons. First, she argues the class members' release in the settlement is improper because it extends to claims outside the scope of Amaro's complaint, waives class members' (from all class actions) claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) without obtaining their written consent, and releases PAGA claims beyond the limitations period of Amaro's own PAGA claim. We agree the release is overbroad. It covers "potential claims in any way relating to the" facts pled in the complaint. The "in any way relating" language causes the release to unreasonably extend to claims that may only be tangentially related to the allegations in Amaro's complaint, rendering it overbroad. However, the Court of Appeals rejects Aller's other contentions. The FLSA's written consent requirement does not apply to a release in a class settlement of state wage and hour claims. Further, nothing in the PAGA statute prevents Amaro from releasing claims outside the limitations period of her own claim. Next, Aller contends the court abused its discretion in finding the settlement was not the product of a collusive reverse auction. Such an event occurs when a defendant sued in multiple class actions picks the most ineffectual class counsel to negotiate a weak settlement that precludes all the other class action claims. Aller primarily relies on the fact that AAM attempted to separately negotiate settlements with the plaintiffs in the two prior lawsuits. After those settlement discussions failed, AAM bypassed those plaintiffs and undercut their claims by negotiating a settlement with Amaro that extinguished the other class actions. The Court of Appeals finds there is nothing inherently wrong with this process. When such a settlement occurs, the objecting party must also show, at the very least, some evidence of unfairness to the class or misconduct to support a collusive reverse auction finding. Aller has not done so. Nor has she presented sufficient evidence to warrant discovery into whether the settlement was collusive. Conclusion Because of the overbreadth of the release, the COurt of Appeals reverses the judgment of the trial court. On remand, the court is directed to hold proceedings to determine whether the settling parties can amend the release to conform with the Opinion. The parties will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/zuu6u8vm from Leagle.com. Donahoo & Associates, Richard E. Donahoo; Gleason & Favarote, Torey J. Favarote -- tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com; Law Offices of Joseph R. Becerra, Joseph R. Becerra -- jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com; and Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner, Holly N. Boyer for Intervener and Appellant Rhiannon Aller. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jason A. Weiss -- jweiss@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew M. Sonne -- msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- Frances M.K. Hernandez -- fhernandez@sheppardmullin.com -- and Tyler Z. Bernstein -- tbernstein@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Anaheim Arena Management, LLC. Capstone Law, Ryan H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Liana Carter -- Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Eduardo Santos -- Eduardo.Santos@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent Irean Amaro. ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina Files Suit in D. Utah --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Marie McIff Allen, et al. The case is styled as Dawn Hepikiya Medina, Justin Horton, Madelaine Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anne Marie McIff Allen, Jeremiah Humes, The Honorable, in their official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN (D. Utah, Oct. 4, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Ann Marie McIff Allen is a judge for the 5th District Court in Southern Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karra J. Porter, Esq. Anna Pitcher Christiansen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC 257 E 200 S., STE. 1100 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 323-5000 Fax: (801) 355-3472 Email: karra.porter@chrisjen.com anna.christiansen@chrisjen.com ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Annovis Bio, Inc. (ANVS) Class Period: 5/21/2021 - 7/28/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-anvs/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] ANNOVIS BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that purchasers of Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or the "Company") (NYSE: ANVS) between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021(the "Class Period") have until October 18, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of neurodegeneration, did not show statistically significant results across two patient populations as to factors such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Annovis business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Annovis class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Annovis class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you would like to join the action regarding Annovis as lead plaintiff and are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] ARROWHEAD CENTRAL: Padilla Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Liliana Macias Padilla, on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Arrowhead Central Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 21STCV35347, (Cal. Super., September 24, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Padilla worked for Arrowhead Central Credit Union in San Bernardino County, California as a bank representative. She claims to have typically worked in excess of 8 hours in a single workday yet denied pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages), denied uninterrupted meal periods and uninterrupted rest periods, unreimbursed for necessary business expenses, not paid all final wages owed upon termination of her employment, and not furnished accurate wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Lilit Tunyan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com Lilit.Tunyan@moonyanglaw.com ASYSTEM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asystem, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Asystem, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05483 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Asystem, Inc. -- https://www.asystem.com/ -- manufactures and sells nutritional supplements and skincare products.[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 BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Testone Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN SHANKS, and LAMARTINE PIERRE, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-169 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: (i) grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Testimony of Sarah Butler; and (ii) grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Background The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendant has manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold various Barlean's brand coconut oil Products beginning in or around May 2008." The Defendant sells its coconut oil products nationally at major retailers. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant "misleadingly markets its coconut oil Products as inherently healthy, and a healthy alternative to butter and various cooking oils, despite that coconut oil is actually inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy option to these alternatives." Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that coconut oil is high in saturated fat, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and other morbidities. In fact, one serving of the Defendant's coconut oil contains twelve grams of saturated fat, which is over half of the daily recommended value of saturated fat. Three of the Defendant's products are challenged in the putative class action: its "Organic Virgin Coconut Oil," "Organic Culinary Coconut Oil," and "Organic Butter Flavored Coconut Oil." The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant "has employed a strategic marketing campaign intended to convince consumers that the Barlean's Coconut Oil products are healthy." They claim this is done both through statements on the Defendant's website as well as statements made directly on the labels of the Coconut Oils. The Plaintiffs take exception to several of the statements on the labels of the Defendant's Products. As to Defendant's the Organic Virgin Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs question, among others, the following statements: "Nature's Most Versatile Superfood"; "RAW WHOLE FOOD"; "Harvested at the Peak of Flavor and Nutrition/nutritional value"; "COCONUT OIL: A SMART FAT"; "NON-HYDROGENATED"; and various statements concerning the presence of medium chain triglycerides. As to the Defendant's Organic Culinary Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs identify as misleading the following label statements: "The ultimate cooking oil for health-conscious gourmets. As versatile as it is delicious, Barlean's Organic Culinary Coconut Oil is ideal for sauteing, stir-frying and baking, or as a dairy-free butter substitute"; and "NO TRANS FAT." Finally, as to vDefendant's Organic Butter Flavored Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs suggest that the following statements, among others, are misleading: "THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF COCONUT OIL, THE RICH TASTE OF BUTTER"; "SUB 1:1 FOR BUTTER"; "HEALTHY ALTERNATIVE TO BUTTER"; and "All the health benefits of coconut oil, now with the rich flavor of butter." The Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant intentionally omits from its Products' labeling and marketing the negative health effects of its coconut oils. In addition, the Plaintiffs argue that the Products are misbranded. Plaintiff Testone alleges he would purchase the Defendant's Organic Virgin Coconut Oil on a regular basis, relying on some of the challenged label claims in believing the product was healthy. Plaintiff Shanks alleges similar injury from purchasing both the Defendant's Organic Virgin Coconut Oil and its Butter Flavored Coconut Oil. Lastly, Plaintiff Pierre claims he was injured in a similar manner by purchasing the Defendant's Organic Virgin Coconut Oil. The Plaintiffs propose a class of California consumers and a class of New York consumers. As to the California class, the Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL"), California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq. ("FAL"), and California Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq. ("CLRA"); breach of express warranty pursuant to California Commercial Code Section 2313(1); and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to California Commercial Code Section 2314. As to the New York class, the Plaintiffs allege violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 ("UDBP") and 350 ("NY FAL"), as well as breach of express warranty pursuant to New York Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-313. On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. The Defendant answered on Sept. 10, 2019. The Defendant subsequently filed its Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives on May 18, 2020. Shortly thereafter, it also filed an ex parte motion to stay, which, following briefing, the Court granted. On Jan. 4, 2021, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to disqualify as premature. Presently before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Motion") and Motion to Strike the Testimony of Sarah Butler ("MTS"). Also before the Court are the Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion, the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Motion, the Defendant's Evidentiary Objections to the Reply Declarations of Colin B. Weir and J. Michael Dennis, Ph.D., the Defendant's Opposition to the MTS ("MTS Opp'n"), the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the MTS ("MTS Reply"), and the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections ("Evid. Resp."). The Court heard oral argument on June 28, 2021. Discussion I. Motion to Strike and Evidentiary Objections The Plaintiffs move to strike the testimony of the Defendant's expert, Sarah Butler. The Defendant, meanwhile, submitted evidentiary objections to portions of two declarations submitted by Pthe laintiffs to support their Reply, one by Mr. Colin B. Weir and one by Dr. J. Michael Dennis, Reply Declaration of Colin B. Weir. A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike The Plaintiffs challenge the admissibility of the testimony of the Defendant's expert, Ms. Butler, on the grounds that (1) her testimony is irrelevant because the Plaintiffs' claims do not require absent class members to have seen, relied on, or found material the at-issue claims on the Products' labels; (2) her testimony is irrelevant because the germane question at this stage is whether common questions predominate, not whether the Plaintiffs have proven materiality, which is a merits issue (3) her questions and testimony concerning how consumers first learned about coconut oil are unreliable and irrelevant; (4) her criticisms of Dr. Dennis' survey population are based on a mistake of fact; and (5) she is not qualified to offer testimony about supply-side issues. 1. Relevancy and Reliability a. General Relevance to Plaintiffs' Claims and Class Certification The Plaintiffs claim that Ms. Butler's entire report is irrelevant and should be stricken because her opinions concern issues that are irrelevant as a matter of law. They further argue that the Butler Report goes to the merits of whether the reasonable consumer would find the Products' labels material and/or deceptive, issues irrelevant at the class certification stage. The Defendant argues that, if the alleged misrepresentations are not material to all class members, then the reliance of individual class members is at issue and the class should not be certified. Judge Sammartino holds that Ms. Butler's survey effectively amounts to an argument that consumers purchase the Defendant's Products for a variety of reasons. However, this "is a merits dispute as to materiality, and is therefore a dispute that can be resolved classwide." Indeed, the Judge says, it is an error of law for a court to inquire into the motives of each individual class member at the class certification stage. And, in any event, "it is clear under California law that materiality to a reasonable consumer does not mean it has to be material to every consumer." However, Ms. Butler's survey may be probative of materiality at later stages in this litigation, as it may show the alleged misstatements would not be material to a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Judge denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike on this ground. b. How Consumers First Learned About Coconut Oil Relying on the same arguments made supra, the Plaintiffs also claim that how consumers first learned about coconut oil has no bearing on whether the Products' labels are objectively material or misleading. Further, they argue that these questions are fundamentally unreliable, as consumers are unlikely to accurately recall how they first learned of a product they likely first purchased years ago. The Defendant responds that these survey questions and their responses are probative to the issue of materiality, because, when viewed in conjunction with the other survey responses, they show that consumers do not rely on the claims on coconut oil labels in deciding whether to make a purchase. For the reasons she provided, Judge Sammartino holds that this again effectively amounts to "a merits dispute as to materiality, and is therefore a dispute that can be resolved classwide." And, again, portions of Ms. Butler's survey may be probative of materiality at later stages in this litigation. Finally, while she appreciates the "recall bias" issue raised by the Defendant, the Judge is not prepared to say that this issue renders the questions at issue so fundamentally flawed that they are completely unreliable and must be stricken. Accordingly, she denies the Motion to Strike on this ground as well. c. Criticisms of Dr. Dennis's Survey Population The Plaintiffs also contend that the portions of the Butler Report opining that Dr. Dennis' survey improperly restricts the relevant population to consumers who purchased coconut oil at health food stores should be stricken, as Dr. Dennis' proposed survey is not limited to such a sub-population of purchasers. In its Opposition, the "Defendant disagrees that Butler misread Dennis' declaration but does not dispute that Dennis has clarified the scope of his survey universe in his reply declaration." Nonetheless, it contends that Dr. Dennis' subsequent clarification does not mean that Ms. Butler's criticism of the original declaration should be stricken. Judge Sammartino holds that a reading of the paragraph at issue in Dr. Dennis' report supports the Plaintiffs' position that Dr. Dennis' survey population was never limited to consumers who purchased coconut oil from health food stores. Instead, he is clear that "his survey will target a population of non-institutionalized adults age 18 and over, who have purchased coconut oils in the last 12 months." Dr. Dennis goes on to clarify that his survey population will "include those residing in either the state of California or New York," as well as "coconut oil purchasers who purchased coconut oil in health food stores." However, nowhere does he say that he will limit the survey population to such purchasers. Accordingly, the Judge finds that Ms. Butler's critiques of Dr. Dennis' survey population were based on a mistake of fact; they are therefore irrelevant and unlikely to assist the trier of fact. Thus, the Judge Strikes the portions of the Butler Report pertaining to Dr. Dennis' survey population. 2. Ms. Butler's Qualifications Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Butler is not an economist and is therefore unqualified to opine on whether Dr. Dennis' survey addresses supply-side issues. The Defendant counters that, "as a survey expert, Ms. Butler is indisputably qualified to testify as to survey design, including what components are included or excluded from a particular survey design, which is precisely the nature of the challenged testimony." While the Butler Report is not a rebuttal report, it does, in fact, critique and respond to the Dennis Report and ultimately contends that his model cannot accurately account for market share and prices. Judge Sammartino agrees that these are economic issues as to which Ms. Butler is not qualified to testify. Accordingly, she strikes those portions of the Butler Report opining as to the adequacy of Dr. Dennis' conjoint survey to account for changes in supply. B. Defendant's Evidentiary Objections The Defendant's evidentiary objections to portions of the Reply Dennis Report and Reply Weir Report mostly argue that the paragraphs in question are irrelevant, lack foundation, and/or are improper legal opinions. Thus, the Defendant does not object to these portions of Plaintiffs' reply reports on the basis of Daubert concerns, but rather on the basis of general admissibility issues. At this stage, the Court can, and should, afford such testimony the proper weight rather than exclude it outright. Accordingly, Judge Sammartino overrules the Defendant's evidentiary objections. II. Motion for Class Certification A. Rule 23(a) Requirements As noted previously, the Plaintiffs seek certification of two classes, the California Class and the New York Class. The proposed California Class comprises "all persons in California who, between Jan. 24, 2015 and the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and not for resale." The proposed New York Class comprises "all persons in New York who, between Jan. 24, 2016 and the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and not for resale." The Plaintiffs must establish that the Classes satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a). The Defendant does not contest that the Plaintiffs' Classes meet the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity and commonality. Thus, Judge Sammartino analyzes these requirements briefly and focuses its analysis on the contested elements of typicality and adequacy. Judge Sammartino finds that (i) the likely class members are sufficiently numerous that joinder is impracticable, thus fulfilling the numerosity requirement for each of the Classes; (ii) the Defendant does not dispute commonality; (iii) the Plaintiffs allege the same injury as the members of the Classes they seek to represent and allege they were injured by the same course of conduct -- the Defendant's alleged mislabeling; and (iv) the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and that class counsel are also adequate. B. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements Rule 23(b)(3) states that a class may be maintained if the requirements of Rule 23(a) are fulfilled and if "the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Judge Sammartino concludes that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues and that the Plaintiffs' proposed damages model satisfies the requirements of Comcast. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Sammartino also finds that the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) has been met. First, she finds that none of the proposed class members would likely have any interest in litigating these claims by themselves, "because the cost of litigating a single case would undoubtedly exceed the potential return." Second, given the small recovery any individual plaintiff might expect, concentrating the litigation in a single forum is appropriate." Lastly, there is no indication, nor does Defendant contend, that there is any characteristic of this litigation that would make it more difficult to manage than other class action litigations routinely decided by district courts. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Judge Sammartino grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, overrules the Defendant's evidentiary objections, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, certifies the two proposed Classes, and appoints Plaintiffs Michael Testone, Collin Shanks, and Lamartine Pierre as the class representatives and The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC, and The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, as the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vhzmnud8 from Leagle.com. CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Brown Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEITH A. BROWN, Plaintiff v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, ET. AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-AWI-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta recommended that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and all other pending motions be denied as moot. Background Plaintiff Keith Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated the action while incarcerated at Valley State Prison by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff proceeds on his First Amended Complaint which alleges, inter alia, due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in connection with the Plaintiff's Feb. 24, 2017 parole board hearing ("PBH") at which he was denied youthful offender parole. The Plaintiff attaches the following exhibits to his FAC: The Plaintiff's healthcare appeals and responses, and excerpts from his medical records (Exhibit A, Doc. No. 11 at 34-51); transcript from the Plaintiff's Sept. 9, 2016 PBH (Exhibit B, Doc. No. 11 at 52-58); transcript of the Plaintiff's Feb. 24, 2017 PBH and decision (Exhibit C, Doc. No. 11 at 59-159); Comprehensive Risk Assessment ("CRA") dated July 19, 2016 (Exhibit D, Doc. No. 11 at 160-182); pro se Petition to Advance Parole Hearing postmarked November 27, 2017 and Denial dated December 7, 2017 (Exhibit E, Doc. No. 183-201); excerpt of transcript and decision from Aug. 30, 2011 PBH (Exhibit F, Doc. No. 11 at 202-206); CDCR Administrative Appeal, Log. No. HC16007271 (Exhibit G, Doc. No. 11 at 207-217) and Declaration of Plaintiff dated March 18, 2018 (Exhibit H, Doc. No. 218-220). The FAC originally identified four Defendants in their official and individual capacities and five separate counts, not all Defendants or claims survived screening. The FAC named the following as Defendants: (1) Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer of the Board of Prison Hearing ("BPH"); (2) Line Brynjulfeen, Forensic Psychologist with BPH; (3) Michelle Minor, presiding Commissioner with BPH; and (4) Timothy O'Hara, Deputy Commissioner with BPH. The FAC alleged the following five counts: (1) the Plaintiff's procedural due process and liberty interest in parole were violated when BPH failed to adopt regulations consistent with Johnson v. Shaffer, Case No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC, 2014 WL 6834019, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014, report and recommendation adopted by Case No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC, 2015 WL 2358583 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2015); and California Penal Code Section 3051; (2) the Plaintiff was denied due process when the psychiatrist, Defendant Byrnjulfsen, conducted an arbitrary and capricious evaluation, by relying on a standard of review for adults, not juvenile offenders and falsely found Plaintiff wanted revenge on his childhood legal guardian, among other things; (3) the Plaintiff was denied a fair PBH; (4) in the Plaintiff's Youthful Offender's Hearing, the BPH violated the ADA when denying parole as opposed to employing an individualized inquiry; and (5) the Defendants failed to provide the requisite care in violations of the Eighth Amendment and the ADA. The Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief. As required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued a F&R concerning the FAC on May 13, 2019. The District Court adopted the F&R in full. Although the Court gave the Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint, the Plaintiff opted not to do so. It should be noted that neither the F&R nor the adoption of the F&R addressed the attachments to the FAC. Just shy of his sixteenth birthday, the Plaintiff pled guilty to second-degree murder with use of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 years to life with the possibility of parole in 1987. Sometime in 2009, a bone-density scan was completed on the Plaintiff and he was informed that he might have sustained "significant trauma to the skull, ear to ear" sometime in the past. Sometime in 2010, the Plaintiff began recalling a traumatic incident where he had been raped at age six or seven and bludgeoned on the skull. In 2010, the Plaintiff "declined to participate in the Forensic Assessment Division ("FAD") report but a report was authored based upon his file. He sought treatment from various doctors for his newly recalled injury, after his August 2011 BPH panel found his account of childhood trauma "credible." In 2015, Dr. Gosek, a psychiatrist, confirmed "Frontal Lobe damages" to the Plaintiff's brain and opined the Plaintiff's brain injury likely resulted in schizophrenia spectrum disorder and recommended the Plaintiff for a "Frontal Lobe Disorder Assessment" and transferred him to Valley State Prison for "treatment by a neuropsychologist." In 2013-14, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 260, which requires adults who were incarcerated when they were juveniles for committing serious felonies to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. The bill, codified at Cal. Penal Code Section 3501 establishes certain criteria applicable to youthful offender parole hearings. The Plaintiff had his youth-offender BPH on Feb. 24, 2017 during which he objected to the FAD report prepared by Dr. Brynjulfsen. According to the Plaintiff, the report declared him to be the highest risk for future violence potential based upon factual misrepresentations. After reviewing the report and finding "several substantial errors that the highest risk for future assessment had been based upon," the Plaintiff lodged objections to the report with the BPH. At the BPH hearing, Defendant Minor interrupted Plaintiff repeatedly and "minimized the brain injury." The BPH, including Defendants Minor and O'Hara, denied the Plaintiff parole in contravention of the weight of the evidence. The Plaintiff alleges prior to the hearing, Shaffer had failed to adopt regulations as required by Cal. Penal Code Section 3501 and had failed to "establish a process for addressing timely objections to the CRA in writing prior to a hearing" as required by the remedial order entered by the Sacramento Division of the Court in by Johnson v. Shaffer, Case No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014). The F&R, as adopted, concluded the FAC stated cognizable due process claims against Defendants Shaffer, Minor, and O'Hara, but dismissed all remaining claims and the Defendants. Specifically, the F&R found a due process claim against Defendant Shaffer for (1) failing to revise the BPH existing regulations to adopt new regulations compliant with California Penal Code Section 3051; and (2) failing to establish a process for addressing timely objections to the CRAs in writing prior to the hearing as required by Johnson. As to Defendants Minor and O'Hare, the F&R noted that the FAC alleged these Defendants denied the Plaintiff parole in contravention of the great weight of the evidence because they knew the Brynsjulfsen report contained false information, but nevertheless relied on the report to deny Plaintiff parole. The order noted that the FAC alleged Defendant Minor interrupted Plaintiff during the hearing and constantly "minimized his brain injury." Discussion The Defendants move to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They argue the Plaintiff received a parole hearing where he presented his case with the assistance of an attorney, was informed why he did not qualify for parole, which constitutes all the process due under the U.S. Constitution. They further argue that Executive Officer Shaffer did promulgate rules and regulations for the PBHs addressing objections to CRAs, as evidenced by the exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's FAC. The Defendants contend that even if these PBH rules did not comply with the deadline set forth in the Johnson remedial order, such a violation does not amount to a Constitutional due process violation. Finally, the Defendants argue the facts presented in the case are distinguishable from the facts in Johnson and the Court is not bound by the Johnson decision. Further, the Defendants point out the transcript of the 2017 BPH contradicts Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants Minor and O'Hara denied Plaintiff a fair hearing by failing to "adequately" consider the Plaintiff's objections to the CRA. In opposition, the Plaintiff points to the F&R screening discussed, finding his FAC stated a cognizable claim. He maintains that the Defendants violated California Penal Code Section 3051 because they did not have regulatory guidance on how to properly evaluate for parole crimes committed by juveniles, like the Plaintiff's conviction and sentence arising at age 16. The Plaintiff reiterates that Defendant Minor failed to promulgate rules requiring written responses and objections prior to the hearing. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' failure to promulgate rules in compliance with Johnson shows the parole board had a "biased agenda." He contends that Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 requires an "unbiased" PBH. In Reply, the Defendants correctly argue that screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is not a substitute for a 12(b)(6) motion and point out that the Court's Screening Order did not reference or consider the exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's FAC. Using the evidence attached to the Plaintiff's FAC, which is proper to do at the 12(b)(6) stage, notes that the evidence contradicts the factual allegations in the FAC and argues the then-assigned magistrate judge incorrectly applied Johnson to the case. The Defendants reiterate that the Plaintiff was afforded all due process protections during his PBH. In Sur-Reply, the Plaintiff clarifies that his claims against Shaffer involve: (1) Shaffer's failure to revise the parole board's existing regulations and adopt new regulations in compliance with California Penal Code Section 3051 and (2) that Shaffer failed to establish a process for addressing timely objections to CRAs in writing before the hearing. He contends that the parole board regulations do not comply with California Penal Code Section 3051 because there is no guidance on how the board is to weigh "diminished culpability" for a crime committed by a juvenile. He believes that if the parole board had responded to his objections to the CRA in writing before the hearing, then the parole board could not have used the CRA to deny him parole. A. Plaintiff has a Liberty Interest in his BPH Judge Barch-Kuchta states that ordinarily, courts engage in an analysis of the language in the particular state's parole statute to determine whether parole is discretionary or mandatory to determine whether the statute creates a liberty interest in release on parole. This determination, she says, satisfies the first element of a due process claim, e.g. whether the inmate has a liberty interest for which he or she is afforded due process. In the case, the Defendants do not challenge the existence of that interest. For purposes of the Order and based upon the facts alleged, Judge Barch-Kuchta finds the California Youthful Offender parole statute creates a liberty interest in parole-release. B. The FAC Fails to Adequately State a Due Process Claim against Defendants Having found a liberty interest, Judge Barch-Kuchta next considers whether the FAC alleges sufficient facts that the process afforded to the Plaintiff violated his due process rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She finds the FAC does not allege sufficient facts and finds that the non-conclusory allegations are refuted by the exhibits attached to the FAC. Essentially, the claims set forth in the FAC are directed at the evidence the parole board relied on to deny the Plaintiff's parole-release. The FAC in conclusory terms alleges the parole board was biased but fails to identify how any Defendant was biased or identify a specific biased act by any Defendant. Satisfying the issues the Plaintiff presents with his parole board hearing in the FAC would convert each parole-release hearing into an adversarial proceeding, which is not required under the U.S. Constitution. Judge Barch-Kuchta holds that the Court does not sit as a super appellate court to review denials by a state's parole board. Although couched in terms of due process violations, the Plaintiff disagrees with the BPH decision to deny him parole and seeks a review of the substantive result of his parole hearing. As stated, in parole-release hearings due process under the Federal Constitution is satisfied when the inmate has an opportunity to be heard and notice why the parole-release is denied. Accordingly, Judge Barch-Kuchta recommends the District Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Disposition Accordingly, Judge Barch-Kuchta recommended that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and all other pending motions be denied as moot. She recommended that the Clerk of Court enters judgment accordingly and closes the case. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Also pending is the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and certify a class action and his motion for judgment on the pleadings. Based on her recommendation to grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Barch-Kuchta further recommended denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class, motion for appointment of counsel and motion for judgment on the pleadings. Alternatively, the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is premature should the Court reject the F&R. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Findings & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/eddna3jb from Leagle.com. CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: C$83MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In Re: CANNTRUST HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 1:19-cv-06396-JPO SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF U.S. CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca If you purchased the publicly traded common stock of CannTrust Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust") on the New York Stock Exchange or on any U.S. based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to CannTrust's May 6, 2019 secondary offering, you may be entitled to a payment from several class action settlements. 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 Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed U.S. Class Action Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed U.S. Settlement Class, and defendant CannTrust and several other defendants in this proposed class action lawsuit (collectively, "Settling Defendants"), have reached eight proposed settlements of the majority of the claims in the above-captioned U.S. class action (the "U.S. Class Action"), as well as actions pending in Canada and California (collectively with the U.S. Class Action, the "Actions"), in amounts totaling approximately C$83,000,000[1] in exchange for releases of liability (the "Settlements"). The proposed Settlements will be implemented pursuant to an amended and restated plan of compromise, arrangement and reorganization of CannTrust, CannTrust Inc. and Elmcliffe Investments Inc. (as may be further amended from time to time in accordance with its terms), pursuant to Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended, (the "CCAA Plan"), which was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) by a "sanction order" entered on July 16, 2021 (the "CCAA Sanction Order"). Implementation of the CCAA Plan requires, among other things, approval of the Settlements as they relate to the U.S. Class Action by the U.S. Court. The CCAA Plan provides for, inter alia, the restructuring of CannTrust so that it can emerge from insolvency, the administration of the Settlements for the benefit of CannTrust's investors, and the handling of unsettled claims related to the alleged wrongdoing at issue in the Actions. A telephonic hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken on Thursday, December 2, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. New York time (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlements, as they relate to the U.S. Class Action, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) approve the proposed Allocation and Distribution Scheme for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlements to U.S. Settlement Class Members. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a payment. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE U.S. SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you purchased the publicly traded common stock of CannTrust on the New York Stock Exchange or on any U.S. based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to CannTrust's May 6, 2019 secondary offering and have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlements, www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: CannTrust Securities Settlements c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. P.O. Box 507 STN B Ottawa ON K1P 5P6 www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca info@CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca 1-833-871-5359 Inquiries about the U.S. Class Action, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to U.S. Class Action Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP James W. Johnson, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com 1-888-219-6877 If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlements, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than March 16, 2022. (Any extensions of this deadline will be posted on the website for the Settlements: www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca). If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound by the terms of the Settlements as they relate to the U.S. Class Action, all of the U.S. Court's orders about the Settlements, whether favorable or unfavorable, the CCAA Sanction Order and CCAA Plan. If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice so that it is received no later than November 11, 2021. This is the only option that potentially may allow you to ever bring or be part of any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants and their related parties about the released claims. However, the Settlement Parties believe that the CCAA Sanction Order will operate to bar any claims by the U.S. Settlement Class Members against the Settling Defendants and their related parties regardless of whether they request exclusion from the U.S. Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlements. Any objections to the proposed Settlements and/or the proposed Allocation and Distribution Scheme must be filed with the U.S. Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than November 11, 2021. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: September 28, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK URL// www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca 1 For informational purposes, at the time the Settlements were reached (January 19, 2021 to May 24, 2021), the C$/US$ exchange rate ranged from C$1.20 to C$1.28 per US$1.00 with an average of C$1.25 per US$1.00. Accordingly, at the time of the Settlements, C$83,000,000 was equivalent to approximately US$66,400,000. CASSAVA SCIENCES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Cassava Sciences, Inc. (SAVA) Class Period: 9/14/2020 - 8/27/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 26, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sava/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] COCA-COLA CO: Committed Wage Theft, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Coca-Cola Company cheated its California workers out of overtime wages, rest and meal breaks, a class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Brian Simmons filed the class action lawsuit in a California state court this summer against The Coca-Cola Company, alleging violations of California wage laws. On Wednesday, the company's lawyer filed to have it moved to federal court. Simmons says The Coca-Cola company employed him for "many years." However, in 2019, the company experienced payroll issues resulting in the payment of the incorrect amount of wages for Simmons and other workers. "The issues persisted for many months before and after the company-wide payroll issue." [GN] ESTATE OF THOMAS BRINKWORTH: Compensation Experts Launch Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- maddenslawyers.com.au reports that Maddens Lawyers have launched a class action in the South Australian Supreme Court on behalf of those impacted by the 11 January 2021 fire. Regional Victorian firm, Maddens Lawyers, have issued proceedings against the executors of the Estate of Thomas Brinkworth and his surviving wife Patricia Brinkworth who own the land upon which the Lucindale fire ignited. The fire is alleged to have started after a burn off pile ignited on a day of total fire ban and spread to neighbouring properties. The fire quickly became out of control in the extreme weather conditions, burning in excess of 14,000 hectares and impacting approximately 70 properties. Maddens Lawyers Class Action Principal, Kathryn Emeny said the commencement of the class action proceeding is an important milestone towards obtaining compensation for all community members impacted by the Lucindale fire. 'This was a very significant fire event. The damage caused by the fire is far reaching and still being felt to this day. 'Claims for compensation in the class action will incorporate all aspects of loss suffered after a major fire such as time spent cleaning and restoring one's property as well as fencing, tree and pasture losses. Claims will also be advanced for any psychological injuries which we understand are commonly experienced by bushfire victims,' said Ms Emeny. Maddens Lawyers are Australia's Bushfire Compensation Experts having successfully acted on behalf of thousands of people impacted by bushfire events across Australia including the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday fires and the 2013 NSW Springwood/Winmalee bushfire. More recently, the firm has also commenced class action proceedings on behalf of property owners impacted by the 2019 Cudlee Creek fire in the Adelaide Hills and the 2019 Yorketown fire on the Yorke Peninsula. Ms Emeny said the class action is being progressed on a 'no win, no fee' basis and is a secure and low risk means for residents and businesses marred by the fire to recover compensation for the significant loss and damage they've suffered. Anyone impacted by the Lucindale fire is encouraged to contact Maddens Lawyers to register their interest in the class action tollfree on 1800 139 290, email info@maddenslawyers.com.au or register online at maddenslawyers.com.au/2021lucindalefire. [GN] GARDNER TRUCKING: Tate Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements --------------------------------------------------------- William Matney-Tate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gardner Trucking, Inc., Gardner Trucking Conversion, LLC, CRST The Transportation Solution, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07474, (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, damages from unreasonably delayed payment of wages, redress for missed breaks, reimbursement of business-related expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws. Defendants operate a trucking business where Tate worked as a driver. Tate claims to have rendered off-the-clock work without compensation, worked through breaks and not reimbursed for his uniform expense. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins. Esq. Gregory Mauro. Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Jeanne Sarmiento, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive. Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Jeanne@jameshawkinsaplc.com GENERAC HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that purchasers of Generac Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GNRC) between February 23, 2021, and July 29, 2021, have until October 19, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Generac's portable generators posed an unreasonable risk of injury to users and the public; (2) as a result, at least seven finger amputations and one crushed finger had been reported to the Company; (3) as a result, Generac would face increased regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company would end sales in its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada in June 2021; (5) the Company would recall its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada; (6) the end of sales and the recall would occur before the hurricane and wildfire seasons and following the Texas outage—periods the Company has touted for sales; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Generac class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Generac class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Battery Production Resumes -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Butler, writing for CarBuzz, reports that as GM slowly starts to convert brands like Cadillac and Chevrolet to electric power, there's bound to be some hiccups. Take the Chevrolet Bolt: this small EV has proven to be quite popular until it started randomly exploding into flames. GM has issued numerous warnings, and even undertook an expensive recall and halted production of its battery packs. While Chevrolet and GM try to figure out the issue, there have been mass calls for refunds, with many customers threatening class-action lawsuits, but there might be a non-life-threatening light at the end of the tunnel: Chevrolet has just announced that Chevy Bolt EV battery production has resumed. According to the manufacturer, LG battery cell and module production has resumed with updated manufacturing processes and new advanced diagnostics software for increased safety. "We're grateful for the patience of owners and dealers as we work to advance solutions to this recall. Resuming battery module production is a first step and we'll continue to work aggressively with LG to obtain additional battery supply. In addition, we're optimistic a new advanced diagnostic software will provide more convenience for our customers," said Doug Parks, GM executive vice president, Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain. [GN] GERBER PRODUCTS: Shepard Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melanie Shepard, Ciara Vargas, Tisha Valdez, Gwyndaline Quarles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs; Juliana Fondacaro, Mayra Verduzco, Mieshia Douglas, Charles Robbins, Ana Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Ana Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Ana Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Marie Mezile, Consolidated Plaintiffs v. Gerber Products Company doing business as: Nestle Nutrition, doing business as: Nestle Infant Nutrition doing business as: Nestle Nutrition North America Case No. 2:21-cv-01977 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01104-LO-TCB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington, Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Magagna, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway East Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey W. Castello, III, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 2ND FLOOR PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054 Phone: (973) 503-5900 Email: gcastello@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com The Consolidated Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ & GOLDHAMER 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 - and - Thomas Alan Brown, II, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 MADISON AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 695-8050 Email: tbrown@msbllp.com - and - Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (917) 444-1960 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 140 BROADWAY, 46TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 208-1489 Email: jonathan@feganscott.com - and - Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT, & GRAF, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7225 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Email: dabrahams@kohnswift.com GOPLUS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goplus Corp. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Goplus Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-08157 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goplus Corp. -- http://www.costway.com/-- is located in Fontana, California and is part of the Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Drivers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bakari H. Glymph-Dozier and Solomon Hill, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Grapevine of North Carolina, Inc. and Scott A. Cohen, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00748, (M.D. N.C., September 25, 2021), seeks payment of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and the South Carolina Wage Payment Act. Grapevine of North Carolina is a full-service distributor selling wine and servicing accounts across both the Carolinas where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Both claim to have worked more than 40 hours in the same workweek but were not paid at the overtime rate. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1828 488 Thompson Street Pittsboro, NC 27312 Tel: (919) 821-9031 Fax: (919) 821-1763 Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com INTERIOR DEFINE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interior Define, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Interior Define, Inc., a Delaware limited partnership, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-07868-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Interior Define -- https://www.interiordefine.com/ -- offers custom furniture with over 100+ fabrics, 15+ collections, 20+ legs, and multiple lengths & depth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- burnscharest.com reports that on behalf of QuickBooks users across the nation, the law firms of Burns Charest LLP, Stark & Stark, and Morris Law Firm have filed a federal class action lawsuit against financial software giant Intuit, Inc. for charging fees for one-day Automated Clearing House (ACH) bank transfer payments, despite previously stating there would be no extra fees for this service. Previously, QuickBooks users had a choice: they could make deposits for free using a two-to-seven-day deposit option or opt for a one business day deposit for a transaction fee of 1% of the total amount transferred. Earlier this year, QuickBooks informed its customers that one-day deposits were now automatic and there would be no extra fees. However, the users soon discovered that automatic one-day ACH transfers did, in fact, include a 1% transaction fee (max $10) on each transaction. The switch to one-day transfer with a 1% transaction fee was especially burdensome to users who are suffering financially during the COVID-19 pandemic. "Many QuickBooks users are small business owners struggling to survive during the pandemic. Intuit's deceptive policy change has financially harmed consumers who trusted Intuit's representation that there would be no extra fees," says Plaintiff co-counsel Amanda Klevorn of Burns Charest. [GN] JUSTBRAND LIMITED: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justbrand Limited. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Justbrand Limited, Case No. 1:21-cv-08158 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JustBrand Limited -- https://www.justbrandlimited.com/ -- is the leader in temperature-controlled apparel and accessories category.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal KASIM INTERNATIONAL: Kelly Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kasim International Corporation. The case is styled as Kevin Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kasim International Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-08134-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Kasim International -- http://www.kasiminternational.com/-- imports and exports a varied line of crackers, flour, and canned and bottled foods, including coffee, dressing, and fruit nectar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 260-7080 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com LAFCO ENTERPRISES: Website Not Blind-accessible, says Crumwell -------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Crumwell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Lafco Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07989 (S.D. N.Y., September 24, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Lafco operates the online retail store https://lafco.com/ that provides consumers with access to an array of fragrances, essential oils, high quality wax, soaps and other products available online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies. Crumwell is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal LUCKY FEATHER: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Feather, LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lucky Feather, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08159 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lucky Feather -- https://luckyfeather.com/ -- offers delightfully fun jewelry and gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 21, 2021, that the court issued a final judgment approving a stipulation to settle and release the defendants from all claims asserted in the securities class action suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. Mammoth was a party to a securities class action lawsuit captioned "In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation". The Class Action was brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all investors (apart from certain investors excluded from the class) who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth common stock between October 19, 2017 and June 5, 2019 (the "Class Period") against Mammoth and its executive officers, for alleged violation of federal securities laws. On September 21, 2021, the Court issued a final judgment approving a stipulation to settle and release the defendants from all claims asserted in the litigation, or that could have been asserted arising from the subject matter of the litigation and the purchase or acquisition of Mammoth common stock during the Class Period in return for a cash payment in the amount of $11.0 million for the benefit of the settlement class. The settlement amount is covered in full under Mammoth's directors' and officers' insurance policy. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. NAVISTAR INC: Kalbrier Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navistar, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Kalbrier, Cherrie Kalbrier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05203 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Navistar -- http://www.navistar.com/-- operates as the owner of International brand of trucks and diesel engines.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - Chicago, IL 227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gmason@masonllp.com NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Teachers v. NYC DOE Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In case docketed as Rachel Maniscalco, Evelyn Arancio, Diana Salomon and Corinne Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The New York City Department of Education, Meisha Porter, Schools Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, in her official capacity, The City of New York, Bill De Blasio, Mayor of New York City, in his official capacity, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and Dave Chokshi, Commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05055 (E.D. N.Y., September 23, 2021), plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the order requiring that all Department of Education (DOE) staff, City employees, contractors who work in-person in a DOE school setting or DOE building and all employees of any school serving students up to grade 12 and any UPK-3 or UPK-4 program that is located in a DOE building who work in-person, and all contractors hired by such schools or programs to work in-person submit proof of at least one dose of vaccination for COVID-19 by September 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs assert a violation of their substantive due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and New York C.P.L.R. Article 78. Defendants are city entities and officials responsible for enacting and enforcing an order mandating vaccination for New York City Department of Education employees as well as employees and contractors who work in-person in DOE school settings or buildings. Plaintiffs are teachers and paraprofessionals employed by the DOE who bring suit challenging said order asserting a variety of reasons for not wishing to be vaccinated, including concern over the long-term effects of a newly developed vaccine. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark J. Fonte, Esq. MARK J. FONTE ATTORNEY AT LAW 2550 Victory Blvd., Suite 304 Staten Island, NY 10301 Phone: (718) 720-4949 Defendants are represented by: Devin Slack NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT Tel: (212) 356-0817 - and - Susan Paulson, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT Tel: (212) 356-0821 NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE DAVIS, DEREK COMEAUX, CASEY HAYES, COREY HUDSON, and RON MIGUES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00109-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice plaintiffs' motions for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice, so as to allow refiling if appropriate at any time in the future. Nextier provides oilfield services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FhTVrE at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE KENWORTHY, CHAD HENSLEY, STEPHEN MAKANJU, TED WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL SPERLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00111-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice plaintiffs' motions for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice, so as to allow refiling if appropriate at any time in the future. Nextier provides oilfield services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ytcqsz at no extra charge.[CC] NOVO NORDISK: Agrees $100M Settlement of Class Action Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- thepharmaletter.com reports that Danish diabetes care giant Novo Nordisk (NOV: N) has reached an agreement in principle to settle the previously disclosed securities class action litigation pending in the Federal District Court of New Jersey, USA, with the company's US traded shares dipping 1.6% to $100.63 on the news. The lawsuit, alleging the company concealed a deal to pay kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers to get its insulin drugs on stores' recommended product list, was filed in January 2017 on behalf of purchasers of American Depository Receipts during the class period February 3, 2015 to February 2, 2017 against Novo Nordisk itself, as well as former company executives Lars Rebien Sørensen, Jesper Brandgaard and Jakob Riis. The settlement was reached after a voluntary mediation process and resolves claims brought by plaintiffs for alleged violations of US securities laws. The settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants and will include a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit. Novo Nordisk believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without any merit, but is settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, inherent risk and expense of further litigation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Novo Nordisk has agreed to pay $100 million (inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs). The payment, which is covered by insurance, will be made into a settlement fund and distributed among plaintiffs. "At Novo Nordisk, we take our responsibility to our shareholders seriously and remain committed to timely and accurate communication" said Tomas Haagen, general counsel, Novo Nordisk, adding: "While we are confident in the facts and merits of our position, we believe that resolving this matter is the right business decision for Novo Nordisk and our shareholders." The settlement is subject to a court approval process, which could take several months, the company noted. [GN] OREGON HEALTH: Gipson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums ---------------------------------------------------- Laura Gipson and Kirsten Frost, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oregon Health Investors Co. and DMD Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01815 (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2021), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. Defendants operate a skilled nursing, long-term care, and rehabilitation facility known as Orchard Villa, in Oregon, Ohio, where Gipson was hired to work as a Staff Development Coordinator while Frost was worked as a Unit Manager. Both claim to be denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 308-1522 Fax: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com OREGON: District Court Narrows Claims in Maney v. Brown Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT; GEORGE NULPH; THERON HALL; DAVID HART; MICAH RHODES; SHERYL LYNN SUBLET; and FELISHIA RAMIREZ, personal representative for the ESTATE OF JUAN TRISTAN, individually, on behalf of a class of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; KEN JESKE; PATRICK ALLEN; JOE BUGHER; GARRY RUSSELL; and STATE OF OREGON, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Opinion and Order: a. denying the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint ("FAC"); b. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC; c. granting in part the Defendants' request to take additional depositions and interview unrepresented adults in custody ("AIC"); d. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for an order of dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff Micah Rhodes; and e. granting the Plaintiffs' request to compel the Defendants to disclose a list of AICs who have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. Background Plaintiffs Paul Maney, Gary Clift, George Nulph, Theron Hall, David Hart, Micah Rhodes, and Sheryl Lynn Sublet, AIC at four Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") institutions, and Felishia Ramirez, the personal representative for the Estate of Juan Tristan, filed a FAC alleging constitutional and state law violations against Defendants Governor Kate Brown, Oregon Health Authority ("OHA") Director Patrick Allen, several ODOC officials, and the State of Oregon. The Plaintiffs filed this action in April 2020, alleging that the Defendants (1) violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to their health and safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking, and vaccines, and (2) were negligent in failing to carry out proper preventative measures. The Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1) the "Damages Class"; (2); the "Vaccine Class"; and (3) the "Wrongful Death Class." On Aug. 3, 2020, the Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the damages portion of the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim and on the entirety of the Plaintiffs' state negligence claim. On Dec. 15, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. On Jan. 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction requiring ODOC to offer all AICs housed in ODOC facilities a COVID-19 vaccine, and sought provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class, which includes: "All adults in custody housed at Oregon Department of Corrections facilities (ODOC) who have not been offered COVID-19 vaccinations." On Feb. 2, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class and motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to "offer all AICs housed in ODOC facilities, who have not been offered a COVID-19 vaccine, a COVID-19 vaccine as if they had been included in Phase 1A, Group 2, of Oregon's Vaccination Plan." On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC and a motion to certify the Damages Class and Wrongful Death Class. Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' FAC, the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff Micah Rhodes, the Defendants' request pursuant to the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution procedure to take additional depositions and interview AICs, and the Plaintiffs' request to compel the Defendants to produce the names of any AICs who have received positive COVID-19 antibody test results. Discussion A. Motion to Strike The Defendants move the Court for an order striking allegations from the Plaintiffs' FAC relating to the Defendants' alleged failure to release AICs from custody during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Court should strike paragraphs 46-49, 86-93, and 110(e) of the FAC as immaterial based on the Court's prior ruling that discretionary immunity precludes the Plaintiffs from pursuing a negligence claim based on the State's alleged "failure to release or relocate AICs to allow for adequate social distancing." The Plaintiffs do not dispute that in light of the Court's prior ruling, their allegations relating to the failure to release AICs are immaterial to their negligence and wrongful death claims. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the allegations are relevant to their Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims because the Defendants' knowledge of the inability to socially distance within ODOC facilities coupled with their decision not to release AICs from ODOC custody to ensure proper social distancing "tends to establish that the Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Judge Beckerman declines to strike these allegations from the FAC. She opines that Paragraphs 46-49 and 86-93 provide relevant background and context to the Plaintiffs' claims, are "arguably relevant" to the Plaintiffs' deliberate indifference claim, and are not unduly prejudicial to the Defendants. With respect to paragraph 110(e), the Defendants represent that the Plaintiffs offered to replead paragraph 110 to challenge only the Defendants' implementation and enforcement of social distancing policies throughout ODOC's facilities as a basis for their negligence claim. Judge Beckerman agrees with that approach and orders the Plaintiffs to amend paragraph 110 in their fifth amended complaint. Otherwise, the Judge denies the Defendants' motion to strike. B. Motion to Dismiss The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class claim for injunctive relief related to the prioritization and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine is now moot because the Defendants have offered the vaccine to all AICs, and that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against Governor Brown and Director Allen. 1. Mootness The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief related to the prioritization and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine is moot because Defendants have already made COVID-19 vaccines available to all AICs. Judge Beckerman agrees. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of a credible threat that AICs will again be subjected to an injury relating to the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine while in ODOC custody. The Plaintiffs have already prevailed on their claim for injunctive relief on behalf of the Vaccine Class. Now that the Defendants have complied with the Court's injunction, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that there remains a "real and immediate threat" that the Defendants will fail to offer the COVID-19 vaccine to members of the Vaccine Class, and therefore they lack standing and the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman dismisses the Plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim on behalf of the Vaccine Class. 2. Liability of State Officials The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for personal liability against Defendants Governor Brown and Director Allen. Judge Beckerman disagrees. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to suggest that a causal connection exists between Governor Brown and Director Allen's involvement in developing, overseeing, and authorizing ODOC's policies and the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, and that the Defendants knew or reasonably should have known the consequences of those policies. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against Governor Brown and Director Allen. C. Motion to Dismiss Micah Rhodes The Plaintiffs move to dismiss Plaintiff Rhodes as a plaintiff without prejudice because Rhodes has been released from ODOC custody, he did not test positive for COVID-19 while in ODOC custody, and he is therefore not currently a member of the proposed Damages Class. Judge Beckerman holds that a "dismissal for lack of Article III standing is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." In general, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice." Accordingly, the Judge dismisses Plaintiff Rhodes without prejudice. D. Discovery Disputes On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Defendants have not yet filed a response. The Plaintiffs stipulated to the Defendants' request to depose the named Plaintiffs, as well as the putative class members who provided declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, for a total of sixteen depositions. The Defendants now seek a discovery order allowing them to: (1) depose up to an additional seventy putative class members who provided declarations in connection with earlier motions; and (2) interview AICs who are not represented by counsel. 1. Additional Depositions The Defendants seek to depose up to seventy absent class members who provided declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' earlier motions in this case, nine of which Plaintiffs cross-referenced in their motion for class certification. Of the 70, the Defendants have identified three declarants whose declarations are arguably inconsistent with the evidence relied upon by the Plaintiffs in support of their motion for class certification. Judge Beckerman concludes that the Defendants have met their burden to depose the three absent class members whose declarations include factual assertions that are arguably inconsistent with the Plaintiffs' current position, but not the dozens of additional absent class members. The parties will meet and confer to determine a schedule for any remaining depositions to take place within the next 30 days. 2. AIC Interviews The Defendants also request leave to interview unrepresented AICs. The Plaintiffs object, arguing that all AICs are represented parties as members of the Vaccine Class, and therefore Rule 4.2 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct ("ABA Model Rules") bars any communication with AICs except through counsel. The Plaintiffs also argue that allowing counsel for Defendants to interview AICs creates potential for abuse and risk to absent class members because of the inherently coercive relationship between ODOC personnel and AICs. In weighing the rights of the parties, Judge Beckerman concludes that, at this juncture of the case, imposing a blanket limitation on communications between Judge Beckerman Defendants and AICs is inappropriate. However, to protect against the inherent coercion between prison officials and unrepresented AICs and to mitigate the risk that AICs will misapprehend the interview request or their right to decline, the defense counsel will confer with the Plaintiffs' counsel with respect to (i) the form and content of the communication that defense counsel intends to send to AICs; (ii) the format of the meetings and whether defense counsel intends to record the interviews; and (iii) how defense counsel will ensure that they are not contacting any putative members of the Damages Class or the Wrongful Death Class. The parties may contact the Court to resolve any disputes. 3. Antibody Test Results The Plaintiffs asked the Court pursuant to its informal discovery dispute resolution procedure to compel the Defendants to disclose a list of AICs who received a positive (i.e., reactive) result on a COVID-19 antibody test. The Defendants declined to produce the requested confidential medical information without a Court order. Judge Beckerman finds that the identities of AICs who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies are relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, the parties will confer and submit an agreed-upon proposed order for the Court's signature allowing disclosure of the requested information. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Beckerman denies the Defendants' motion to strike, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, grants in part the Defendants' request to take additional depositions and interview unrepresented AICs, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an order of dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff Rhodes, and grants the Plaintiffs' request to compel the Defendants to disclose a list of AICs who have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. The Plaintiffs will file a Fifth Amended Complaint consistent with the Opinion. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is due 30 days from the date of the last of the 19 depositions authorized. The parties will notify the Court of the relevant dates. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/439vx59w from Leagle.com. PALO ALTO, CA: City to Appeal Decision in Gas Rates Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Monday, September 20, the City Council voted to appeal the trial court's decision in Green v. City of Palo Alto (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 16CV300760), a class action lawsuit which challenges the City's gas and electric rates under Proposition 26, one of many such cases following a 2015 decision involving the City of Redding. In Green, the trial court judge found the City's electric rates valid, but that the City's gas rates were taxes requiring voter approval under California's Proposition 26, because they were set at a level sufficient to fund an annual transfer of approximately $7 million to the City's general fund. The Court was unpersuaded by the City's argument that its voters did approve the transfer when they amended the City Charter to authorize it. Plaintiffs also challenged the City's practice of charging its utilities rent for their use of City property, like space in parks for utility infrastructure, akin to fees investor-owned utilities pay to use public rights-of-way. Although Proposition 26 was approved in 2010, the California Supreme Court did not apply it in an electric utility case until 2018 and it has never before been applied to a municipal gas utility. Significant open questions about the measure remain to be answered by the courts. The results of this lawsuit will have important implications for Palo Alto, as well as for other municipal utilities and cities in California. The Council therefore authorized an appeal to seek guidance from the Court of Appeal on these novel legal questions. The City is also exploring a ballot measure to seek voter approval or modification of the City's general fund transfer so City voters can have the final word on how they want to finance City services, and at what level.[GN] PAYPAL HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL) Class Period: 2/9/2017 - 7/28/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-pypl-2/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] PEL-STATE BULK: Bid for Distribution of Notice Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALVIN COLLINS and ZACHARY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC and WILLIAM H. BROYLES, II, Case No. 7:20-cv-00083-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for distribution of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs: "All hourly Frac Drivers and Frac Fuel Technicians employed by Pel-State who work or worked out of Pel-State's West Texas Terminal since March 27, 2017." If the parties cannot agree on the content, form, and distribution of notice, the Defendants are ordered to file any remaining objections to Plaintiffs' proposed notice on or before October 14, 2021. It is further ordered that within 21 days of this Order, the parties shall file with the Court their proposed method of notice, says Judge Griffin. On March 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring a collective action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Pel-State Bulk's business "includes providing fueling services for oil and gas well drilling operators at frac sites in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana." Plaintiff Collins worked for the Defendants as a Frac Fuel Driver from September 2019 to March 2020. Plaintiff Hall worked for Defendants as a Frac Fuel Technician from October 2019 to March 2020. Frac Fuel Drivers, like Plaintiff Collins are responsible for "driving a Pel-State fuel truck known as a 'Bobtail' from one position to another around the well site in order to fuel up drilling equipment located on the well site." Pel-State is located in Bossier City, Louisiana and is part of the petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yq7kNy at no extra charge.[CC] PENN NATIONAL: Court OK's FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA R. LIPARI- WILLIAMS, MARISSA T. HAMMOND, and LUCINDA M. LAYTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06067-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional and Rule 23 Class Certification of Wage and Hour Claims. The Court conditionally certifies the following collectives pursuant to the FLSA: a. The FLSA Gaming License Collective "All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the applicable federal minimum wage or less per hour during the relevant time period at Argosy Casino Riverside or Hollywood Casino St. Louis, and for whom a deduction was taken from their wages for any amount associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued gaming license;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' FLSA Gaming License Collective is September 15, 2018 (three years preceding the effective date of the parties' stipulation) through the date of this Order; b. Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Collective "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Argosy Casino Riverside during the relevant time period and who participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Collective is September 15, 2018 (three years preceding the effective date of the Parties' stipulation) to April 23, 2021; c. Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Collective "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Hollywood Casino St. Louis during the relevant time period and who participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Collective is September 15, 2018 (three years preceding the effective date of the Parties' stipulation) to October 31, 2019; Additionally, the Court certifies the following classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): a. MMWL Gaming License Class "All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the applicable Missouri minimum wage or less per hour during the relevant time period at Argosy Casino Riverside or Hollywood Casino St. Louis, and for whom a deduction was taken from their wages for any amount associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued gaming license;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' MMWL Gaming License Class is March 31, 2017 (three years preceding the filing of the Class Action Petition) through the date of this Order. b. Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Class "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Argosy Casino Riverside during the relevant time period and who participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Class is March 31, 2017 (three years preceding the filing of the Class Action Petition) to April 23, 2021. c. Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Class "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Hollywood Casino St. Louis during the relevant time period and who participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;" The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Class is March 31, 2017 (three years preceding the filing of the Class Action Petition) to October 31, 2019. The Court also adopts the parties' Stipulation and directs the parties to abide by its terms. Penn National is an operator of casinos and racetracks based in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. It operates 44 facilities in the United States and Canada, many of them under the Hollywood Casino brand. The company also owns a 36% stake in Barstool Sports. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a7G4py at no extra charge.[CC] PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Niemczyk Suit Moved to N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Thomas Niemczyk, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Pro Custom Solar LLC doing business as: Momentum Solar, Case No. 2:19-cv-7846 ES/MSH was moved from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on Oct. 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-mc-00046-LEK-CFH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel. Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar -- https://www.momentumsolar.com/ -- is one of the leading residential solar contractors in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: (845) 356-2570 Fax: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com QAD INC: Continues to Defend Nantahala Capital Suit ---------------------------------------------------- QAD Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 27, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Nantahala Capital Partners II L.P. v. QAD Inc., et al. On June 28, 2021, QAD entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to be acquired by Thoma Bravo (TB), a leading private equity investment firm focused on the software and technology-enabled services sector, in an all-cash transaction with an equity value of approximately $2 billion. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth therein, QAD shareholders will receive $87.50 per share of Class A Common Stock or Class B Common Stock. Assuming completion of the transaction, QAD will become a private company. The Company is aware of four pending cases related to the Merger. On July 2, 2021, a purported stockholder class action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Nantahala Capital Partners II L.P. v. QAD Inc., et al. The plaintiff alleges breaches of contract and fiduciary duty against directors Anton Chilton, Scott Adelson, Kathleen Crusco, and Peter van Cuylenburg (the "Director Defendants"), and Pamela M. Lopker, as well as a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against Thoma Bravo and certain affiliates of Thoma Bravo relating to the QAD Board's vote to approve the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff names the Company as a defendant to the extent necessary for any of the relief requested, and seeks to, among other things, enjoin the Closing of the Merger or, in the alternative, damages, including rescissory damages. On August 5 and 6, 2021, purported shareholders of the Company filed two complaints in the District Court of the Southern District of New York, captioned Stein v. QAD Inc., et. al. and Whitfield v. QAD, Inc., et. al. On September 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a complaint in the District Court of the Eastern District of New York, captioned Parmar v. QAD Inc., et al. All three actions assert federal securities claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related provisions for alleged failures to disclose material information, and seek to enjoin or rescind the Merger with Thoma Bravo and a request for an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and damages. QAD believes that all four pending cases are without any merit. QAD believes that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the pending actions described above. QAD is voluntarily supplementing certain disclosures in the Proxy Statement potentially related to plaintiffs' claims with the Supplemental Disclosures set forth below. QAD said, "Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, QAD specifically denies all allegations in the various litigation matters that any additional disclosure was or is required or material." A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3uRc1Mf. Headquartered in Santa Barbara, Calif., QAD Inc. is a global provider of enterprise software applications, professional services and application support for manufacturing companies. QAD software is used at approximately 6,000 sites by manufacturing companies that operate mainly in six industries: automotive, consumer products, food and beverage, high technology, industrial products and life sciences. RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to Certify Class in "Coachella Project" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUN WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUIXUE SHI, aka SERENA SHI, an individual, COACHELLA VALLEY HOTEL, LLC a California limited liability company, HYDE MORGAN DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 1. certifying the claims for relief to proceed to trial as a class action; and 2. appointing him to serve as a Class Representative of the following class: "All persons who invested in the "Palm Springs Luxury Hotel Investment Project" (the "Coachella Project") by way of a Resort Condominium Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Purchase Agreement");" Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members, directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its staff; and any investor in the Coachella; 3. appointing Jeffrey L. Fazio of DeHeng Law Office, P.C. to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) and to direct notice to members of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(c). The Plaintiff brought this action in December 2020 and served Defendants with the summons and complaint. When none filed a responsive pleading, defaults were entered against each Defendant. In 2015, the Defendants Ruixue Shi, Coachella Valley Hotel, LLC, and Hyde Morgan Development, LLC began perpetrating a 4 to defraud unsuspecting investors, most of whom, like Plaintiff Jun Wu, were residents of China. Defendant Shi, who created and managed the entity Defendants, represented to prospective investors that they could purchase luxury condominium units at a 47-acre development in the Coachella Valley, and that if they provided a 40% down payment, Defendants would help them finance the balance of the purchase price. Impressed by Defendants' promotion of the project, Plaintiff Wu entered into a standard purchase agreement by which he invested in a $400,000 condominium unit in exchange for wiring Defendants a $180,000 down payment. Shortly after entering the contract, however, Plaintiff learned that the project was not "delayed," as Defendants had claimed, it was never going to be built: Defendants had not purchased only one of the three parcels comprising the 47-acre project, and the parcel that was purchased sat between the other two parcels and had no access to a major thoroughfare so the City of Coachella would not issue building permits in any event. The FBI arrested Defendant Shi on federal wire fraud charges in June 2017 and reported that she had collected at least $21.6 million from unsuspecting investors in the project. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YhlS2d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Yi Yao, Esq. DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (925) 399-5856 Facsimile: (925) 397-1976 E-mail: jfazio@dehengsv.com, Esq. yyao@dehengsv.com RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: Gambrell Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gambrell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Rumpke Transportation Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order: 1. granting certification and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(B); 2. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under section 216(b) against Defendant Rumpke Transportation, on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated; 3. approving that the Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims be sent by regular mail and email to: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt welders of Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in any workweek during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" or "Putative Class Members");" 4. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms with the stated modification; 5. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of entry of this Order, a roster of all persons who fit the definition above (the "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") which includes their full names, dates of employment, job titles, locations worked, last known home addresses, and personal email addresses; and 6. approving that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to Join forms are to be sent to such present and former employees within 14 days of receipt of the roster using the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses. Rumpke Transportation operates as an environmentally friendly waste disposal solutions and recycling options. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BfnkQR at no extra charge.[CC] SAGINAW CITY, MI: Taylor Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON PATRICIA TAYLOR, et al, v. CITY OF SAGINAW, et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-11067-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting renewed motion for class and subclass certification pursuant to FRCP 23; and 2. appointing attorneys Philip L. Ellison and Matthew E. Gronda as class counsel pursuant to FRCP 23(g). This is a class action lawsuit challenging the legality of vehicle 'tire-chalking' by the City of Saginaw and one of its parking enforcement officials. As the Sixth Circuit previously explained -- Between 2014 and 2017, Tabitha Hoskins chalked Taylor's tires on fifteen separate occasions and issued her citations in kind. Each citation included the date and time the chalk was placed on her vehicle's tires. The cost of a citation starts at $15 and increases from there. On April 5, 2017, Taylor filed this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City, alleging defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches by placing chalk marks on her tires without her consent or a valid search warrant. Taylor also sued Hoskins in her individual capacity. The Plaintiff Alison Patricia Taylor owns or has owned two vehicles that have, since 2014, received more than a dozen parking tickets issued by the City of Saginaw. These parking tickets were issued by Defendant Tabitha Hoskins in her role as a parking enforcement officer for Defendant City of Saginaw. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lbjiTU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC PO Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. PO Box 70 St. Charles, MI 48655 Telephone: (989) 249-0350 E-mail: matthewgronda@gmail.com The Attorneys for the Defendants, are: Gregory W. Mair, Esq. Kailen C. Piper, Esq. O'NEILL, WALLACE & DOYLE, PC 300 St. Andrews Rd, Suite 302 Saginaw, MI 48638 Telephone: (989) 790-0960 E-mail: gregmair@owdpc.com kpiper@owdpc.com SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Lacaprucia Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE LACAPRUCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00849-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and directing notice to the class. The Court has already preliminarily approved the settlement, but this renewed motion for preliminary approval is being filed to facilitate compliance with CAFA's notice provisions. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this case. The settlement is fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the class members and should be readily approved. The settlement creates a common fund of $75,000 to cover all payments to Class Members, as well as a service award to the Class Representative and all attorney's fees and costs. Every single class member who does not opt out of the settlement will receive a payment, and no settlement monies will revert to the Defendants. The settlement represents a reasonable balance of the risks and delays faced by class members should this case proceed in litigation, and is in the best interests of class members. This case centers on alleged non-payment of 401(k) contributions to a group of food service workers at Whiteman Air Force Base. This present action commenced in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and follows a related action also assigned to this Court against Crystal Enterprises, Inc. The Defendants removed this action to this Court, and the parties engaged in preliminary motion practice, including a motion to dismiss. The parties also engaged in documentary discovery. As part of the Court's mediation program, the parties proceeded to mediation with Joseph Knittig, Esq. Following a lengthy mediation, further discussions, and exchange of drafts, the parties reached a final settlement. The settlement agreement is attached and filed with the Court. The settlement creates a common fund of $75,000. Of this, $50,000 will be set aside to pay class members. Payments will be in equal shares to all participating Class Members. The named Plaintiff, Sue "Shelly" LaCaprucia, would receive a service award of $2,500. Finally, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs would be paid in the amount of $22,500. Participating Class Members would release all claims, and all pending litigation would be dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bdswon at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonal Bhatia, Esq. E.E. Keenan, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 809-2100 E-mail: sonal@keenanfirm.com ee@keenanfirm.com SELDAT DISTRIBUTION: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Taylor Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Taylor, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. SELDAT DISTRIBUTION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV36265 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angles Cty., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought under the California Labor Code with regards to the Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. During the entirety of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he was not paid a lawful minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for pre- and post-trip inspections or during detentions, breakdowns and loading times. He was regularly required to perform job duties, including the moving of company vehicles, after his scheduled hours and without compensation. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a single day and/or over 40 hours in a single week. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for these additional overtime hours or would pay him at a rate less than one-and-one-half times or two times his regular rate of pay for more than eight but less than twelve hours worked or more than twelve hours of work, respectively, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an over the road truck driver in Los Angeles County in July 2018. SELDAT DISTRIBUTION, INC., was and is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Fontana, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 622-4278 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com mdietz@blackstonepc.com SEMPRA ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Property & Business Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 26, 2021, that settlement agreements have been entered in the class action suits (Property & Business Class Suit) related to the natural gas leak from one of the injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County . From October 23, 2015 through February 11, 2016, Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas"), a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, experienced a natural gas leak from one of the injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County. As previously reported, 396 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000 individual and business plaintiffs (the "Individual Plaintiff Litigation"), a putative class action on behalf of certain property owners and lessors (the "Property Class Action"), a putative class action on behalf of persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the Leak (the "Business Class Action"), and certain other proceedings, as outlined below, are pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak. All these cases are coordinated before a single court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial management. On September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement with counsel representing over 80% of the plaintiffs in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation to resolve the claims of all approximately 36,000 individual plaintiffs for a payment of up to $1.8 billion. The agreement is subject to acceptance by no fewer than roughly 97% of all plaintiffs in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation by June 1, 2022, although SoCalGas and Sempra have the right to waive such condition. The agreement, which requires each plaintiff who accepts a settlement to release all such plaintiff's claims against SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates related to the Individual Plaintiff Litigation and the Leak, provides that the settlement amount will be reduced based on the number of plaintiffs who do not accept. The agreement is further subject to Court approval of the process to allocate payments among the plaintiffs and a stay of the Individual Plaintiff Litigation. The plaintiffs who do not agree to participate in the settlement will be able to continue to pursue their claims. Separately, also on September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into a settlement agreement to settle the Property Class Action for a total amount of $40 million. If, following a fairness hearing at which any objections to the settlement will be heard, the Court gives final approval of the settlement, the agreement provides for a release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates from all claims related to the Leak by all property class members who do not opt out of the class. Members of the property class who opt out of the settlement will have the right to pursue their claims on an individual basis. Finally, on September 27, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into a settlement agreement to settle the individual claims of the named plaintiffs in the Business Class Action, which class was never certified, for a total amount of $100,000 in exchange for a dismissal and release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates from all claims related to the Leak. In 2020, SoCalGas and Sempra recorded $307 million ($233 million after tax) in Aliso Canyon Litigation and Regulatory Matters on the SoCalGas and Sempra Consolidated Statements of Operations for costs, inclusive of estimated legal costs, related to settlement discussions in connection with civil litigation and regulatory matters arising out of the Leak. As of June 30, 2021, $414 million was recorded in Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on the SoCalGas and Sempra Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other than insurance for certain future defense costs that may be incurred and directors' and officers' liability, SoCalGas and Sempra have exhausted all of their respective insurance in connection with the Leak. As a result of entering into the agreements described above, SoCalGas and Sempra expect to record a charge of approximately $1.13 billion, after tax, in September 2021 (approximately $1.57 billion pre-tax) on the SoCalGas and Sempra Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the agreements, SoCalGas expects that its net, after-tax cash outflows related to these agreements will ultimately be up to approximately $895 million consisting of payments of up to $1.85 billion (inclusive of $10 million in administrative costs), offset by collections of insurance receivable in future periods and other adjustments. Sempra has elected to make equity contributions to SoCalGas beginning in September 2021 that are sufficient to maintain SoCalGas' approved capital structure in connection with the accruals related to these agreements, and Sempra does not expect to issue common equity in relation to these settlement agreements. The agreements do not cover (i) an Order Instituting Investigation (the "OII") opened by the California Public Utilities Commission (the "CPUC") to consider whether SoCalGas should be sanctioned for the Leak and what damages, fines or other penalties or sanctions, if any, should be imposed for any violations, unreasonable or imprudent practices, or failure to sufficiently cooperate with the Safety Enforcement Division of the CPUC as determined by the CPUC, or (ii) an OII opened by the CPUC to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region, but excluding issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak (collectively, the "Regulatory Actions"). Sempra said, "While the agreements cover substantially all of the material civil litigation against both SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak, they do not cover (i) lawsuits by five property developers, and (ii) claims for violations of Proposition 65. In addition, the agreements do not cover the four shareholder derivative actions alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and certain directors of Sempra and/or SoCalGas. An adverse ruling in any of the (i) Regulatory Actions or Unresolved Litigation, or (ii) lawsuits in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation filed by plaintiffs who do not agree to settle or lawsuits filed by property class members who opt out of the Property Class Action settlement, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra's cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, there can be no assurance that the conditions to resolve the Individual Plaintiff Litigation will be satisfied or that the Court will approve the settlement for the Property Class Action. Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in, develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides electric and gas services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Myers Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN J. MYERS, on behalf of the Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan and a class of similarly situated of the Plan, v. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY, INC. (SSE) RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN; et al, Case No. e 5:17-cv-00200-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti entered an order regarding plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied. -- The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Samuel Halpern and Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Steve Pomerantz are denied without prejudice to a future submission. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that all requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and that she should be authorized to proceed with a class action on behalf of other participants in SSE's defined contribution Plan. Further, the Court finds that Defendants' Motions to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff's expert under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702 are moot. The Plaintiff is a former employee of SSE who became a participant in the Plan when it was established on July 1, 2014, to provide an employer-sponsored retirement plan for SSE employees who had been participants in a similar plan of Chesapeake Energy Corporation before SSE's spinoff from Chesapeake. Both were "defined contribution" or "individual account" plans as defined by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1002(34), which allow participants to choose how their contributions will be invested. The Plan was initially funded by a transfer of assets from Chesapeake's plan that were held for the SSE participants' accounts, including a substantial number of shares of Chesapeake common stock that had been part of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) while the employees worked for an affiliate of Chesapeake. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FoKYgm at no extra charge.[CC] SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPPI) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 1, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in SPPI: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19862&from=5 Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NEWS - SPPI NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the manufacturing facility for ROLONTIS, an investigational granulocyte-colony stimulating factor analog, maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration would approve the ROLONTIS biologics license application ("BLA") in its current form; (iii) Spectrum had therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Spectrum you have until November 1, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Spectrum securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the SPPI lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. About Klein Law J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extension Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GARDNER, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. STARKIST CO., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-02561-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending discovery and class certification deadlines as follows: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Deadline for completion of Oct. 1, 2021 Not applicable non-expert factual discovery (including depositions) and third-party discovery: -- Limited non-expert factual Not applicable Nov. 19, 2021 depositions as set forth in the stipulation above: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec. 1, 2021 Feb. 1, 2022 Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures/Reports for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Depositions of Jan. 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts: -- COSI's Opposition to Feb. 22, 2022 April 22, 2022 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and COSI's Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures /Reports for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Depositions April 12, 2022 June 13, 2022 of COSI's Class Certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' Class May 6, 2022 July 6, 2022 Certification Reply Brief and Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures/Reports for Class Certification: -- Hearing on Plaintiffs' June 15, 2022 Aug. 24, 2022 Motion for Class Certification: A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YjY3GG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 - and - Brian M. Brown, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street, 52nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 E-mail: bbrown@zarembabrown.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com The Attorneys for Defendant StarKist Co., are: Roxane A. Polidora, Esq. Lee Brand, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5998 Telephone: (415) 983-1976 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 E-mail: roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com lee.brand@pillsburylaw.com STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): "All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Virginia with a Businessowners insurance policy issued by State Farm on Form CMP-4100, including a Loss of Income and Extra Expense endorsement on Form CMP 4705.1 or CMP 4705.2, in effect at any time between March 23, 2020 and June 30, 2020 (the "Closure Period"), that were subject to partial or full business suspension under the Orders and submitted claims for business income losses and/or extra expenses incurred during the Closure Period that were denied by Defendants (the "Class");" 2. appointing Elegant Massage, LLC d/b/a Light Stream Spa as representative of the Class; 3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and Glasser and Glasser, P.L.C. as Class counsel; and 4. directing the Defendants to provide the names, last known addresses, home and mobile phone numbers, and email addresses of all Class members to Plaintiff's counsel within five days of the date of this Order so that Class members may be provided with notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B). State Farm Insurance is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fl5spW at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class, are: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. 580 East Main Street, Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 Facsimile: (757) 625-5959 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. Eric K. Gerard, Esq. Jamie M. McCall, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Jordan Jacobson, Esq. Lauren McGinley, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com egerard@ktmc.com jmccall@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com lmcginley@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com STATE FARM: Munoz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Maria Munoz, Sandra Smiling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-05211 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of Insurance Contract. State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2021, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit filed in the Northern District of California, is still pending. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by us and our officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding our active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss on September 30, 2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on January 22, 2021. The court has taken the motion under submission. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. STRADA SERVICES: Reyes Bid for FLSA Collective Action Status Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD REYES v. STRADA SERVICES INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00976-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion seeking conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The Court said, "Because Reyes has not met his burden of demonstrating that the other members of the putative collective action are similarly situated, his Motion must be denied. Accordingly, all existing opt-in Plaintiffs are hereby dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice and this matter will proceed only on Reyes's individual claims. According to the complaint, Reyes worked for Strada from January 2019 1 until April 2021 as an electrician and/or an Electrical Installer. Strada also employs "helpers," who Reyes describes as "the laborers who ride along with the Installer/electrician to all work sites and on work orders." According to Reyes, he was "forced" to give a portion of his pay to the helper assigned to him, and although Strada left to his discretion how much to pay the helper, Strada directed that helpers should be paid 30% of the rate paid to the installers. In the complaint, Reyes classifies both installers and helpers as "piece rate workers and laborers," and alleges that Strada shaves or edits overtime hours from these workers' time records, permits employees to work hours off the clock, and prevents full and accurate reporting of workers' hours. Strada Services is located in Sanford, Florida and is part of the building equipment contractors industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dhhxed at no extra charge.[CC] TAMS MANAGEMENT: Bluestone Employees Get Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULES GAUTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC. and PAY CAR MINING, INC. and BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC. and BLUESTONE RESOURCES, INC. and BLUESTONE COAL CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order: 1. granting Gautier's motion to certify class defined as: "All employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc. who were terminated from employment, or subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex during the period beginning on October 14, 2019 and ending on January 11, 2020." 2. certifying the class as moulded; and 3. directing the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. The Court said, "Gautier seeks certification under Rule 23(b) 3), which also requires that common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Under this Rule, the Court must also find that a class action is superior to the other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Respecting predomination, any individual questions are minor and substantially outweighed by the common questions regarding whether a WARN Act violation occurred. Furthermore, a WARN Act claim requires that more than fifty individuals suffer an employment loss. Joinder of that many claims would be impracticable and unwieldy. As such, the Court finds that Gautier's proposed class meets all the requirements for certification." Gautier instituted this action on March 4, 2020. He alleges that Defendants Tams Management, Inc. and Pay Car Mining, Inc. "on their own and in concert with their affiliates Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc., and Bluestone Coal Corp." violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act. Specifically, he alleges that on or about October 24, 2019, Defendants "failed to provide their full-time employees with 60-days notice" prior to laying off more than fifty workers at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ys2Aan at no extra charge.[CC] TENDER CORPORATION: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tender Corporation. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tender Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tender Corp. Tender Corporation doing business as Adventure Ready Brands -- https://www.adventurereadybrands.com/ -- was founded in 1975. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing and production of agricultural chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal THAILAND: Restaurateurs File Class Action v. PM Over Lockdown ------------------------------------------------------------- Thai PBS World reports that Thailand's Civil Court accepted a class action lawsuit on Sept. 27, filed by a group of 39 restaurateurs in Bangkok and upcountry provinces, demanding 50 million baht in compensation from Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and the others for damage to their businesses caused by lockdown restrictions imposed under the Government's Emergency Decree. The group is led by Mr. Duangrit Bunnag, the proprietor of The Never Ending Summer company, and Mrs. Sor Rattanamani Polkla. Mrs. Sor told the media this morning, at the Civil Court, that the group are seeking redress from the prime minister, finance, interior and public health ministries and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, for their collective mismanagement of the efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and in the issuance of restrictions, rendering damage to their businesses. Mr. Duangrith, meanwhile, said that none of the eateries have received any financial help from the government for their losses resulting from the lockdown measures. Eateries located outside malls have been especially hard hit and many of them have been forced to shut down because they were unprepared to adapt to delivery services. The court has set the first hearing in the case for November 9th. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius AC Smell Causes Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- A Toyota Prius AC smell caused a car owner to file a class action lawsuit which includes these Toyota Prius vehicles in the U.S. 2006-2020 Toyota Prius 2017-2020 Toyota Prius Prime 2010-2015 Toyota PHV 2012-2016 Toyota Prius c 2012-2017 Toyota Prius v According to the Prius lawsuit, the vehicles were defective from the time they left the assembly lines because the air conditioning and heating systems build up moisture and growth of mold. This allegedly creates toxic odors that enter the Prius cabins, especially when the AC systems are in use. Mold and other contaminants allegedly cause smells of sweaty socks and urine, causing Prius occupants to inhale noxious fumes that cause health problems. The Toyota Prius AC smells have allegedly caused owners to spend money in an effort to erase the odors, but nothing allegedly works other than to mask the smells which are always there. Toyota Prius AC Smell Bulletins The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota has issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) about the AC odors but has refused to recall the Prius cars to properly prevent the smells. TSB AC002-97 was issued in 1997 and titled, "Air Conditioning Evaporator Odor," which talked about "[b]lockage of the evaporator housing drainpipe, resulting in the buildup of condensate" or "[m]icrobial growth in the evaporator, arising from dampness in the evaporator housing where the cooling air flow is dehumidified." The bulletin described a "musty odor . . . emitted from the air conditioning system of some vehicles which are usually operated in areas with high temperature and humidity." More Toyota AC smell bulletins were issued, including T-SB-0261-09, T-SB-0142-13 and T-SB-0022-20. Toyota told dealers the Prius AC smells were "naturally occurring" and dealers should use the A/C Evaporator Cleaning Procedure With Toyota Genuine A/C Refresher Kit. In addition to the TSBs, the AC smells were addressed in Toyota Tech Tip T-TT-0577-19. "On 2016-2020 model year Prius and 2017-2020 model year Prius Prime vehicles follow the recommendations when performing the HVAC odor maintenance service using A/C Power Foam Evaporator Cleaner & Refresher." -- T-TT-0577-19 / October 15, 2019 Even though dealers received bulletins, Toyota allegedly concealed the AC smell defects to increase profits by selling the Prius cars. The plaintiff also alleges Toyota's repairs and other odor mitigation efforts have failed to provide permanent repairs to the air conditioner systems. The Toyota Prius AC smell lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: James Bettles, v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. The plaintiff is represented by Edelsberg Law, P.A., Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, and Gordon & Partners, P.A. [GN] TRANSPORT CANADA: Travel Restrictions Leave Residents Stranded -------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian residents who were stranded in Morocco due to last-minute travel restrictions are reportedly organizing a class action against Transport Canada. On Aug. 30, all direct passenger flights from Morocco to Canada were suspended until Sept. 29, Travel Week reported. At the time, Transport Canada cited an increase in COVID-19 positive test results in travellers arriving in Canada from Morocco over the previous month as the reason behind the ban. Flights from Morocco already in transit at the time the announcement was made were allowed to proceed to Canada, with travellers on those flights taking a COVID-19 test upon arrival. However, hundreds of other permanent residents were left stranded in Morocco. Short Notice on Travel Restrictions Leave Mother, Children in Morocco The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a lawyer from Montreal, Awani Review reports. She said she was in Morocco in late August with her three children, when she learned that returning to Canada would be banned the next day, and for a month. The class action lawsuit does not take issue with the border closure, but with the short amount of notice given to Canadians in Morocco at the time. The class action is seeking damages including refunds of air tickets. This is not the first class action lawsuit filed in Canada over COVID-19 travel bans. In July, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador declined to certify a proposed class action lawsuit brought by seasonal residents who claimed the provinces' COVID-19 travel ban violated their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last year, five Canadian airlines were hit with a class action lawsuit seeking refunds on behalf of passengers who can no longer use the airline tickets they purchased due to COVID-19 travel advisories imposed by the Canadian government. [GN] TULARE, CA: Settlement in Criswell Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES CRISWELL, et al., v. MICHAEL BOUDREAUX, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Tulare County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement and for conditional certification of the settlement class is granted; 2. Plaintiff's counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California are appointed as class counsel; 3. Plaintiffs Samuel Camposeco and Adam Ibarra are appointed as class representatives; 4. The proposed notice and proposed plan of distributing notice are approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 5. If final approval of the settlement agreement is not granted, or the effective date does not occur, then (1) all parties will proceed as if the settlement agreement had not been executed and the related orders and judgment had not been entered and (2) all releases given will be null and void. In such an event, this court's orders regarding the settlement agreement, including this preliminary approval order, shall not be used or referred to in litigation for any purpose; 6. The proposed settlement is approved on a preliminary basis in the manner detailed above; 7. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for November 29, 20 2021 at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 230(b); 8. The settlement implementation schedule set forth above is adopted. Tulare County is a county in the U.S. state of California. As of the 2010 census, the population was 442,179. Its county seat is Visalia. The county is named for Tulare Lake, once the largest freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3agYST3 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Set to Rule in Class Action Against FBI ------------------------------------------------------------ Marco Poggio, writing for Law360, reports that lawyers are eagerly anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming term and arguments on several legal issues touching on the core of the Constitution. Among the high-stakes matters on the court's docket this term are the right to access abortion and the right to carry guns in self-defense, both of which are flashpoints in the country's deep political divide. Other cases before the court involve the right to a fair trial, surveillance and equal protection under the law. With the term beginning on Oct. 4, a slew of amicus briefs have been filed in recent weeks by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a host of legal scholars and interest groups. Here, Law360 has compiled a list of top cases that will examine issues related to civil rights and access to justice. Noted are case details, including the number of amicus briefs filed for each case as of Sept. 23. Right to Carry Firearms This case out of New York seeks to clarify whether the government can prohibit ordinary people without criminal records from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. In taking up Bruen, the Supreme Court will hear its first gun rights case since its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that law-abiding individuals have a right to possess firearms for self-defense in their homes. Lower courts have since used that decision, penned by Justice Antonin Scalia, as a measuring stick to determine whether state and local gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. The results have varied widely. Courts across the country split on similar gun regulations and applied different levels of legal scrutiny to them, said Ilya Shapiro, a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. "There has been a lot of judicial civil disobedience against the Supreme Court," Shapiro told Law360. "This is a belated opportunity for the Supreme Court to explain how the lower courts are supposed to evaluate these claims." The Bruen case originated from a legal challenge brought by two residents of New York, who applied for a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, but were denied. New York State law has a nearly total ban on gun possession. People seeking a gun license must establish "proper cause," a term that the law itself doesn't define, but that has largely been interpreted as meaning that applicants must face a severe threat to their lives. The two applicants sued in the district court, joined by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the largest state affiliate of the National Rifle Association in the country. The case reached the Second Circuit, which affirmed the state law didn't violate the Constitution. A Supreme Court decision in favor of the applicants could mean that states banning the right to carry firearms will have to change their laws, Shapiro said. The case has been a formidable magnet for attention. Several interest groups piled up on both sides of the question. Twenty-two amicus briefs were filed on Sept. 21 alone, for a total of 78 since the petition was filed. The briefs include some from nationally known gun-control advocates and civil rights organizations as well as a long list of states and municipalities. The Biden administration and the American Bar Association have both filed a brief in support of the regulation. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, filed an amicus in support of the applicants and their "natural right to armed self-defense," Shapiro said. Twenty-three states filed a joint amicus in support of the petitioners, arguing state laws banning gun possession like New York's are unconstitutional and don't result in more safety. The states asked the Supreme Court to restore "the original public meaning" of the Second Amendment, which they say lower courts departed from after Heller. "These courts employ interest balancing to favor a sense of security over liberty. This is backwards: liberty ensures security," the states' brief says. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund was among the organizations to file a brief in support of state regulators. "State's ability to regulate public carry, and concealed carry specifically, is important for contributing to public spaces that are safe," Mahogane Reed, an attorney with LDF, told Law360. "This is especially important, we think, for Black communities and especially young Black men who are disproportionately likely to be killed or injured because of handgun violence." Favorable Termination Thompson v. Clark Argument Date: October 12, 2021 Docket number: 20-843 Total amicus filed: 17 Notable amicus: NAACP Legal Defense Fund, NACDL, ACLU, Biden administration People who were arrested or charged unjustly, and later decide to sue law enforcement in federal court for civil rights violation, must first establish that their underlying cases were terminated in favorable ways to them. The Supreme Court will clarify what constitutes a "favorable" termination in this context. The Second Circuit set a rather high standard: In 2018, deciding the case Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, the court endorsed the view that a plaintiff must show that his proceeding "ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence." But the Eleventh Circuit ruled last year in the case Laskar v. Hurd that a plaintiff must only show that the criminal proceeding against him has "formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence." Six other courts of appeals have adopted the more stringent requirement, which the Second Circuit upheld in the Thompson v. Clark case that is now before the high court. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is wary that if the Supreme Court embraces that doctrine, victims of wrongful arrests and prosecution, which are more often Black, will be severely limited in their ability to sue their arresting officers. "The case has serious implications for communities of color, especially Black people, who are disproportionately stopped, searched, arrested, charged, and had charges dismissed by prosecutors without any indication as to whether they were or were not guilty, or innocent of the underlying charges," Reed said. "These plaintiffs would be unable to pursue claims of unreasonable seizure or procedure under the Fourth Amendment." Critics of the Second Circuit approach say prosecutors, who have wide discretion in determining how cases are terminated, practically have the power of dooming a former defendant's ability to sue law enforcement for civil rights violations. LDF filed an amicus brief in June urging the court to adopt the Eleventh Circuit standard. The American Civil Liberties Union filed one the same day advocating for the same position. The Biden administration argued in its own brief that a termination may be favorable to the plaintiff, for purposes of a Section 1983 claim, even if it lacks affirmative indications of innocence. In support of the affirmation of innocence doctrine, the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York said prosecutors routinely dismiss cases for practical reasons, often balancing the seriousness of a crime with the limited resources of their offices, other times because of technicalities. Those dismissals shouldn't give former defendants the opportunity to turn around and sue. "Under the Eleventh Circuit's rule, any discretionary dismissal by the prosecutor would swing open the door to a great deal of meritless litigation," the association's brief says. Right to a Fair Trial United States v. Tsarnaev Argument Date: October 13, 2021 Docket number: 20-443 Total amicus filed: 10 Notable amicus: NACDL, Center for Constitutional Rights, NAACP LDF, ACLU, American Bar Association, National Fraternal Order of Police The Supreme Court will review a First Circuit decision that overturned the death sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Three people were killed in the attack and about 280 were injured. Tsarnaev and his brother also killed a campus police officer in the attack's aftermath. The case deals with the obligations of judges to ensure the right to a fair trial, a principle enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, amid national media coverage, Tsarnaev was convicted in April 2015 and sentenced to death weeks later. But in July last year, the First Circuit overturned the death sentence and three of his convictions on the ground that the district court failed to ask prospective jurors about how much and what kind of media coverage about the case they had been exposed to during jury selection, which lasted 21 days. The American Bar Association submitted an amicus brief in support of neither party in June, emphasizing the importance of questioning potential jurors about their exposure news coverage in rooting out potential biases, particularly in the current media landscape, where social media spread information fast and widely. "This Court should affirm that, when it is likely that prospective jurors have been exposed to prejudicial publicity, they should be individually questioned to determine what they have read and heard about the case and how any exposure has affected their attitudes toward the trial," the brief says. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Rutherford Institute filed a joint amicus in support of Tsarnaev in August, focusing instead on "powerful mitigating evidence" that was excluded during the penalty phase of his proceedings. That evidence involved knowledge by Tsarnaev that his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had committed three murders in the name of jihad two years before the Boston attack. "That evidence tended to show Tamerlan instigated the later Marathon bombings and Dzhokhar, who had no history of violence, acted under his influence," the brief says. "That is powerful mitigation evidence." Representatives from the ACLU and the NACDL declined to comment on the case, citing their involvement. Religious Liberty and Surveillance Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga Argument Date: November 8, 2021 Docket number: 20-828 Total amicus filed: 1 Notable amicus filed: Laura K. Donohue of the Georgetown University Law Center This case involves the surveillance of a Muslim congregation in Orange County, California. Between 2006 and 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent a paid informant in the county's largest mosque to pose as a convert to Islam. The informant obtained personal information from hundreds of people, inquiring on their religious and political beliefs. In June 2011, the ACLU of Southern California filed a federal class action against the FBI and the agents involved in the operation, claiming it targeted people for their Muslim faith in violation of the First Amendment. The suit also alleged the collection of information violated the congregants' Fourth Amendment rights as well as the Privacy Act. In August 2011, the government moved to dismiss the case asserting the "state secrets" privilege, a doctrine that allows the government to exclude from discovery evidence on the basis of national security. About a year later, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California tossed the claims against the FBI, but allowed those against the individual agents to proceed. The case meandered until February 2019, when the Ninth Circuit ruled that some of the claims the district court dismissed on state secret grounds should not have been dismissed outright. The decision in part affirmed and in part reversed the lower court's ruling, remanding the case. In December 2020, the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, also known as FISA, displaces the state-secrets privilege and allows the suit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance based on the privileged evidence to play out in the district court. FISA does not sidestep the privilege, which enables the executive to fulfill its constitutional duty to protect national security information, the government argued. "The Ninth Circuit's decision to the contrary poses a substantial risk that state secrets will be disclosed on remand in this case." Laura K. Donohue, a research professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, filed an amicus in support of neither party in August, providing the court with historical background on the state secret privilege. Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional legal scholar and dean of University of California, Berkeley School of Law, told Law360 in an email that he finds "very persuasive" the Ninth Circuit's argument that FISA authorizes a course of action. "The state secrets doctrine is a judicially created, common law doctrine. Where there is a statute, and here there is, that should be followed," Chemerinsky said. But, he added, "There has not been anything like this before the Supreme Court so it is very hard to predict what it will do." Before arguments in the Fazaga case get cast on Nov. 8, the state-secrets privilege will be the focus of another case before the high court this term, United States v. Zubaydah, which will be argued on Oct. 6. There, the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether the Ninth Circuit was wrong in rejecting the government's assertion of the privilege and allowing discovery to move forward in a case brought by a Guantanamo Bay detainee against a contractor for the Central Intelligence Agency involved in a highly controversial post-Sept. 11 detention and interrogation program.[GN] UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVAR SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06527-MCS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order setting class certification dates as folows: Event Date -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off August 8, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial) August 15, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) August 29, 2022 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off September 12, 2022 -- Deadline to File a Motion for January 31, 2022 Class Certification -- Deadline to File an Opposition February 22, 2022 to the Motion for Class Certification -- Deadline to File a Reply March 14, 2022 -- Hearing Date on Motion for Class April 4, 2022 Certification Univar is a global chemical and ingredients distributor and provider of value-added services. The company was founded in 1924 as Van Waters & Rogers. It was also formerly known as Royal Vopak and later Univar. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Afx3Fw at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Dragon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW DRAGON v. UNIVERSAL WINDOWS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- The October 4, 2021 preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. -- Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by October 29, 2021. -- Jurisdiction and Venue There are no contested issues related to venue or jurisdiction. -- Amendments to Pleadings and/or Joinder of Parties Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no laterthan December 31, 2021. The parties anticipate filing a stipulation to conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and an agreed notice for Court approval by October 4, 2021. Any motion by Plaintiff for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must be filed by June 3, 2022. -- Motions There are no pending motions. -- Allegations in the Pleadings and Jury Demand This is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, R.C. Chapter 4111, as a Collective and Class Action. Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated Technicians were misclassified as salary exempt employees and were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, an award of pre- and postjudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs against Defendant. Defendant denies all claims and has asserted affirmative defenses. There is a jury demand. -- Expert Disclosures Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by March 31, 2022. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by May 13, 2022. -- Discovery Deadline and Limitations The parties may, without further leave of Court, agree to exceed the limitations on discovery established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court. All discovery shall be completed by May 18, 2022. For purposes of complying with this Order, the parties must schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all responses to be served prior to the deadline and must also file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period. -- Dispositive Motions Case dispositive motions must be filed by June 3, 2022. -- Settlement Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by January 28, 2022. Defendant shall respond by February 18, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ac2Sij at no extra charge.[CC] VALVE CORPORATION: Galway, Shoss Seek Certification of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grace Galway and Brenda Shoss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01941-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification of: "All persons in the United States who are parents/guardians of a minor child who provided funds to their minor child(ren) for the purchase of keys for the games Counter-Strike:Global Offensive, Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2." Whether Valve offered online gaming to consumers but concealed and omitted that it offered online gambling to minors is the certifiable issue which will drive resolution of this case. Valve has sought to capitalize on the online gaming market among minors with its "loot boxes". Valve's loot boxes contain "skins," cosmetic virtual items of undisclosed and varying real-world cash value. To obtain a skin, players may access the loot box for a price, typically by purchasing a "key" that opens the loot box. The skin the player obtains is determined entirely by chance. Despite the presence of a prize (the skin), chance (opening the loot box, which looks and sounds the same as a slot machine), and consideration (the price of the loot box and/or key), Valve fails to disclose that the loot box it offers to minor children simulates online gambling. The Plaintiffs, the parents/guardians of minor children who engaged in Valve's illegal online gambling by purchasing keys to open loot boxes in hopes of obtaining a skin of value, seek certification of a class damaged by Valve's omissions and misrepresentations in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Valve is a Washington corporation that makes and sells video games, gaming hardware, and other digital content, including video games called Counter-Strike: Global Offensive ("CS:GO"), Defense of the Ancients 2 ("Dota 2"), and Team Fortress 2 ("TF2"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3laLzKp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq. Ray W. Kahler, Esq. Lisa Benedetti, Esq. STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 413 8 th Street Hoquiam, WA 98550 Telephone: (360) 533-2710 E-mail: pauls@stritmatter.com ray@stritmatter.com lisa@stritmatter.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. Alex C. Davis, Esq. JONES WARD PLC The Pointe 1205 East Washington St., Ste. 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com alex@jonesward.com VERONIQUE GABAI: Crumwell Says Website Not Blind-accessible ----------------------------------------------------------- Denise Crumwell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Veronique Gabai L., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07990 (S.D. N.Y., September 24, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Veronique Gabai operates the Veronique Gabai online retail store, https://veroniquegabai.com/, that provides consumers with access to an array of fragrances, beauty supplies, accessories and other products available online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies. Crumwell is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal VILLAGE CARE: Veras Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------- Onoria Veras, Tawana Lawton, Kadian Gordon-Mulet, Maribel Almonte and Aleksandra Barsuk, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. VILLAGE CARE OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-05461 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons work all day long and well into the night, as well as on weekends, reviewing and responding to emails, making and receiving telephone calls, reviewing Medicare enrollment applications to ensure that they are complete, collecting documents from enrollees, updating reports and submitting paperwork. Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of both the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant to enroll individuals in Medicare insurance programs. The Defendant is a not-for-profit health maintenance organization that contracts with state and local governments to provide managed care to Medicare-eligible New Yorkers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com WASHINGTON: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 4, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ROGERS, RONALD ACKERSON, and DAMIEN RIVERA et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH and FAMILIES (DCYF) et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05248-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order that: 1. The stipulation of the parties is approved and adopted. 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline under the pretrial scheduling order to file their Motion for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert is continued from December 3, 2021 to March 4, 2022. 3. The deadline for Defendants' to file their opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification should be re- set from the due date of January 21, 2022 to April 22, 2022. 4. The Plaintiff's deadline to file their Reply re: Motion for Class Certification should be re-set from February 25, 2022 to May 27, 2022. 5. Depositions in this matter are stayed until this Court has ruled on Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance under FRCP 56(d). DCYF is a cabinet-level agency focused on the well-being of children. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uEDZLb at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs are: Sarah R. Nagy, Esq. Nicholas B. Straley, Esq. Jonathan Momamiukor, Esq. Alison Bilow, Esq. 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 464-0838 E-mail: Sarah.Nagy@Columbialegal.org Nick.Straley@Columbialegal.org Jonathan.Nomamiukor@columbialegal.org Alison.Bilow@Columbialegal.org The Attorneys for Defendants are: Daniel J. Judge, Esq. Anne Miller, Esq. William McGinty, Esq. Cindy J. Gaddis, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 7141 Cleanwater Drive SW PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 Telephone: (360) 586-6565 Facsimile: (360) 586-6657 E-mail: Daniel.Judge@atg.wa.gov William.McGinty@atg.wa.gov Anne.Miller@atg.wa.gov Cindy.Gaddis@atg.wa.gov WEST ROAD: Calhoun Bid to Send Notice to Employees Nixed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Calhoun v. West Road Pizza Stop, Inc., et al., Case No. e 5:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order terminating Plaintiff's motion to send notice to similarly situated employees pending the filing of the parties' settlement documents. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff Samantha Calhoun filed a motion to send notice to similarly situated employees. On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement that is signed by counsel for both sides. The Plaintiff may refile her motion, if necessary, Judge Levy says. A copy of the Court's orderdated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yj93Uq at no extra charge.[CC] WESTCO CHEMICALS: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Nixed as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DRANEY and LORENZO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all ORDER DENYING WITHOUT others similarly situated, v. WESTCO CHEMICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify settlement class and as moot Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action, both WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing an amended motion after revising class or other aspects of the settlement pursuant to the Court's concerns; and 2. If proceeding with an amended motion, directing Plaintiffs to schedule the hearing on their amended motion at least two months after the date they file it. This is so the Court has sufficient time to review the settlement prior to the hearing date. The Court will hold a hearing, if necessary, to address any remaining issues in real time as to avoid the need for further motion practice. The Court said, "In most situations, unless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results. This Court emphasizes that class disposition of this matter may very well be appropriate and notes that, byits back-of-the-napkin 7 based on the data presented, nothing in the record suggests the total 8 amount of $500,000 is patently or necessarily unreasonable. As a broad, class disposition of this matter appears favorable, and the Court 10 and appreciates the diligent efforts of class counsel, as officers of this, to craft a settlement that is fair to all class members." The Plaintiffs Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra are employees of Defendant Westco Chemicals, Inc., whose principals are Defendants Ezekiel Zwillinger and Steven Zwillinger. The Plaintiffs participated in Westco's 401(k) Plan, a defined-contribution, individual account pension plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Plaintiffs allege that throughout most of the 2010s, the Zwillingers, as Westco's principals, invested the 401(k) Plan funds exclusively in low-interest-bearing certificates of deposit ("CDs"), failing to diversify the investments or otherwise construct a proper investment platform. The Plaintiffs allege that Westco employees missed out on over $1 million of collective fund growth as a result. Westco is a supply and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldVheY at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN REFINING: Court Tosses Schmidtberger's Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delmar Schmidtberger v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-04300-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order: 1. denying Motions to strike filed by the parties on August 20, 2021 and August 30, 2021; and 2. denying motion for class certification filed by Plaintiff Delmar Schmidtberger on April 23, 2021. The Court said, "By no later than October 11, 2021, the parties are directed to file a joint status report with proposed dates for the following: last date to conduct settlement conference; initial expert disclosures deadline; rebuttal expert disclosures deadline; discovery cut-off date; last date for hearing any motions for summary judgment; pre-trial conference date; and trial date." The Plaintiff Schmidtberger initiated this action by filing a putative class action Complaint against Defendant Western Refining Retail, LLC on May 17, 2019. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 11, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on June 18, 2019. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest; (3) failure to maintain required records; and (4) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges he "brings this action on behalf of himself and the following similarly situated class of individuals: all current and former 9 -exempt employees of [Defendant] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment." The Plaintiff moves to strike the Bennett, Boyd, Brommer, Delgado, Delgadillo, Espanada, Felton, Gerardo, Harborth, Hencon, Leon, and McDonald Declarations, filed by Defendant in opposition to the Motion for 5 Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BjhG0c at no extra charge.[CC] WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class of Service Employees Certified in Mongue --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLETA MONGUE v. THE WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L. LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON, and MARC WILHELM, Case No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification 2. certifying the following class: "All individuals who worked as wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders for Defendants from June 26, 2017, to March 1, 2020, and were paid a Service Rate;" 3. appointing Jeffrey S. Morneau of Connor & Morneau, LLP as class counsel. The Wheatleigh Corporation is located in Lenox, Massachussets, and is part of the Traveler Accommodation Industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YlsjRV at no extra charge.[CC] WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WINSLOW TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY; and COMMUNITY CHAMPIONS CORPORATION d/b/a PRO CHAMPS, Case No. CAM-L-002890-21 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty., Sept. 21, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class composed of New Jersey citizens who were required to pay annual registration fees of between $500 and $5,000 as part of the Winslow Township Vacant Properties Registration Program (the "Program"). The ordinance authorizing the creation of the Program, and the Program itself, are unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to New Jersey law, in that: the mandatory annual registration fees charged to class members under the Program, which range between $500 and $5,000 per year, per property, greatly exceed the actual costs of the Program, and the Program is thus not a proper exercise of police powers and is instead an unlawful municipal revenue-raising measure of a type barred by New Jersey law which Winslow Township is not legally empowered to enact; Winslow Township's delegation to a private, for-profit company, Defendant Community Champions Corporation, of full managerial power and control over the Program, including registration of properties and the collection of municipal funds under the Program, in the absence of any delegation legislation which would enable this private entity to exercise such governmental functions, is in violation of established New Jersey law; and the Defendants' policy of treating any unpaid annual registration fees mandated by the Program as liens on real property, and requiring title companies to collect such unpaid registration fees at real estate closings and in other circumstances, violates New Jersey law. This lawsuit seeks, inter alia: a declaratory judgment declaring that the ordinance authorizing the creation of the Winslow Township Vacant Properties Registration Program, and the Program itself, are unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to New Jersey law; an order for equitable and injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from continuing to operate the Program in the manner described herein; and an order directing that the annual registration fees of $500 to $5000 which class members were required to pay under the existing Program be refunded to the class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Stephanie Santos is a New Jersey citizen residing in Winslow Township, Winslow Township is located in Camden County, New Jersey, and is organized as a municipality under the constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey, and is a citizen of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 797-9951 - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Geoffrey J. Smith, Esq. JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS, KAHN, WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Rd., Ste. 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Phone: (856) 596-4100 WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement in CA Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement of the California Class Action entitled, In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.). On August 6, 2021, the Trust agreed to the terms of a settlement of two pending actions against Comerica Bank. The terms of the settlement, reached following negotiations with Comerica Bank and the plaintiffs in a putative class action against Comerica Bank in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, are the subject of a Settlement Agreement among the plaintiffs, Comerica Bank, and the Trust ("Comerica Settlement Agreement"). Comerica Bank is the institution at which the Debtors maintained all of their bank accounts, and these actions arise out of the Debtors' former banking relationships with Comerica Bank. The Comerica Settlement Agreement resolves two actions. One of the actions, captioned In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated putative class action in District Court brought on behalf of former noteholders and unitholders of the Debtors (the "California Class Action"). The California Class Action is comprised of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018 and, as consolidated, asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations of California's unfair competition law. The Trust believes that it is the largest member of the putative class in the California Class Action, as holder of approximately 60.9% of all claims against Comerica based on the claims contributed to the Trust by former investors of the Debtors. The other action resolved by the settlement, captioned Michael I. Goldberg as trustee for the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust v. Comerica Bank, Adv. Pro. No. 20-ap-50452-BLS (Bankr. D. Del.), is an adversary proceeding pending in the Bankruptcy Court, in which the Trust has asserted claims against Comerica Bank for fraudulent transfers under the California Civil Code (the "Delaware Adversary Action"). The Delaware Adversary Action also incorporates the claims asserted against Comerica Bank in the California Class Action to the extent that such claims may ultimately be determined to belong to the Debtors' estates rather than to individual former noteholders and unitholders. Under the terms of the Comerica Settlement Agreement, the California Class Action is required to be settled as a class action, subject to District Court approval, on the basis of a class defined to consist of (i) the Trust, as assignee of the claims of the holders of Net Claims in Class 3 (Standard Note Claims, as defined in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit Claims) of the Plan who are Contributing Claimants (as defined in the Plan) and (ii) the holders of Net Claims in Class 3 (Standard Note Claims, as defined in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit Claims) of the Plan who are not Contributing Claimants. For purposes of distributions under the Settlement Agreement, the holders of Net Claims who are not Contributing Claimants are deemed to be the holders of such Net Claims as of February 15, 2019. Under the Comerica Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank has agreed to pay (including through its insurers) an aggregate of $54.5 million, consisting of $54.2 million to settle the California Class Action (the "Class Payment") and $300,000 to settle the Delaware Adversary Action (the "FT Payment"). The Class Payment is intended to provide recoveries to members of the plaintiff class and to fund, in amounts to be determined by the District Court, the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel in the California Class Action, not to exceed 25% of the California Class Action settlement payment, the costs of administering the settlement, and certain incentive award for the class representatives. Under the Comerica Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank (and certain related parties) is required to be released from all claims advanced, or that could have been advanced, related to the facts alleged in the California Class Action or the Delaware Adversary Action. The settlement amount is to be paid within ten business days of the Settlement Effective Date. The Net Class Consideration (defined as the Class Payment minus Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs) is required to be distributed to class members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, resulting in a distribution to the Trust of approximately 60.9% of the Net Class Consideration (corresponding to the Trust's holding of approximately 60.9% of all claims against Comerica based on the claims contributed to the Trust by former investors of the Debtors). No costs of administration or incentive award will be deducted from the Trust's share of the Net Class Consideration. The Trust has agreed not to opt out of the settlement with respect to these claims. The FT Payment is required to be distributed to the Trust. The FT Payment is not subject to reduction for any reason, including attorneys' fees, costs of administration, or incentive awards. The proposed settlement of the California Class Action is subject to court approval, and settlement of the Delaware Adversary Action is subject to settlement of the Class Action. Court approval and payment of the proposed settlement amounts is expected by the first quarter of calendar year 2022 but could be delayed by appeals or other proceedings. Additionally, Comerica has the right to terminate the settlement if class members accounting for more than an agreed amount of claims elect to opt out of the settlement. On September 3, 2021, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement of the California Class Action. Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC were formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California. [*] Class Suits Seen in Mining Industry Before 2040 on Health Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------- Australian Mining reports that the mining industry is on an upward trajectory of electrification and social licence, as it continues to shake off a turbulent history, according to a State of Play report. The mining survey platform's ecosystem survey report was conducted in conjunction with the University of Queensland, CSIRO, METS Ignited and SLATE. It found the biggest impact on innovation in mining over the next 15 years will be technological change, followed by environmental pressures. State of Play chair Graeme Stanway recalled how COVID-19 has accelerated technological development to deal with these issues of electrification, health, and safety. "COVID-19 has condensed 15 years of change in work practices into one," Stanway said. "The use of artificial intelligence to automate value chain decisions is poised to revolutionise the industry as datasets from across the value chain coalesce." The outcomes of this transformation, however, remain far more uncertain, as the industry untangles 15 years' worth of learning in as little time as possible. "Even if our government doesn't enforce decarbonisation requirements, our customers' governments are through to their suppliers, so we are forced to decarbonise anyway," one mining company executive told the survey. Following in this vein, the energy sources expected to power the industry are solar (up 11 per cent from 2010 to 83 per cent), gas (down 10 per cent to 52), and wind (up 16 per cent to 41). Another mining executive told the survey that the power of solar energy has yet to be harnessed to its full capacity yet. "People don't realise that it's cheaper right now to put in solar power than coal," they said. The glaring reason for cleaner mining operations is not only for the health of the environment, but for those working right at the coal face. The report found that 76 per cent of industry executives believe there will be an industry-level class action on a health matter before 2040. One services company chief executive officer told the survey their company enforced measures to improve health and safety and consequently tripled productivity. Another said there was now no excuse to remain ignorant on mining health issues. "If a board sees that class action statistic and does nothing, they should all be sacked," they said. To keep up to date with Australian Mining, subscribe to our free email newsletters delivered straight to your inbox. Click here. [GN] [*] Litigation Funding Sector Growing Up in United Kingdom ---------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Rothwell, writing for Law Gazette, reports that with a vital role in the competition class actions regime, a push towards standard documentation and a nascent secondary market, the litigation funding sector is growing up. The low down As capital floods into litigation funding, the sector has entered a new phase. Rather than sitting back and waiting for cases, funders often now play an integral role in the instigation of litigation -- particularly collective actions. Funders are a key part of the Consumer Rights Act 1995 collective actions regime, but with so many of them now active, battles between rival funders' claimant groups are inevitable. The Competition Appeal Tribunal heard the first of these 'carriage disputes' in July. The industry anxiously awaits its judgment. Meanwhile there are signs that the market is maturing. A push towards freely available, standardised documents will help hedge funds and other players enter the field, while a secondary market for funding investments is finding its feet. What shall I do with all this cash I have been given? This is not a question most of us have to trouble ourselves with - more's the pity. But litigation funding -- with its rare status as a potentially high-yielding asset unaffected by shifts in the economy -- is attracting record levels of investment. Research earlier this year by City firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain suggested that the cash currently held by UK funders or invested in their cases now surpasses £2bn. Part of the sector's growth is down to new market entrants; with many funds that previously invested in real estate now turning their eyes on litigation, for instance. Existing litigation funders are also increasing their financial firepower. In June, for example, Augusta Ventures raised £250m in its latest new fund, bringing its total assets under management to £585m. But investors do not expect funders to sit smugly atop their vast war chests, twiddling their thumbs. The cash must be put to work. That is why, in recent times, litigation funding has entered a new phase. As Maurice Power, chief executive officer at Apex Litigation Finance, puts it: 'There's a lot of money in litigation funding now. The challenge for most funders is deployment of capital. What I see is more funders instigating claims, rather than waiting for claims to come to them.' What kind of claims are they instigating? The main focus is noticeably on collective actions, sometimes on a grand scale. The number of mass actions being financed by litigation funders is striking. Indeed, the new 'opt-out' collective action regime for competition law openly depends on the involvement of funders, without whom these significant cases simply could not be brought. Neil Purslow, chief investment officer of Therium Capital Management, which specialises in collective actions, explains: 'Funding has become an integral part of these large group claims. The relationship between the case and the funder is symbiotic.' Group actions are very expensive to get off the ground, and the damages to be attributed to each individual may be as low as a few hundred pounds per head. But their sheer scale -- sometimes brought on behalf of millions of claimants -- makes them economically rewarding for funders; assuming they don't lose. Richard Wise, partner at Addleshaw Goddard, which has set up a special unit to advise on litigation funding issues, says: 'The most interesting bit of the market is the way that law firms and funders are originating the work. These days, we talk about "issues-based" litigation. Essentially you spot a trend and you go out and find clients who are affected. It might be about sustainability, the environment, emissions, or share-price activity, for example.' It is certainly a trend that has caught the attention of defendant clients. Herbert Smith Freehills partner Chris Bushell observes: 'Most class actions started more around securities and consumer products, and that's still there. But there seems to be an increasing focus on other types of class action, like data breach and ESG [environment, social and governance]. From the defence side, the scope of issues that a client might face is getting wider.' Much of the high-profile activity of funders relates to the new class action regime for competition law claims brought in by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. From the claimant perspective, the beauty of these claims is that they can be run on an 'opt-out' basis, meaning that a class of millions of people - be it truckers, consumers, technology users or rail passengers - can be represented by one individual. But as more funders pile into this area, the more likely it is that, while one funder is busy shovelling cash into the formation of a mountainous claim, another funder down the road has also grabbed a spade and is doing is exactly the same thing with a different law firm partner. The problem is that in an opt-out collective action, only one group can be certified to represent the class of claimants - and it will be down to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to decide which one that is. Purslow is all too familiar with this problem. In July 2019, Therium was quick off the blocks to back the launch of an opt-out mass action against some major banks based on findings by the European Commission (EC) of cartel activity relating to the foreign exchange market. But in December that year, a rival opt-out claim was filed. This 'carriage dispute' over which of the two claims should be certified to proceed was heard by the CAT in July: the first time it has grappled with this fundamental issue. The CAT's decision is expected some time from this month - and the industry is holding its breath to discover what reasoning the CAT will adopt in making its decision. Meanwhile a second carriage dispute is also due to be heard by the CAT, in the 'truck cartel' litigation relating to a 2016 finding by the EC that a group of truck manufacturers conspired to fix prices. Here, Therium is backing a claim brought by the Road Haulage Association (RHA), while a competing claim is being brought by another group, UK Trucks Claim Ltd (UKTCL), also backed by litigation funding. Purslow describes the two groups as 'loosely competing, but it's not cut-throat'. This is probably because, in this particular case, there may be scope for both groups to proceed. The RHA's claim is an 'opt-in' action, with around 3,500 claimants actively signed up. The competing claim by UKTCL is primarily an 'opt-out' claim. So it is possible that the CAT will allow the RHA claim to proceed as an opt-in class action, and UKTCL to be certified as an opt-out action that excludes any hauliers already signed up to the RHA claim. For some, progress on this key question of how carriage disputes will be resolved has been much too slow. Leslie Perrin, chair of the International Legal Finance Association, set up a year ago to be the global voice of the funding industry, says: 'It's a very undeveloped jurisprudence, so people are guessing about which routes the court will take. It involves trying to predict [CAT] president Roth's frame of mind, which isn't easy. 'It's taking far too long and it's too unpredictable. But that's inevitable when you're testing and introducing a new line of jurisprudence. We had never even thought of opt-out collective proceedings before. It's a creature of statute, and people are making it up as they go along. The defendants are highly motivated to defend these claims or delay them, because they are so big, and some of these cases are so monstrous.' Are we likely to see aggressive jostling between funders as they compete for certification in these huge claims? Brown Rudnick partner Christian Toms does not think so. 'In the CAT, the experience we've had is that there's been a lot of co-operation between funders - more than is reported on,' he insists. Toms considers that once funders have got a claim together and begun pushing it forward, if they lose the bid to achieve certification for their particular group, 'there's always an arrangement to be done' - for example by joining forces. He adds: 'Funders will need to be open to working together. There may be some chafing to start with, but the funders will find an equilibrium. In the longer term, we may see syndicates of funders that [regularly] work together.' Commercial-offices Second chances The mark of a well-established financial sector is when the asset in question inspires enough confidence to be bought and sold in a 'secondary market'. So the fact that a nascent secondary market is now emerging for litigation investments is a positive sign for the litigation finance industry. 'There's definitely a market there,' remarks Robert Hanna, co-founder of funder Augusta Ventures. 'This is a sign of the litigation funding market growing up and evolving.' 'We're seeing a lot more [trading] on the secondary market than we were seeing a few years ago,' observes Brown Rudnick partner Elena Rey. 'It's interesting to see how firms that were working on the trading of distressed debt are now looking at buying into a claim that's already developed. And I see funders wanting to do a big claim and syndicate their exposure.' For Leslie Perrin, chair of the International Legal Finance Association, this positive trend shows that the standard of documentation now prevalent in the industry is 'mature' enough to 'carry the weight' of the secondary market. 'If you had done it on the back of a cigarette packet, no one would buy it,' he says. Funders may wish to sell on their interests for a host of reasons: to balance their concentration of risk in different sectors; or because of limits on the total amount of capital they can invest, for example. Once a secondary market becomes well-established, it will significantly boost liquidity for investors: instead of their cash being tied up until a case completes, it can be released at any time by selling the litigation asset on the secondary market. Tets Ishikawa, managing director of funder LionFish, suggests that a good indication of the direction of travel is the current market for commercial real estate financing, where the type and size of deals available is similarly varied, and deals are independently brokered or negotiated, rather than traded on a platform. But he adds that platforms are already been created that will serve as 'noticeboards' for litigation funding deals. 'There are a lot more funds doing secondary trading than has necessarily been recognised in the marketplace,' he says. Bearing the standard With new players eagerly limbering up ready to run on to the litigation funding pitch, attention has turned to the industry's documentation. A working group set up by Brown Rudnick partner Elena Rey is putting together what is intended to be a set of freely available, standardised documents; starting with a model litigation funding agreement, and a priorities agreement for setting out the waterfall of payments. The working group comprises funders, institutional claimants, insurers, barristers and law firms. Rey previously helped the Loan Market Association (LMA) set up similar model documents for the real estate finance market. She says: 'The time it takes to negotiate quite short litigation funding agreements is actually much longer than you would take to negotiate a hundred-page LMA document. These standard documents that we're creating will minimise the time and expense spent on that aspect, and allow parties to focus on the commercial side of the negotiation.' Tets Ishikawa, managing director of funder LionFish, made LionFish's litigation funding documentation suite freely available in March this year. He would like to see the legal finance industry move towards the template document approach used in the syndicated loan market; or to the approach taken in the derivatives field, where the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) provides standard definition for common terms. 'You can write contracts saying, "we enter into this agreement based on the [1996 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions]",' explains Ishikawa. 'When you get standard concepts, and everyone refers to them, it makes the whole process easier.' This could include a standard definition for concepts such as a 'successful' or 'unsuccessful' outcome, he suggests. Standard documents or definitions would be especially helpful for the many new entrants into the market, such as credit funds and hedge funds. 'If they've got a document that's been signed off by a major law firm as a standard document, then it's easier for them,' notes Perrin. But Wise says that while the more established funders can see some benefit in the widespread sharing of standard documentation, they are wary of clients thinking there is no room for negotiation on those standard terms. 'The idea that the standard documents won't need to be negotiated isn't right,' Wise warns. 'There will need to be negotiation on the nitty-gritty of the consequences of termination of the agreement and what it means for different parties, for example. That will depend on the relative strength of the negotiating parties.' For savvy clients and their legal advisers who want to exploit the buoyant funding market and shop around for the best deal - or even play one funder off against another - there is a serious stumbling block, however. Funders want to look deeply into the merits and value of a claim before they make an offer of finance - which is understandable. But because they might spend up to £100,000 on legal and quantum advice before making an offer, most will insist on an 'exclusivity clause' before they enter into that investigatory phase. This prevents the client from engaging with other funders and weakens their position when negotiating terms. Unlike most funders, Ishikawa is not a fan of exclusivity clauses. 'They have exclusivity agreements in private equity as well,' he concedes. 'But that happens at a different point in the curve. It's much later, when the standard due diligence will be done, and you're at the confirmatory due diligence stage - where you're essentially checking that everything that anyone said is [accurate]. In the funding industry, the exclusivity comes way, way too early.' Competitive edge When it comes to competition between funders, one way that they can bring down their costs is by striking deals with law firms to finance a basket of cases, sometimes with more streamlined due diligence processes due to the trusted relationship with the law firm. These 'portfolio deals' have been a feature of the market for several years. New arrangements are still cropping up. The latest was an announcement earlier in September of a £150m joint venture between City firm Mishcon de Reya and Harbour Litigation Funding. The venture, 'MDR Solutions', will see Harbour and Mishcon co-investing in cases. But while a client will often benefit from better terms by using a law firm's portfolio funding partner, the relationship can never be exclusive, or even give the funder 'first dibs' on the law firm's cases. 'The law firm has to be able to represent the client in the best way they can,' says Toms. 'It's a conduct point, and also a market point. As a lawyer, you have to look at what's in the best interests of the client; whether these are the best terms.' But even if there is no formal obligation to give the portfolio funding partner priority on the juiciest cases, might the law firm feel an unspoken pressure to do so? Not according to Toms: 'As lawyers, we need to be able to show the Solicitors Regulation Authority that we did a proper trawl of the market. Lawyers are very conscious of conflicts. It's baked into our DNA. 'It's the client's choice. That's the beauty of it - as long as that choice remains in the market.' With new players muscling in on the funding action, investors keen to hand over their cash and a growing secondary market for litigation investments, lack of choice over funding providers does not look like a problem that litigation clients are likely to face any time soon. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee Criticizes Aldrich Pump's $545M Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Vince Sullivan of Law360 reports that the committee of existing asbestos injury claimants in the Chapter 11 case of Aldrich Pump said 2021, it hasn't had sufficient time to review a proposal to settle asbestos claims in the company's bankruptcy for $545 million because it only received the terms of the deal late last week. During a video status conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, bankruptcy court, committee attorney Todd E. Phillips of Caplin & Drysdale said Aldrich Pump had reached agreement on the settlement to be embodied in its Chapter 11 plan without input from the asbestos claimants committee and only negotiated with the future claims representative. As reported in the TCR, the Debtors are asking the Bankruptcy Court to approve the establishment and funding of a North Carolina trust that will constitute a "qualified settlement fund" to resolve or satisfy current and future asbestos-related claims asserted against or related to the Debtors. The Debtors explained that over the span of nearly seven months, the Debtors, the FCR, and their respective professionals engaged in negotiations with the goal of arriving at appropriate terms for a section 524(g) trust. These efforts culminated in an agreed settlement on a plan with funding for a section 524(g) trust in the amount of $545 million -- $540 million of which would be paid on the effective date of the plan. Ireland's Trane Technologies PLC has agreed to pay at least $270 million to help settle asbestos claims. Historically, the Debtors' insurance reimbursed approximately 50% of the amount of Aldrich/Murray Asbestos Claims. As a result, the Section 524(g) trust will be fully funded when the Plan goes effective. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/2Ykt2CU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Agrees to Pay $270MM to Settle Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ireland's Trane Technologies PLC has agreed to pay at least $270 million to help settle asbestos claims that pushed Aldrich Pump LLC and Murray Boiler LLC into bankruptcy last year. Davidson, North Carolina-based Aldrich Pump and Murray are U.S. units of Trane, a global climate innovator that brings efficient and sustainable climate solutions to buildings, homes, and transportation. The Debtors made industrial equipment that, in some instances, incorporated certain asbestos-containing components manufactured and designed by third parties. Trane was known as Ingersoll Rand plc before it completed in the first quarter of 2020 a spin-off of its industrial business, which was subsequently merged with Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. On May 1, 2021, Aldrich's predecessor, the former Trane Technologies Company LLC, successor by merger to Ingersoll-Rand Company (a former New Jersey corporation) ("Old IRNJ"), and Murray's predecessor, the former Trane U.S. Inc. ("Old Trane"), underwent corporate restructuring to address Old IRNJ's and Old Trane's asbestos-related claims. The 2020 Corporate Restructuring was effectuated through a series of transactions, including divisional mergers under Texas law, that resulted in the creation of the Debtors, both North Carolina limited liability companies. Aldrich was allocated certain of Old IRNJ's assets and became solely responsible for certain of its liabilities, including the asbestos claims against Old IRNJ and the defense of those claims. Murray was allocated certain of Old Trane's assets and became solely responsible for certain of its liabilities, including the asbestos claims against Old Trane and the defense of those claims. ********* 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 ***