/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211011.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 197 Headlines 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Cossin Files Suit in S.D. Ohio 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Smith Claims 3M COMPANY: Bailey Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Faces Boyle Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Jepsen Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Perry Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products 8250 SUNSET: Urrutia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks AARON'S LLC: Deering Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California ACTION COLLECTION: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ACTION PROPERTY: Stone Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT ALDI INC: Illinois Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Brodsky Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Sues to Recover Lost Wages AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMERICAN PIZZA: Burns Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses AMHERST MAINTENANCE: Underpays Painters, Alvarez Suit Claims ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Ruiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 'Agave Spiked Seltzer' Has Been Hit With Lawsuit ANTHEM INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Nixon Class Suit APEX USA: Francis Suit Loses Class Certification Bid APPHARVEST INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline APPLE INC: Class Cert. Reply Brief Extended to Oct. 19 ASCENSION LINGERIE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BED BATH: Settlement Reached in NJ Consolidated Putative Class Suit BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid to Certify Class Tossed BOY SMELLS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRYAN COWDERY: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in McElwee BUTTERBALL LLC: Mohr Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Dismisses Bell Class Suit CALIFORNIA: Thomas Prisoner Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway CARMAX INC: Unit Facing Bendure & Miller Putative Class Suits CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss FL Consolidated Class Suit Pending CARNIVAL CORP: COVID-19 Exposure Related Suits Underway CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Thomas Sues Over Review Nurses' Unpaid OT CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Felder Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Starling TCPA Suit Goes to D. Connecticut CHELAN COUNTY, WA: Taxpayers' Claims Dismissal in Sifferman Upheld CONNIE'S DELI: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Ford Claims CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Moses Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey CREDIT CONTROL: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CRST EXPEDITED: Jensen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice EFFINGHAM COUNTY, IL: Judge to Decide Over Class Certification EMOTORS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action ENNKAR INC: Woods Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California EQT CORP: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California FACEBOOK INC: Chides Lawyers For 'Inefficiencies' in Antitrust Suit FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks to Certify Class of Caregivers FANEUIL INC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FPC ALDERSON: Asplund Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates FPC ALDERSON: Barker Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates FPC ALDERSON: Belcher Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates FPC ALDERSON: Moore Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates FPC ALDERSON: Salazar Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations GERON CORPORATION: Junge Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class GOTHAM DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' Overtime, Torres Alleges H&M HENNES: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Judge Granted Dismissals of RICO Class Suit HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Loses Rule 23 Class Status Bid HOTELMACHER LLC: Casilao Suit Wins Class Certification Bid HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Claims in Chavez Suit Tossed Without Prejudice HURRICANE EXPRESS: Ct. Enters Class Status Sched Order in Turpin HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit IFINEX INC: Class Suit Over Crypto Market Manipulation Discussed IHS MARKIT: New Mexico State Investment Council Suit Underway JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodle Files ADA Suit in N.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J. JUMP START: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Teachers KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California KODIAK CAKES: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed KOHL'S CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Junk Hennessey Class Status Bid LEEFAM CLEANING: Faces Rubio Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cleaners LONGEVERON INC: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California MAGNA LEGAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Guynn-Neupane MAINE DOC: Judge Recommends Denial of Swain Class Status Bid MAPLEBEAR INC: Levine Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts MICHAEL STINSON: Gibbs Lending Suit Wins Class Certification MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California MIDLAND FUNDING: Loses Bid to Seal Certain Docs in Province Suit MIELE INC: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought NADRI INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NAPERVILLE, IL: Halgren Sues Over Covid-19 Vaccine Requirement NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 29 NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware NEXT LEVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims NORTH AMERICAN: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lyles ADA Suit PABST BREWING: Peacock Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification PARKMOBILE LLC: Weaver CCPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga. PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Stay Knapke Suit Pending Appeal Denied POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Class Action PORCELANA CORONA: Phase I Class Cert. Deadlines & Settings Entered PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Loses Class Decertification Bid QUEBEC: Court Approves $60M Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hong Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline RECRO PHARMA: Investor Group Seeks to Certify Class Action RICHARD ZEITLIN: Donors File Class Action Over TCPA Violations ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Securities Suit Over Trading Restrictions SAFELITE GROUP: Alvarez Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Seeks to Certify August 30, 2021 Order SAN JOSE, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over George Floyd Protests SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Dialysis Technicians, Soliman Says SBK DELIVERY: Miller Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages, Overtime SOMETHING NAVY: Slade Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Gardner STAY DRY: Gloss et al. Seek Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages STERICYCLE INC: Poston Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Malone Suit TEXAS: Families Join Lawsuit Against Districts Over Mask Mandate TGF MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Employees TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Cardenas UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Technicians Class UNITED ASSOCIATION: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Poe Suit UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE: Brandon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF UNITED STATES: Hachicho's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed VALLARTA FOOD: Faces Thomas Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions WASHINGTON HEALTH: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid WASTE PRO: Court Initially Approves Settlement Deal in Hansen Suit WAYNE, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Ingram Class Suit WICKED AUDIO: Delacruz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store YANFENG US: Bid to Dismiss Dover's First Amended Complaint Denied [*] Minnesota Class Action Lawsuit Against Beef Processors Proceeds ********* 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Cossin Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company. The case is styled as Amanda Cossin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-04774-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company -- https://www.21st.com/ -- provides insurance services. The Company underwrites fire, marine, auto, and casualty insurance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E Scott, Esq. Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114-3400 Phone: (216) 696-3232 Fax: (216) 696-3924 Email: sscott@spanglaw.com khulick@spanglaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Smith Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID NEIL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03248-RMG (D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Bailey Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIUS BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03179-RMG (D.S.C., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUANE ROBERT COCHRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03245-RMG (D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Faces Boyle Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WILKIN BOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03246-RMG (D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03180-RMG (D.S.C., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and prostate cancer due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Jepsen Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- GORDON LEROY JEPSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03247-RMG (D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Perry Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM JOSEPH PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03244-RMG (D.S.C., October 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit further contends. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN RICHARD THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03243-RMG (D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 8250 SUNSET: Urrutia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks -------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIANA FAJARDO URRUTIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8250 SUNSET BLVD INC. dba THE BODY SHOP, SALAH AL-MUDARRIS, MIKE MUDARIS, DOE MANAGERS 1-3, and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07935 (C.D. Cal., October 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip sharing, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to indemnify business expenses, compelled patronization of employer and/or other persons, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked as a dancer at the Defendants' principal place of business located at 8250 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood, California. 8250 Sunset Blvd Inc., doing business as The Body Shop, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 8250 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Alejandro Marin, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com alejandro@kristensenlaw.com AARON'S LLC: Deering Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEXUS DEERING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AARON'S, LLC; THE AARON'S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-8005, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01797-JAM-AC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. Aaron's, LLC is a retail company with its principal place of business in Georgia. The Aaron's Company, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer, headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Michael A. Wahlander, Esq. Ian T. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com mwahlander@seyfarth.com itlong@seyfarth.com - and – Sophia S. Kwan, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: skwan@seyfarth.com ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled POOYA OSKOUIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACRO SERVICE CORP., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00033015- CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01736-AJB-AHG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay Overtime, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages upon termination. Acro Service Corp. is a staffing company, with its principal office located in Livonia, Michigan. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. HONIGMAN LLP 2290 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 465-7000 Facsimile: (313) 465-7373 E-mail: mdisbrow@honigman.com ACTION COLLECTION: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Collection Agencies, Inc. The case is styled as Sherry-Lynn Demelo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Action Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-02348 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Action Collection Agencies, Inc. -- https://www.actioncollection.com/ -- specializes in third party collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C. 585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L50 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 242-8185 Fax: (516) 414-2869 Email: jason@jtnylaw.com ACTION PROPERTY: Stone Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTION PROPERTY SERVICES LLC, ACTION PROPERTY SERVICES MANAGER, INC., DOUGLAS ARNOLD, and COURTNEY ARNOLD, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05259 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated construction workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Stone worked for the Defendants as a construction worker and laborer from approximately March 2021 until July 2021. Action Property Services LLC is a rental property construction and remodeling company, with its business address located at 401 S. La Salle St., Suite 403, Chicago, Illinois. Action Property Services Manager, Inc. is a company that owns and operates a rental property construction and remodeling business, with its principal office address located at 401 S. La Salle St., Suite 403, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 ALDI INC: Illinois Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Brodsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EILEEN BRODSKY and RHONDA DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALDI INC., COFFEE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., and PAN AMERICAN COFFEE CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 7632 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Background Plaintiffs Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond bring a putative class action complaint against Defendants Aldi Inc., Coffee Holding Company Inc., and Pan American Coffee Co., LLC, alleging violations of various consumer protection laws involving the Defendants' coffee products. The first amended complaint alleges: a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq. ("CLRA") (Count I); a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL") (Count II); a violation of the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. ("FAL") (Count III); a violation of the New York General Business Law Sections 349, 350 ("NYGBL") (Counts IV and V); breach of express warranty under California and New York law (Count VI); and breach of implied warranty under New York law (Count VII). The Plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Eileen Brodsky and Rhoda Diamond bought Beaumont coffee from Aldi grocery stores in their home states of New York and California. Defendant Coffee Holding Company, Inc. and Defendant Pan American Coffee US, LLC are the coffee roasters for the Beaumont brand. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all people who purchased any Beaumont Coffee Product falsely advertising the number of coffee cups that the product would purportedly produce during the applicable statute of limitations and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase." Brodsky also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of class members who reside in New York and Diamond seeks to represent a subclass consisting of members who reside in California. Ms. Brodsky alleges that she bought a 22.4-ounce canister of Beaumont 100% Colombian Ground Coffee with a label that the canister "makes up to" 210 six-ounce cups of coffee. Diamond alleges that she bought a 22.4-ounce canister of Beaumont Classic Roast with a label that the canister "makes up to" 210 six-ounce cups of coffee. The complaint also includes allegations regarding Beaumont's Decaffeinated Coffee, but there are no allegations that either Plaintiff purchased the Decaffeinated Coffee products. The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of underfilling their canisters of coffee and allege that the Beaumont label is "false and misleading and omits material information" and "violates consumer's reasonable expectations." According to them, the labels advertise 210 six-ounce cups of coffee, but in fact only produce 137 cups for the 100% Colombian Roast and 173 cups for the Classic Roast. The Plaintiffs get their calculations based on using one tablespoon per six-ounce cup of coffee. The label contains five relevant elements. First, the amount of coffee is represented by the "net weight" of the contents, and is provided in ounces, pounds, and grams. There are no allegations that the weight of the product is inaccurate. Second, the "Brewing Instructions" direct the consumer to fill the coffee pot to the desired level. The label recommends using "1 Tbsp" of ground coffee to make "1 Serving (6 fl. oz)." The brewing instructions also contain measurements for other servings: ½ cup of ground coffee (eight tablespoons) to make 10 servings; and 1 ½ cups of coffee (24 tablespoons) to make 30 servings. Thus, the label provides measurements other than a one tablespoon to one six-ounce cup ratio. Third, the label advises "use more or less coffee to get desired strength." Fourth, the label states that the canister "makes up to 210 6 oz cups." Finally, Defendant Aldi guarantees that, if a customer is dissatisfied, Aldi will replace the item and refund the purchaser's money. There is no indication that the Plaintiffs availed themselves of this remedy. Discussion The Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Because standing is jurisdictional, Judge Gettleman must consider it before reaching the merits. I. Standing The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing for several reasons: The Plaintiffs did not suffer an actual injury; they did not purchase one of the products alleged in the complaint; they did not avail themselves of an available remedy; and the Plaintiffs lack standing for an injunction because future injury is unlikely. Contrary to the Defendants' arguments, Judge Gettleman holds that the Plaintiffs have alleged an actual injury. The first amended complaint alleges that they suffered an economic injury by overpaying for a product that underdelivers. However, the Plaintiffs do lack standing for a product they did not purchase. The Plaintiffs' claims regarding the Decaffeinated Coffee are therefore dismissed. The Defendants' third standing argument is that the Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not availed themselves of an available remedy -- namely, a refund and a free canister of coffee. While it does seem odd that the Plaintiffs would resort to a federal lawsuit instead of accepting the refund and free canister of coffee (especially since the latter remedies the Plaintiffs' main grievance by providing more coffee), Judge Gettleman opines that it is not a basis to dismiss the suit. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. The gist of the argument is that there is no risk of future harm and thus no need for an injunction. To establish injury in fact when seeking prospective injunctive relief, "a plaintiff must allege a 'real and immediate' threat of future violations of their rights." The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' complaint fails this test because the allegations of future harm are hypothetical and speculative. Judge Getltleman agrees. He opines that the threat of future injury must be imminent. In the case, there is no indication that the Plaintiffs must purchase the product, and their claims that they may purchase other coffee items produced by the Defendants in the future are conclusory, conjectural, and speculative. The Plaintiffs have not alleged a risk of future harm sufficient to support standing for an injunction against the Defendants. II. Failure to State a Claim The Plaintiffs bring claims under various state consumer protection statutes. While the statutes differ in certain particulars, "all share a common requirement: to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege conduct that plausibly could deceive a reasonable consumer." In the case, Judge Gettleman finds that in the case, it is implausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived by the Defendants' packaging. First, there is no allegation that the coffee canisters do not weigh as advertised. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' contentions, the label does not promise the maximum yield, and it certainly does not promise that the maximum yield will be achieved by following the instructions for a single serving. The Plaintiffs fail to allege that the canister cannot yield 210 cups of coffee under any circumstances. The Defendants' labeling, when viewed as a whole, thus is not deceptive. Second, the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims suffer from the same fatal flaw as their consumer protection claims: A reasonable consumer would not understand the Defendants' label to warrant that the products make 210 six-ounce cups of coffee. The express warranty claims can succeed only if a "reasonable consumer could plausibly read the Defendant's statements to be specific, factual representations that the product contains" 210 six-ounce cups of coffee, but must fail if the labels, viewed objectively, make no such promise. For the reasons stated, a reasonable consumer could not plausibly read the label as the Plaintiffs suggest. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims fail. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Gettleman granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jj3ze3h from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Sues to Recover Lost Wages -------------------------------------------------- Elson Marcelo, Petr Bogopolskiy, Jason Sales, Ashley Ellis, David Simard, Thien Luong, Rhonda Felix, Stephanie Friedman, Workineh Wolie, Abdul Rehman, David Samra, Mohammed Shaik, Saleh Albadwi, Tanesha Caldwell, Starr Campbell, and Sergio Garnica, and other similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07843 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2021), seeks to recover lost wages for the Defendants' willful violations of federal and California state law. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled. The Plaintiffs -- current and former Amazon Flex delivery drivers, called "couriers" -- have not been properly compensated for the work they performed on the Defendants' behalf, asserts the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors as opposed to employees in willful violation of federal and California state law, causing financial loss to the Plaintiffs in the form of unpaid wages. Amazon is a Seattle-based online retailer that contracts with couriers to deliver consumer goods to its customers throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Jennifer Haidar, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Fax: (877) 500-8781 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com jennifer.haidar@zimmreed.com AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY ART GALLERY LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08219 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendants' Website, https://acagalleries.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the online and physical art gallery as well as the Gallery website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, N.Y. 10007-2036 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com AMERICAN PIZZA: Burns Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PIZZA PARTNERS, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00939-JD (W.D. Okla., September 23, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid delivery driver from approximately February 2018 until June 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant refused to reimburse him and others similarly situated delivery drivers for all their actual expenses, such as gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, automobile repair and maintenance services, and other related expenses, while delivering pizzas for the Defendant's customers. Instead, they were only reimbursed at or around 22 cents per mile that is below the minimum wage requirement. As a result, the Defendant willfully failed to pay minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers, the Plaintiff alleges. American Pizza Partners, L.P. owns and operates Pizza Hut franchises throughout Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com AMHERST MAINTENANCE: Underpays Painters, Alvarez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ISAAC ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMHERST MAINTENANCE, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-23421-XXXX (S.D. Fla., September 23, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly paid and non-exempt industrial painter. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek from on or about January 21, 2019 until June 2021. Despite working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant paid them straight time for all hours worked, says the suit. Amherst Maintenance, Inc. provides industrial painting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Ruiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUAN CARLOS RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDERSEN WINDOWS, INC., formerly known as ANDERSEN CORPORATION; ANDERSEN WINDOWS AND DOORS; ANDERSEN DISTRIBUTION, INC.; ANDERSEN LOGISTICS, a Division of ANDERSEN WINDOWS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2115588, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07834 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Public Policy including wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination based on medical condition or physical disability, racial discrimination, harassment & hostile work environment, denial of premiums for rest breaks and meal breaks, failure to pay wages on time, failure to pay wages timely on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide time wages statements, and failure to maintain accurate payroll records. Andersen Windows, Inc., formerly known as Andersen Corporation, is an international window and door manufacturer based in Minnesota. Andersen Windows and Doors is a window and door manufacturer based in Minnesota. Andersen Distribution, Inc. is a distributor of lumber, plywood, millwork, and other related products, headquartered in Minnesota. Andersen Logistics is a division of Andersen Windows, Inc. based in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alaya B. Meyers, Esq. Ian G. Robertson, Esq. Arya A. Zare, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 705-3000 Facsimile: (949) 724-1201 E-mail: ameyers@littler.com irobertson@littler.com azare@littler.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 'Agave Spiked Seltzer' Has Been Hit With Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- thedrinksbusiness.com reports that US rapper Travis Scott's CACTI agave spiked seltzer brand has been handed a false advertising lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers into believing the seltzer is made with agave spirits. Scott's CACTI seltzer brand is not, in fact, produced with agave spirits, merely using an agave sweetener, receiving its alcohol content from fermented cane sugar. Plaintiff Rebecca Read filed a class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, the parent company of the CACTI brand. "Whether a product contains agave spirits is basic front label information consumers rely on when making quick decisions at the store," the complaint reads in part. "The product lacks any agave spirits, and instead, uses 'agave syrup,' a sweetener derived from the agave plant, as shown in the fine print ingredient list on the back of the product." Read states in the complaint she purchased the spiked seltzer on more than one occasion under the assumption that the drink contained agave spirits. Citing "The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act" and "Negligent misrepresentation" among other violations, Read is reportedly seeking damages and other legal costs related to the complaint, as well as a jury trial. Earlier in September, we reported that a class action lawsuit had been filed against Molson Coors, alleging that the company mislead consumers over the health benefits of its Vizzy hard seltzer.[GN] ANTHEM INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Nixon Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIXON, et al., v. ANTHEM, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove entered a scheduling order as follow: -- Discovery (a) The parties have already completed initial disclosures. (b) All Precertification Discovery shall be completed by Friday, July 1, 2022. -- Dispositive Motions (a) The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including Monday, August 1, 2022, to file a Motion for Class Certification. (b) The Defendants shall have up to and including Friday, September 9, 2022, to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. -- Trial Following the Court's disposition of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Parties shall reconvene and recommend discovery and trial schedule on the remaining issues, and the Court shall issue a subsequent scheduling order accordingly. -- Extensions of Time Requests to modify any dates or deadlines established by this order shall be submitted upon motion filed prior to expiration of the deadline in question, and upon showing of good cause beyond the control of counsel in the exercise of due diligence. See L.R. 7.1(b). Anthem is a provider of health insurance in the United States. It is the largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fm1Owl at no extra charge.[CC] APEX USA: Francis Suit Loses Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORRET FRANCIS; ANTHONY KENNEDY; and CHRISTINE PEARCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APEX USA, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00583-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. denying the Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude reports and opinions of Luis C. deBaca; and Plaintiffs' motion to strike the expert report and testimony of Greg H. Bristol and Memorandum in Support of their motion; and 3. denying Defendants' motion to strike; Plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike Defendants' exhibit list; and Defendants' combined motion in limine; and Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude unsigned affidavits and supporting memorandum of law. Apex USA is in the industrial machinery and equipment industry in Princeton, New Jersey. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yv8UxC at no extra charge.[CC] APPHARVEST INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AppHarvest, Inc. ("AppHarvest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APPH) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired AppHarvest securities between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/apph. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts and failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its recently expanded labor force; (2) as a result, the Company could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/apph or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in AppHarvest you have until November 23, 2021, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] APPLE INC: Class Cert. Reply Brief Extended to Oct. 19 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending class certification reply brief deadline due October 19, 2021. On January 8, 2021, this Court entered an Order re: Case Scheduling that set forth the current class certification briefing schedule. Pursuant to this Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due June 1, 2021, Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion was due August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion is due October 12, 2021, and the class certification hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YpRjYd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele r. Byrd, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com byrd@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4677 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com The Defendant is represented by: Cynthia E. Richman, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Richard J. Doren, Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Veronica S. Lewis, Esq. Ethan Dettmer, Esq. Eli M. Lazarus, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8234 Facsimile: (202) 530-9691 E-mail: crichman@gibsondunn.com tboutrous@gibsondunn.com rdoren@gibsondunn.com dswanson@gibsondunn.com vlewis@gibsondunn.com edettmer@gibsondunn.com elazarus@gibsondunn.com ASCENSION LINGERIE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascension Lingerie And Swimsuit LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ascension Lingerie And Swimsuit LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08223 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ascension Lingerie And Swimsuit doing business as Oh La La -- http://www.ohlalacheri.com/-- is a Chic boutique featuring designer French intimate apparel, bridal robes & swimsuits for women.[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 BED BATH: Settlement Reached in NJ Consolidated Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 28, 2021, that a settlement in principle has been reached in the consolidated putative securities class suit headed by Kavin Bakhda. A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020 against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors (Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action"). Lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020. After a mediation held in August 2021, a settlement in principle was reached between the Company and lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Action. The settlement remains subject to formal documentation and must be approved by the New Jersey federal court. Bed Bath said, "If the settlement is approved, all claims in the Securities Class Action will be fully resolved and the matter will be dismissed." Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global 1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-81076-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order denying a motion for class certification. The Court said, "Most concerning, during his deposition in the present lawsuit, Plaintiff admits that he believes that engaging in deception is appropriate behavior for a class representative. Based on the foregoing, the Court has serious concerns about the Plaintiff's credibility, honesty, trustworthiness, and motives in bringing forth this putative class action. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative." The Plaintiff Johansen has brought a one-count class action complaint against Bluegreen Vacations alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, when Schumer Management and Consulting, a vendor hired by the Defendant, initiated telemarketing calls to residential telephone numbers, despite the fact that the residential telephone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Bluegreen Vacations is a leisure, travel and tourism company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BkmylB at no extra charge.[CC] BOY SMELLS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boy Smells LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boy Smells LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08224 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BOY SMELLS -- https://boysmells.com/ -- is highly spirited scented candles, fine fragrance and intimate wear for the genderful.[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 BRYAN COWDERY: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in McElwee --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA MCELWEE, et al., v. BRYAN COWDERY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered a revised scheduling order: Based upon the parties' Report pursuant to Revised Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ADOPTS the following schedule: -- Parties and pleadings Any motion or stipulation to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by December 31, 2021. The Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Conditional Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff will file their motion for Rule 23 Certification on or before March 31, 2022. -- Discovery Procedures All discovery shall be completed by April 29, 2022, except that all parties shall have at least 90 days to conduct discovery concerning any opt-in Plaintiff (90 days from the date of the opt-in to the case). -- Dispositive motions Any dispositive motions shall be filed by May 29, 2022 or 120 days after the last opt-in Plaintiff files her consent form -- whichever is later. -- Expert testimony Primary expert reports must be produced by November 30, 2021. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by December 31, 2021. If the expert is specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert is not specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. -- Settlement Plaintiff will make a settlement demand within 90 days of the Court's ruling on conditional certification. Defendants will respond within 30 days. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. This matter is referred to a settlement conference in March 2022. The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator for a settlement conference in the month following the settlement demand. This is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. This action seeks class certification for the Chapter 4111 claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and conditional collective action certification pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. Plaintiffs set forth claims of failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of their unpaid wages, liquidated damages, an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs against Defendants. The Defendants deny all claims and has asserted affirmative defenses. There is a jury demand. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uPfBqa at no extra charge.[CC] BUTTERBALL LLC: Mohr Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butterball, LLC. The case is styled as Douglas Mohr, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Butterball, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02163-PKH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 5, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. Butterball -- https://www.butterball.com/ -- is a brand of turkey and other poultry products produced by Butterball LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Burks, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 255-7577 Fax: (501) 222-3027 Email: chris@wh.law CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Dismisses Bell Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 28, 2021, that the class action suit entitled, Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No.1:20-cv-461, has been dismissed and the court entered a final judgment in favor of the Company and certain other defendants dismissing the case without prejudice. On April 30, 2020, the Company was named as one of several defendants in Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case No.1:20-cv-461, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The defendants include numerous grocery stores, retailers, producers, and farms. Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the DTPA by allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company and other defendants from selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On December 1, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United States magistrate judge. On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to the court that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 20, 2021, the court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety and granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint; thereafter, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the Company and certain other defendants dismissing the case without prejudice. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The Company operates through the segment of production, grading, packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi. CALIFORNIA: Thomas Prisoner Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff v. J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P. (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion that the action proceed as a class action. The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed the civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. The Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having reviewed the file, Judge Mueller finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, Judge Mueller adopted in full the findings and recommendations filed June 29, 2021. She denied the Plaintiff's motion that the action proceed as a class action. The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings based on the Plaintiff's individual claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/aws9yypt from Leagle.com. CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that CarMax Superstores California, LLC, continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Joshua Sabanovich. On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and non-exempt employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage; provide meal periods and rest breaks; pay statutory/contractual wages; reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claims. The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the Sabanovich lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. CARMAX INC: Unit Facing Bendure & Miller Putative Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, is facing putative class action suits initiated by Daniel Bendure and Jordon Miller, respectively. CarMax entities are defendants in three proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to non-exempt CarMax employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks; pay statutory or contractual wages; reimburse for work-related expenses; and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. Two of these claims have been filed in court, whereas one has yet to be filed in court. On July 9, 2021, Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. On August 12, 2021, Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. The Miller lawsuit also seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. On August 3, 2021, Charles Walker filed a notice with the California Labor Workforce Development Agency, which is a prerequisite to filing a PAGA action in court. To date, Walker has not yet filed a lawsuit. CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters." CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss FL Consolidated Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit headed by the New England Carpenters Pension and Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and Annuity Fund, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is pending. As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action complaint with new lead plaintiffs, the New England Carpenters Pension and Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and Annuity Fund, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 15, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 2, 2021 and on August 6, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss. Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America, United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates hotels and lodges. CARNIVAL CORP: COVID-19 Exposure Related Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend purported class action suits related to exposure to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard by guests from Ruby Princess, Diamond Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess, Costa Luminosa or Zaandam. As of September 22, 2021, ten purported class actions have been brought by former guests from Ruby Princess, Diamond Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess, Costa Luminosa or Zaandam in several U.S. federal courts and in the Federal Court of Australia. These actions include tort claims based on a variety of theories, including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn, physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard. As of September 22, 2021, five of these class actions have either been settled individually or had their class allegations dismissed by the courts. These actions were settled for immaterial amounts. All COVID-19 actions seek monetary damages and most seek additional punitive damages in unspecified amounts. Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America, United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates hotels and lodges. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Thomas Sues Over Review Nurses' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- DANA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04099-CAP (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a concurrent review nurse from May 2019. Centene Management Company, LLC is a managed care company, with its primary place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. Regan Keebaugh, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com regan@decaturlegal.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Felder Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SHERRAINE FELDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01569 (M.D. Fla., September 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an alternative investment senior specialist from approximately January 7, 2019 to October 9, 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff for the time it took to log into the Defendant's computer and phone system prior to beginning work, or to log out at the end of the shift. Although the Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a work week, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is an American multinational financial services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 220-4000 Fax: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com cgray@fgbolaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Starling TCPA Suit Goes to D. Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. FBT-cv21-6109429-S, was removed from the Fairfield Judicial District of the State of Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on October 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01323-VAB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications and mass media company, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian E. Moran, Esq. Trevor L. Bradley, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 1055 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 462-7500 Facsimile: (203) 462-7599 E-mail: bmoran@rc.com tbradley@rc.com - and – Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com mkeilson@kcozlaw.com CHELAN COUNTY, WA: Taxpayers' Claims Dismissal in Sifferman Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PHILIP EDWARD SIFFERMAN; BRUCE PENOSKE and RAELYN PENOSKE, husband and wife; STEVEN R. RAMELS and JACQUELINE J. RAMELS, husband and wife; MICHAEL F. LASS and DIANE E. LASS, husband and wife, THOMAS H. JANSEN and SHARON L. JANSEN, husband and wife, and PATRICK W. FRENCH; and PARADISE LAKE HOUSE LLC, Appellants v. CHELAN COUNTY and its TREASURER, DAVID GRIFFITHS; STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents, Case No. 54514-4-II (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, affirms the trial court's orders dismissing the taxpayers' claims on summary judgment. Background The case involves the transfer of interests in vacation homes constructed on leased land held in trust by the United States government on behalf of a Native American family. Appellants Philip Sifferman, Bruce and Raelyn Penoske, Steven and Jacqueline Ramels, Michael and Diane Lass, Thomas and Sharon Jansen, Patrick French, and Paradise Lake House LLC (collectively taxpayers) paid a real estate excise tax (REET) when they assigned their interests in subleased lots and the vacation homes constructed thereon to new sublessees. None of the parties involved in the transfer were members of the Native American family for whom the land was allotted. The taxpayers filed a suit challenging imposition of the REET on their transactions on various grounds, naming both the Department of Revenue and Chelan County (collectively DOR) as Defendants. Wapato Point, located on the shorelines of Lake Chelan in Chelan County, is a segment of land that was allotted to Peter Wapato or Que-til-qua-soon by the United States Government under the original Indian trust allotment, Moses Agreement No. 10. The allotted land is held in trust by the United States on behalf of the Wapato family and is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1976, members of the Wapato family entered into a lease agreement with Wapato Point Resources, Inc. The parties envisioned that Wapato Point Resources would operate a resort complex on the premises comprised of motels, condominiums, and leased lots. Third parties would then sublease the condominiums or unimproved lots from Wapato Point Resources. Wright-Wapato, Inc. has since assumed responsibility over Wapato Point Resources' role as lessee under the lease agreement with the Wapato family. At present, the resort is comprised often separate entities called "associations," that include time-share condominium associations, full-share private residents associations, and full-share condominium associations. Taxpayers Sifferman, the Ramels, and the Penoskes entered into real estate transactions in which they assigned their respective subleases and the improvements constructed thereon to their successors in interest. On the REET affidavit forms, Sifferman, the Ramels, and the Penoskes each listed a "Taxable Selling Price" for their sublease and improvements that was equivalent to the "Gross Selling Price." The REET is calculated based on the taxable selling price listed on the REET affidavit. Therefore, Sifferman, the Ramels, and the Penoskes paid their respective REETs at a rate of 1.78% of the total gross selling price for their leasehold properties. Taxpayers Michael and Diane Lass, Thomas and Sharon Jansen, and Patrick French (the Lass owners), and Paradise Lake House LLC also entered into real estate transactions in which they assigned their subleases and the improvements constructed thereon to their successors in interest. However, unlike Sifferman, the Ramels, and the Penoskes, the Lass owners and Paradise Lake House LLC listed the "Taxable Selling Price" for their respective leasehold interests at half of the "Gross Selling Price." Id. at 105-06. Consequently, the Lass owners and Paradise Lake House LLC paid REETs at a rate of 1.78% based on half the gross selling price for their leasehold properties and not the total gross selling price. In addition to the REET, each taxpayer paid a fee of 3.5% of the transaction price of their sublease transfer or assignment as required under the master lease agreement to Wright-Wapato. The fee is based on gross receipts of the sale and is paid to the beneficiaries of the Wapato family members who signed the master lease agreement as lessors of the Wapato Point trust allotment. Wright-Wapato collects the fee upon sale of a leasehold interest and remits the payment to the Wapato family beneficiaries. The improvements on the taxpayers' subleased properties were private residences rather than condominium units. Therefore, each taxpayer transferred or assigned a sublease to a full-share private residence as opposed to a time-share condominium unit. The taxpayers are not members of the Wapato family, and none of the taxpayers identified themselves as members of a Native American tribe. The taxpayers filed suit naming Chelan County and the Washington Department of Revenue as defendants and alleging that the REET they paid on transfers of their sublease properties on Native American land was an unlawful and unconstitutional tax. The complaint described the taxpayers' claims as arising under RCW 82.32.1504 and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), ch. 7.24 RCW. In addition to seeking declaratory relief resolving whether the REET may be applied to transfers of subleases on Native American land, the taxpayers also requested that the trial court order the county and the State to refund the taxpayers for the alleged unlawfully assessed tax. The complaint further included a request that the trial court certify a class of similarly situated and unnamed taxpayers under CR 23(b). DOR moved to dismiss the class action refund claims, arguing that a claim for a refund of a REET that has already been paid falls within the exclusive scope of RCW 82.32.180.5 DOR asserted that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 128 Wn.2d 40, 905 P.2d 338 (1995), a class action claim for an excise tax refund under RCW 82.32.180 cannot proceed. The taxpayers responded that their causes of action arise under the UDJA and RCW 82.32.150 because they contest the validity of the tax imposed under the circumstances and did not merely seek a refund. The trial court agreed with DOR and, without considering certification of the putative class under CR 23(b), granted DOR's motion to strike the taxpayers' class action refund claims with prejudice. Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment, agreeing that there were no disputes of material fact and that the issues before the court pertained solely to matters of law. DOR argued that the REET was properly imposed because the transaction met the statutory definition of a sale, federal law does not preempt imposition of the REET, and the taxpayers failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating eligibility for a refund under RCW 82.32.180. The taxpayers argued that they were entitled to summary judgment in their favor because the REET could only apply to the value of improvements on their lots rather than to the entire consideration paid for the sublease transfer, federal law preempts the REET, and imposition of the REET under the circumstances was unconstitutional. The taxpayers reasserted that their claims did not fall within RCW 82.32.180 and so they were not bound by that statute's procedural requirements. Instead, because they sought to invalidate the tax as applied under the circumstances, their claims were for declaratory relief and could proceed under RCW 82.32.150 and the UDJA. The trial court granted DOR's motion for summary judgment, denied the taxpayers' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the taxpayers' claims with prejudice. The taxpayers appeal the trial court's order dismissing their class action refund claims, and the trial court's order granting DOR's motion for summary judgment and denying their motion for summary judgment. The taxpayers appeal from the trial court's order dismissing their class action refund claims, dismissing their motion for summary judgment, and granting DOR's motion for mummy judgment. They argue that (1) they are not obligated to meet the requirements in RCW 82.32.180 to obtain a refund of the tax they paid because their claims arise under the UDJA. 7.24 RCW and RCW 82.32.150, (2) the amount of tax they paid was incorrect under state law, (3) federal law preempts imposition of the REET on transfers of subleases on Native American land, (4) imposition of the REET violated their rights to due process arising under the Washington and United States Constitutions, and (5) the trial court erred in dismissing their class action claims. Discussion I. Nature of the Taxpayers' Claims The taxpayers contend that although they requested a refund of the REET they paid on transfers of their subleases and improvements, their claims do not arise under RCW 82.32.180, which is the statute that sets forth the process for seeking a refund of an excise tax such as the REET. Rather, the taxpayers assert that refund actions contemplated under RCW 82.32.180 involve computational errors, claims of entitlement to an exemption, or similar issues. Because the taxpayers broadly challenge the lawfulness or validity of the REET as applied to them, and they seek declaratory relief in addition to a refund, they argue that their claims fall within the scope of the UDJA and RCW 82.32.150. DOR responds that the taxpayers cannot raise their claims under the UDJA because the legislature set forth specific procedures for contesting the imposition of a tax under RCW 82.32.180 and limited the availability of equitable remedies in RCW 82.32.150. In addition, DOR contends that declaratory relief is inappropriate in circumstances where, as in the case, an adequate remedy has been specifically delineated by the legislature to resolve a claim. DOR argues further that the taxpayers cannot obtain a refund of the REET under RCW 82.32.150 because the unambiguous language of the statute only provides for injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that the taxpayers' claims are refund claims within the scope of RCW 82.32.180. It opines that the taxpayers' claims fall solely within the scope of RCW 82.32.180 because they seek a refund of taxes already paid and declaratory relief under the UDJA would be an inappropriate remedy under the circumstances. Accordingly, the taxpayers have the burden of proving that the amount of tax they paid was incorrect, and they have the burden of proving the correct amount of the tax owed. II. Entitlement to a Refund Under Washington Law The taxpayers acknowledge that a REET may be imposed on the value of improvements transferred on leased land, but they contend that because the values of the taxpayers' improvements are not entered on the county assessor's rolls, a REET cannot be imposed on their transactions. Relying on a letter from DOR regarding other properties on Wapato Point, the taxpayers argue that at minimum, Sifferman, the Ravels, and the Penoskes are entitled to a 50% refund because their REET payments were improperly based on 100% of the gross selling price of their transfers. DOR responds that the taxpayers did not meet their burden under RCW 82.32.180 of establishing the correct amount of tax that they owed, and summary judgment dismissal of their refund claims was proper. DOR asserts that the fact that the value of the taxpayers' improvements was not listed on county assessor's rolls does not exempt the taxpayers from their REET obligation. Moreover, to the extent that DOR's letter provides any authority in resolving this issue, DOR argues that the instructions in the letter are limited to time-share units and do not apply to the full-share residences at issue in the case. The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that the taxpayers have not satisfied their burden of proving the correct amount of tax that they owe under RCW 82.32.180 to qualify for a refund. It explains that in a refund claim under RCW 82.32.180, taxpayers have an affirmative burden of establishing the correct amount of tax owed. In the case, the taxpayers did not present any evidence demonstrating the correct values of the interest transferred in their individual improvements or that such a value would be impossible to determine. The fact that the statutes, regulations, and REET affidavit do not specify the method for calculating the value of taxpayers' particular improvements does not entitle the taxpayers to a refund under RCW 82.32.180. And in so arguing, the taxpayers improperly displace their burden of establishing the correct amount of tax owed when seeking a refund. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the taxpayers' state-law-based claims for a refund on summary judgment. III. Federal Preemption The taxpayers assert that Chelan County lacked authority to impose the REET on their sublease transfers of improvements on Indian land because federal law preempts imposition of the tax. The taxpayers argue that the REET at issue was expressly preempted under 25 U.S.C. Section 5108. They contend further that although the issue is conclusively resolved under express preemption and we need not consider implicit preemption, the tax is also implicitly preempted under the balancing test announced in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Brucker, 448 U.S. 136, 142, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1980) (Bracker). DOR argues that Section 5108 is inapplicable and that the REET is not expressly preempted by federal law. It contends that even if Section 5108 broadly applies, the REET is not expressly preempted because the tax is allowed under that statute. With regard to implicit preemption, DOR argues that the Bracker balancing test should not be invoked in transactions involving non-Indian individuals on non-reservation lands. However, even if the Bracker balancing test can be considered under the circumstances, DOR asserts that the REET is not implicitly preempted. The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that Section 5108 does not apply to this case and that the REET is thus not explicitly preempted under federal law. It must therefore consider whether the REET is implicitly preempted. Contrary to DOR's assertion, the balancing analysis in Bracker applies to the allotted trust land involved in the case even if that land is not technically considered a reservation. On weighing the relevant interests under Bracker, the REET imposed on the real estate transactions involved in the case is not implicitly preempted. IV. Due Process The taxpayers argue that in imposing a REET as a condition to recording their transactions, the county violated their state and federal due process rights. In support, the taxpayers rely exclusively on State ex rel. Baldwin v. Moore, 7 Wn. 173, 34 P. 461 (1893). DOR responds that Baldwin is inapplicable, and that requiring payment of a REET as a condition to recording the assignment of the subleases does not violate due process. The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR. It opines that the legislature set forth several avenues by which a taxpayer can contest the imposition of an excise tax in RCW 82.32.150,160,10 170,11 and .180. In approving the excise tax refund procedures in RCW 82.32.170 and .180 against a due process challenge, the supreme court in Peters v. Sjoholm, 95 Wn.2d 871, 877, 631 P.2d 937 (1981) held that "it is constitutionally sound to postpone the opportunity for a hearing until after the payment of the delinquent taxes." Therefore, Baldwin is distinguishable and the requirement that taxpayers pay a tax prior to challenging the validity of the assessment does not violate the taxpayers' rights to due process. V. Dismissal of Class Action Refund Claims The taxpayers assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their class action claims because it disregarded their causes of action seeking declaratory relief and improperly limited its focus to ch. 82.32 RCW. Because the REET as imposed in this case was a valid tax, the Court of Appeals need not consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing the taxpayers' class action claims. The Court of Appeals' decision on the substantive issue renders this determination unnecessary. Conclusion The Court of Appeals holds that (1) the taxpayers' claims arise under RCW 82.32.180 and that they cannot challenge imposition of the REET as applied to them under either RCW 82.32.150 or the UDJA. It further holds that (2) the taxpayers did not meet their burden of establishing the correct amount of tax owed under state law, (3) federal law does not preempt imposition of the REET, (4) conditioning recording of the taxpayers' real estate transaction on payment of the REET does not violate constitutional rights to due process, and (5) because the tax was a valid tax, it need not address whether the trial court erred in dismissing the taxpayers' class action claims. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's orders dismissing the taxpayers' claims on summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4zzzetmf from Leagle.com. Frank Raymond Siderius -- franks@sidlon.com -- Siderius Lonergan & Martin LLP, 500 Union St., Ste. 847, in Seattle, Washington 98101-2394, Counsel for the Appellant(s). Susan E Hinkle, Chelan County Prosecutor's Office, Po Box 2596, in Wenatchee, Washington 98807-2596, Cameron Gordon Comfort, Atty. Generals Ofc/Revenue & Finance Div., Po Box 40123, in Olympia, Washington 98504-0123, David M. Hankins, Atty. Generals Ofc/Revenue Division, 7141 Cleanwater Drive Sw, in Olympia, Washington 98504-0123, Counsel for the Respondent(s). CONNIE'S DELI: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Iris Janeth Mejia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CONNIE'S DELI FOOD INC. (D/B/A CONNIE'S DELI), and CONCEPCION MENDOZA, Case No. 1:21-cv-08182 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2021), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, griller, food preparer and porter at the deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Connie's Deli."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Ford Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN MICHAEL FORD, individually and on for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-03099 (S.D. Tex., September 23, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wage and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a safety consultant from approximately September 2018 until December 2019. The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week while he was employed by the ConocoPhillips. He typically worked more than 80 hours a week. However, the Defendant misclassified him as an independent contractor. As a result, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only paid a day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked, says the Plaintiff. ConocoPhillips Company is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Moses Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVEN MOSES, STARAISHA MORRIS, DWAYNE DALE, ISMAIYL JONES, AYANNA BEACHAM, ANDRE MURRAY, VICTOR BALLAST, and LUIS SIMONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, LLC, GRIFFIN SECURITY SERVICES, SMITH, WINSTON SMITH, ANDREW MUNIZ, and AARON MUNIZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Plaintiffs' claims for New York Labor Law ("NYLL") violations, breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (the Third through Eleventh Causes of Action in the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC")) as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action on behalf of a class (the "Class") defined as: "all persons employed by the Defendants at any time from February 9, 2012 to the present (the "Class Period") who worked as flaggers at any Con Ed work site in the state of New York (the "Class Members"); 2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as representatives for the Class and counsel for the Plaintiffs as Class Counsel; and 3. authorizing the Proposed Class Representatives to send notice to Class Members. Consolidated Edison provides energy-related products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iGdX5v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Kate McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4699 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com mcguire@whafh.com - and - Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 16503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 - and - George T. Peters, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS, PLLC George T. Peters (GP 2661) 2510 Valentine Avenue, 3rd Floor Bronx, NY 10458 Telephone: (929) 374-1200 E-mail: g.peters@myattys1.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Valerie Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-18120 (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one of America's leading collections agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq. THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C. 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 974-9400 Fax: (516) 345-1635 Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sherry-Lynn Demelo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Case No. 8:21-cv-02347 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is nationally licensed debt collection agency with over 600 employees dedicated to resolving accounts since 1989.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C. 585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L50 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 242-8185 Fax: (516) 414-2869 Email: jason@jtnylaw.com CRST EXPEDITED: Jensen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL ALLEN JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-594399, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 4, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-07741 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to indemnify business expenses, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, failure to pay wages without discount, and unfair competition. CRST Expedited, Inc. is a transportation and logistics services provider based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 3214 W. McGraw Street, Suite 301F Seattle, WA 98199 Telephone: (206) 288-6192 Facsimile: (206) 299-9375 E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com - and – Rebecca R. Brown, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: rbrown@scopelitis.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNDAY HINTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-JDB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge John D. Bates entered an order: 1. denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction; 2. denying without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 3. directing the parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule governing further proceedings in this matter by not later than October 14, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YrhuOd at no extra charge.[CC] EFFINGHAM COUNTY, IL: Judge to Decide Over Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Mills at Daily News reports that fourth Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Douglas L. Jarman is considering a request made in court in Effingham County court on a motion to certify a lawsuit filed last month as a class action suit. Thomas DeVore filed a lawsuit on behalf of Teutopolis Unit 50 parents Eric Pals, Jacob and Christina Thompson and Greg and Rosina Esker on Sept. 13 for their Unit 50 students, spurring an emergency 30-day temporary restraining order Sept. 15 that allows three students to be exempt from the mask mandate. DeVore said if the judge decides to allow the request made in Effingham County court, every parent and legal guardian who has a child in the Teutopolis Unit 50 school district would fall under the temporary restraining order, allowing their children to go unmasked. He said if parents want their children to wear a mask they can. DeVore said if the judge grants the motion the school district can't force anyone to wear a mask. "The class action doesn't disenfranchise parents who may want their child to wear a mask and they can continue to do whatever they want to do," DeVore said. DeVore said he has similar cases in Marion, Christian, Madison, Macoupin, Montgomery and Bond Counties. He said his cases in Montgomery County for the Hillsboro School District and Clinton County for the Carlyle School District cases both have district wide injunctions forcing the school districts not to enforce the mask mandate. He said the Bond County Unit 2 case is similar to the Teutopolis Unit 50 case, only the Bond County Unit 2 school district appealed the case to the Illinois Appellate court in Mt. Vernon. DeVore said his next step would depend upon that decision. "We really need to see what that ruling of the appellate court before we have any real appreciation on how these other cases are going to proceed," DeVore said. The attorney for Teutopolis Unit 50, Luke Feeney, declined to comment. For now, the preliminary injunction hearing on the Teutopolis Unit 50 case is set for Oct. 14 at 1 p.m. DeVore said that might change, depending on the Illinois Appellate court decision. [GN] EMOTORS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues it investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Lightning eMotors, Inc. f/k/a GigCapital3, Inc. (NYSE: ZEV, GIK) resulting from allegations that Lightning eMotors may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lightning eMotors securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2155.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Lightning eMotors' stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on May 7, 2021 following a de-SPAC transaction with GigCapital3. Then, on August 16, 2021, after the market closed, Lightning eMotors announced its second quarter 2021 financial results, reporting a net loss of $46.1 million, compared to a net loss of $2.8 million during the prior-year period. The Company also withdrew its fiscal 2021 guidance, stating that it "no longer expects to meet full year guidance" citing among other things "chassis production disruptions." On this news, Lightning eMotors' stock price fell $1.63 per share, or 16%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LLOYD WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05252-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); 2. appointing him as class representative; and 3. appointing Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as Class Counsel. Encore Capital is a global specialty finance company with operations and investments across North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oFKCfm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Bruno McDermott, Esq. Fifth Avenue Place, Suite 2700 120 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 577-5221 E-mail: dbrunomcdermott@schnader.com - and - Stephen A. Fogdall, Esq. Ira Neil Richards, Esq. Layal A. Issa, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 1600 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 751-2581 E-mail: irichards@schnader.com sfogdall@schnader.com lissa@schnader.com ENNKAR INC: Woods Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ennkar, Inc. The case is styled as Eleanora C. Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ennkar, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-01646 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ennkar, Inc. -- https://www.ennkar.com/ -- is a mortgage lender in Orange, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 19712 MacArthur Boulevard Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com EQT CORP: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC filed a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of real property owners whose rights have been violated by the unlawful conduct of EQT Corporation, the largest natural gas producer in the United States. EQT extracted and otherwise produced natural gas from the plaintiffs' real property without making required royalty payments. The complaint alleges the defendants-EQT Production Company; Rice Drilling B, LLC; Vantage Energy Appalachia LLC; and Vantage Energy Appalachia II LLC-are in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Royalty Act, in breach of quasi-contract, and have committed unjust enrichment and conversion, among other allegations. Keller Lenkner and its co-counsel, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, seek to obtain compensation for real property owners who are owed royalties as well as to prevent further violation of their property rights. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, EQT leads significant drilling and natural gas extraction operations throughout Pennsylvania. Prior to exploiting a natural gas deposit in Pennsylvania, EQT must enter into agreements with at least one owner of that deposit for the right to drill and extract natural gas from the owner's property. Pennsylvania law further requires EQT to pay royalties to all owners of the natural gas it seeks to produce, regardless of whether it has secured production rights directly from those owners. Keller Lenkner's complaint alleges that EQT systematically fails to locate, account to, and pay the owners with whom it has not directly contracted, in violation of Pennsylvania law. It further alleges that EQT has extracted natural gas from real property in which plaintiffs have an ownership interest without accounting to or paying royalties to the plaintiffs as mandated by statute. "For years, EQT has generated billions in profits by extracting natural gas beneath properties across the Commonwealth while failing to pay property owners the royalties to which they are entitled," Keller Lenkner Partner Seth Meyer said. "On behalf of our clients, we intend to hold EQT accountable." Keller Lenkner attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Meyer and Associate Alex Dravillas. Scott Hare and Anthony Gestrich of Whiteford Taylor & Preston's Pittsburgh office are co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. The case is titled Richard A. Ross and Fieldstone Ventures, LLC v. EQT Corporation et al., No. GD-21-011948, and is filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. About Keller Lenkner Keller Lenkner LLC represents plaintiffs in complex litigation matters in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm acts for clients in many types of cases, including class and mass actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation matters. Its team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the United States and former partners and associates from the country's leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the firm has secured results for more than 100,000 clients. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elettra Meeks, Joseph De La Cruz, Amber Leonard, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Case No. 4:21-cv-07727 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com FACEBOOK INC: Chides Lawyers For 'Inefficiencies' in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that lawyers for Facebook Inc questioned the number of plaintiffs' attorneys working on a prospective antitrust class action, suggesting "inefficiencies" could grow as the case moves forward. The company's legal team at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr raised its concerns in a jointly filed submission with the plaintiffs lawyers ahead of a status conference in federal court in San Jose, California. The lawsuit, filed in December 2020, alleges Facebook duped consumers about data privacy as part of the company's bid to monopolize the social media market. Wilmer Hale attorneys, including partner Sonal Mehta, said plaintiffs firms are "consistently" staffing 12 to 14 lawyers despite "only a handful speaking or participating in any way" on phone calls among counsel addressing issues in the lawsuit. Facebook said it thought it was "prudent" to raise "potential (in)efficiency of the interim class counsel structure." Facebook also said "plaintiffs have had multiple lawyers sending emails to Facebook on the same subject." Still, the company also said it "recognizes that it does not have a role" in how the plaintiffs' lawyers devise their responsibilities.[GN] FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks to Certify Class of Caregivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gwendoline Aboah and Tania Stewart, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc d/b/a BrightStar Care of Fairfield & Southbury, and Peter R. Moore, Case No. 3:20-cv-00763-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of one hundred and thirty-one or more class members, ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b); 2. designating them as Class Representatives; and 3. designating their counsel, the Law Office of Nitor V. Egbarin, LLC, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs propose the following definition of the class they seek to represent: "All Caregivers or Home Health Aides Defendants employed in Connecticut during the period of May 15, 2018, until the date of final judgment in this matter who worked at least one 24-hour shift for Defendants." Fairfield Healthcare is a hospital & health care company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOsd4p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com FANEUIL INC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faneuil, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cicely Anderson, Cristal A. Ruby, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Faneuil, Inc., Insync Consulting Services, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00308614-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 22, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited." Faneuil -- http://faneuil.com/-- provide business process outsourcing to a number of sectors including healthcare, social programs, and transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210 Encinitas, CA 92024-4357 Phone: 760-942-9433 Fax: 760-452-4421 Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com FPC ALDERSON: Asplund Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANETTE M. ASPLUND v. WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00541 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire population of over 650 inmates, the suit says. The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death, constituting irreparable harm. The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oHlTaw at no extra charge.[CC] FPC ALDERSON: Barker Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BELINDA BARKER v. WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00528 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire population of over 650 inmates, the suit says. The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death, constituting irreparable harm. The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DgRfso at no extra charge.[CC] FPC ALDERSON: Belcher Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA S. BELCHER v. WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00529 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire population of over 650 inmates, the suit says. The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death, constituting irreparable harm. The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mOtdP5 at no extra charge.[CC] FPC ALDERSON: Moore Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Megan Moore v. Warden Carver and BOP Director Carvajal, Case No. 1:21-cv-00530 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire population of over 650 inmates, the suit says. The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death, constituting irreparable harm. The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3akXQFC at no extra charge.[CC] FPC ALDERSON: Salazar Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE SALAZAR v. WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00531 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire population of over 650 inmates, the suit says. The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death, constituting irreparable harm. The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOjkrq at no extra charge.[CC] GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- NAJEE SLADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; GEODIS USA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV387276 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay, failure to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages at the correct rate, failure to pay double time wages at the correct rate, failure to pay overtime and/or double time wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, and failure to pay all final wages following separation of employment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Geodis Logistics, LLC is a transport and logistics company based in Tennessee. Geodis USA, LLC is a logistics service provider headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com GERON CORPORATION: Junge Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA JUNGE and RICHARD JUNGE, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated investors, v. GERON CORPORATION and JOHN A. SCARLETT, Case No. 3:20-cv-00547-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Class defined as: "All persons who purchased Geron common stock during the period from March 19, 2018 to September 26, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" 2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Class Counsel. The action asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Geron Corp. and John A. Scarlett, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the Company's board of directors. During the Class Period (March 19, 2018 through September 26, 2018), the Defendants made positive statements about the study data results of a Phase 2 clinical study (the IMbark study) -- that the study's median overall survival, a secondary endpoint, suggested a potential benefit -- while failing to disclose negative study data results of the Imbark study, namely that the IMbark study data was disappointing concerning one of the study's two primary endpoints, total symptom score ("TSS"), and that there were no complete remissions observed in the IMbark study data, in contrast to an earlier imetelstat pilot study. The Defendants' materially misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of Geron common stock, and caused the stock price to plummet when the truth was eventually revealed at the end of the Class Period, the lawsuit says. Geron Corporation is a biotechnology company located in Foster City, California, which specializes in developing and commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that inhibit telomerase. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3agOTNU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com rkaplan@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com GOTHAM DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' Overtime, Torres Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOTHAM DRYWALL INC. and JOHN FITZPATRICK, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05536 (E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to furnish a proper wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from March 1, 2019 until April 21, 2021. Gotham Drywall Inc. is a construction and drywall installation company based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 H&M HENNES: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVEN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L.P., ALYSE DIGILDO, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01217029-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01611 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay timely wages, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, miscalculated overtime compensation, failure to provide rest periods, and failure to provide meal periods. H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. is a company that retails apparels and cosmetic products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew L. Satenberg, Esq. Catherine Rose Noble, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: ASatenberg@manatt.com CNoble@manatt.com HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Judge Granted Dismissals of RICO Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver at journalnow.com reports that a federal judge in Florida significantly reduced - but didn't eliminate - the legal exposure facing Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. in a potential $1 billion class-action lawsuit filed in September 2017. Judge Marcia Cooke, with the Southern District of Florida, granted dismissals of certain claims in the lawsuit, but gave plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint. Herbalife could not be immediately reached for comment on the ruling. The company has more than 750 employees at its East Coast production plant in eastern Winston-Salem. At least eight plaintiffs, comprised of Herbalife distributors, made claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO, related to Herbalife live sales events. The current complaint involves six plaintiffs. Cooke wrote in his 14-page ruling that the plaintiffs failed "to meet the higher pleading standards required for civil RICO cases." "Due to similar pleading deficiencies, most of plaintiffs' state law claims also fail." "Finally, the court dismisses without prejudice the civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims for failing to meet basic pleading requirements." The plaintiffs have sought damages from Herbalife and at least 43 individual defendants identified as "top distributors" in court documents and considered as "the highest earners and collaborators" with the company. The focus of the complaint is the "Circle of Success" events that the plaintiffs claim was not touched on by the Federal Trade Commission in its $200 million settlement with Herbalife related to its business practices. The complaint says there could be thousands of potential class-action plaintiffs who have spent thousands of dollars attending the Circle of Success events and "have received no benefit from doing so, despite defendants' constant barrage of guarantees to the contrary." In August 2018, a judge ruled to allow the shifting of four plaintiffs from a Florida court to Herbalife's home state of California. That judge agreed that four of the plaintiffs are required to enter arbitration with Herbalife since they signed a distributor agreement with a valid arbitration clause. That ended the legal case in Florida. Herbalife and the individual defendants said in their motions that the plaintiffs overall have failed to state an actionable claim. Both groups also say some plaintiffs agreed to participate in a $15 million class-action settlement in May 2015 involving Herbalife vs. five former distributors who claimed the company operates a pyramid scheme and misled participants about how much money they realistically could make. Cooke ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants' acts "proximately caused them injury." [GN] HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Loses Rule 23 Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janet Tillman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Highland Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-02563-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order denying the Plaintiff Tillman's motion to certify class of: "All owners of real property in Cheraw, South Carolina which abut the Surface Water Drainage Corridor and/or located within the Floodplain along said Surface Water Drainage Corridor, which have been impacted by PCB contamination emanating from the Highland Industries Plant Site." The Court said "It remains Plaintiff's burden to establish that certification of the issues is superior to "other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiff has not done that. It remains Plaintiff's burden to establish all elements of certification, including superiority. The court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has met her burden in that regard." The Plaintiff is a property owner in Cheraw, South Carolina. Her property "borders" property now owned by Defendant. The Defendant's real property surrounds an industrial plant, which the Defendant currently operates to manufacture and produce industrial fabric (the "Plant Site"). Prior to 1988, Burlington Industries, Inc. owned the Plant Site, as well as additional real property not purchased by Defendant. During Burlington's ownership of the Plant Site, it operated two divisions: (1) industrial fabrics and (2) fiberglass. In 1988, the Defendant purchased the Plant Site and Burlington's industrial fabric business. The Defendant did not purchase the fiberglass business or the sludge drying beds. It purchased a portion of the Western Ditch, but not its entirety. This lawsuit involves the alleged polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCB") contamination of certain properties in areas surrounding the Plant Site. In that regard, it is undisputed that Burlington, not Defendant, used PCBs in the process of manufacturing fiberglass. The Plaintiff contends that Burlington's fiberglass operations resulted in disposal of PCBs in the sludge drying beds and discharge of PCBs into an open ditch. Further, the Plaintiff claims that at the time Defendant purchased the Plant Site, it was "seriously contaminated with high concentrations of PCBs." The Plaintiff further claims that those PCBs have contaminated her property. With respect to Defendant's liability, the Plaintiff contends that Defendant knew or should have known that the property it acquired was seriously contaminated at the time of purchase, it "used and operated a stormwater discharge pipe" that allowed movement of contaminates. The Plaintiff brought the instant action, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, 1 against Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas for Chesterfield County, alleging four causes of action: (1) negligence/recklessness; (2) trespass; (3) nuisance; (4) injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AdfG8c at no extra charge.[CC] HOTELMACHER LLC: Casilao Suit Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADELYN CASILAO, HARRY LINCUNA, and ALLAN GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HOTELMACHER LLC, dba HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00800-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. -- The class as proposed in the Motion is certified for Plaintiffs' TVPA and breach of contract claims. -- Madelyn Casilao, Harry Lincuna and Allan Garcia shall serve as representatives of the class. -- As directed, Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a motion for appointment of class counsel within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 2. The Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude reports and opinions of Luis C. DeBaca; and the plaintiff's motion to strike the expert report and testimony of Greg H. Bristol and memorandum in support of their motion are denied. 3. The following Motions are denied as moot: Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' exhibit list; Plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike Defendants' exhibit list; and Defendants' combined motion in Limine. 4. Defendant Apex USA, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling. Hotelmacher is in the hotels and motels business. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCQnYB at no extra charge.[CC] HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Claims in Chavez Suit Tossed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN J. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff v. HUHTAMAKI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01073-ODW (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismisses the Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice and the class claims without prejudice. Background Plaintiff Chavez applies to voluntarily dismiss his individual and class claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant opposes dismissal of Chavez's individual claims without prejudice and argues in the alternative that if dismissal is without prejudice, the Court should condition dismissal on Chavez's payment of Huhtamaki's fees and costs in this litigation. On June 5, 2019, Chavez initiated the putative class action in state court. Huhtamaki removed the action to the Court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Chavez did not move for class certification and instead moved to remand. On Jan. 14, 2020, the Court granted Chavez's motion and remanded the case to state court based on his representations that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional amount. In December 2019, before the Court ruled on the remand motion, Chavez filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") action against Huhtamaki in state court based on the same Labor Code violations alleged; that PAGA-only case remains stayed pending adjudication of the action. On Jan. 7, 2021, Huhtamaki deposed Chavez in the action while in state court and discovered that, in his federal remand motion, Chavez had significantly underestimated the number of overtime hours he worked and meal periods he missed. Based on this new information, Huhtamaki removed the case again and it was again assigned to the Court. On July 2, 2021, after briefing from the parties on the issue, the Court found Chavez to be time-barred from pursuing class certification because he failed to move for class certification at any reasonable time since filing the complaint with no adequate justification for the delay. Left with only his individual claims, Chavez now seeks dismissal without prejudice. Discussion Judge Wright finds it appropriate to allow dismissal, but he says dismissal of Chavez's individual claims should be with prejudice and not conditioned on payment of Huhtamaki's fees. Judge Wright must first consider whether to allow the dismissal at all. Huhtamaki does not oppose dismissal entirely but rather asks the Court to dismiss Chavez's individual claims with prejudice. As Huhtamaki does not oppose this argument, Judge Wright focuses on legal prejudice and possible conditions. A. Whether Dismissal Should be Without Prejudice Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice unless the order dismissing the case states otherwise. Whether to allow dismissal with or without prejudice is discretionary with the court, and it may order the dismissal to be with prejudice where it would be inequitable or prejudicial to defendant to allow plaintiff to refile the action." Courts consider the following factors: "(1) the defendant's effort and expense involved in preparing for trial, (2) excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, and (3) insufficient explanation of the need to take a dismissal." First, regarding Huhtamaki's effort and expense involved in preparing for trial, Huhtamaki states it has spent $267,062 in defending this case over the last two years. Nothing in the record indicates a lack of diligence on Huhtamaki's part. Thus, this factor supports dismissal with prejudice. Second, Judge Wright considers any excessive delay or lack of diligence on Chavez's part in prosecuting the action. He holds that Chavez's unreasonable delay in seeking to certify a class and his underestimations in the motion to remand support dismissal with prejudice. Third, Judge Wright finds Chavez's explanation for needing dismissal sufficient, as it is reasonable that Chavez does not want to pursue his individual claims without the class claims. On balance, the factors favor dismissal with prejudice. B. Whether Dismissal Should be Conditional A court may condition "the dismissal without prejudice upon the payment of appropriate costs and attorney fees" to protect a defendant's interest in having to relitigate the matter. Although courts often award defendants costs and attorney fees when granting a plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), such an award is improper when the dismissal is with prejudice." Huhtamaki requests that, if the Court dismisses Chavez's claims without prejudice, dismissal be conditioned on Chavez paying Huhtamaki's fees and costs. However, as Judge Wright finds dismissal of Chavez's individual claims with prejudice proper, an award of attorneys' fees is unnecessary to protect Huhtamaki's interest. Judge Wright thus declines to condition the dismissal with prejudice upon payment of attorneys' fees. Conclusion For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright grants Chavez's Application. She dismisses Chavez's individual claims with prejudice and dismisses the class claims without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5vpf4vnx from Leagle.com. HURRICANE EXPRESS: Ct. Enters Class Status Sched Order in Turpin ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Turpin v. Hurricane Express, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00544-JED-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Jan. 17, 2022 Conditional certifiation motion 2. Feb. 16, 2022 Response to condictional motion (30 days after filing motion) 3. March. 3, 2022 Reply to Conditional Certicication Motion (15 days after response) 4. April 26, 2022 Hearing on conditional certification motion at 9:30 a.m. 5. June 6, 2022 Expert witness disclosure 6. July 15, 2022 Rebuttal expert witness disclosure 7. Aug. 29, 2022 Class certification discovery cutoff 8. Sept. 26, 2022 Motion for class certification 9. Nov. 28, 2022 Response to motion for class certification 10. Dec. 13, 2022 Reply to motion for class certification 11. Dec. 28, 2022 Hearing on motion for class certification at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FtnSFi at no extra charge.[CC] HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ: HYZN, HYZNW, DCRB, DCRBW, DCRBU) between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hyzon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Hyzon class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2165.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2165.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] IFINEX INC: Class Suit Over Crypto Market Manipulation Discussed ---------------------------------------------------------------- theblockcrypto.com reports that a judge has thrown out about half of the claims in a class-action lawsuit alleging that exchanges Bitfinex, Bittrex and Poloniex, stablecoin operator Tether and others manipulated crypto markets. In June of 2020, a group of traders and trading firms grouped up to file an amended complaint against the exchanges in the Southern District Court of New York. The lawsuit alleged the group of exchanges utilized Tether to manipulate the crypto markets, having Tether issue USDT to itself without dollar-backing and then selling the newly issued tokens to its sister company Bitfinex. The filing had been amended to include Bittrex and Poloniex, claiming the exchanges knew Bitfinex was transferring large amounts of unbacked USDT onto their platforms. That lawsuit sought "reasonable costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees" and a trial by jury to hammer out those claims. Now, according to an order dated Sept. 28, Judge Katherine Polk Failla has preserved some of those claims to be litigated and dismissed others. What goes Perhaps most impactfully, the plaintiffs filed claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act, which aims to eradicate organized crime. The traders made multiple claims under this act, all of which were dismissed by Failla, meaning Bitfinex and fellow defendants won't face claims of racketeering or scrutiny as a possible organized crime enterprise. Tether touted the decision, announcing that the Court dismissed "half of the class action plaintiffs' claims against Tether and Bitfinex, including all of their RICO claims." Indeed, the order dismissed six claims, upheld five claims and partially dismissed one. "With half their case now dismissed, their primary expert debunked, and their lead law firm embroiled in its own internecine war-with its partners and former partners trading allegations of fraud and ethics violations-this case is doomed. This is unsurprising given that plaintiffs' claims are meritless," said the firm's statement. What stays The exchanges will still have to face a myriad of claims from the plaintiffs. Failla decided that the traders adequately alleged possible market manipulation, and that serves as the catalyst for further monopoly claims. The plaintiffs claim that buying a manipulated asset and losing money is enough to constitute an antitrust injury. Antitrust issues are litigated under the Sherman Act, which safeguards against monopolies. Bitfinex and fellow defendants argued that price manipulation that doesn't result in a clearly defined loss as a result of manipulation doesn't fall under monopolistic practices under this law. Failla didn't fully agree with either take, but she sustained the claim. "While the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' argument that merely purchasing an item in a market subject to price manipulation necessarily suffices to demonstrate antitrust injury, it ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to establish that the price manipulation by which they claim to have been injured was the product of an anticompetitive scheme," Failla wrote in the order. Failla also concluded that the traders adequately alleged their monopolization claim against Bitfinex and Tether, but not the other defendants. The traders argued that the alleged collaboration of Bitfinex and Tether constituted a monopolistic practice since the two could manipulate supply and demand forces. To be clear, making this argument stick would require the plaintiffs to prove that Bitfinex and Tether did actually collaborate to print USDT for this reason, as Failla noted. "It remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs will be able to establish willful acquisition in discovery," said the order. "But taking the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, Plaintiffs plausibly allege the DigFinex Defendants' willful intent to acquire monopoly power." The traders wanted to include Bittrex and Poloniex in their conspiracy to monopolize claim, but Failla found there wasn't sufficient evidence to show that the exchanges might've helped the alleged Bitfinex/Tether operation. The Court didn't find evidence that there was intent to assist, and possibly knowing was not enough to uphold the claim. Through the alleged actions, defendants claimed that the exchanges conspired to restrain trade, and these violations of the Sherman Act resulted in damages against them as individuals. Failla found these claims adequately alleged as well. Defendants also claim that the alleged manipulation constituted violations of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), which safeguards against contract or swap manipulation. These claims were upheld as well. Bittrex, Poloniex and other individual defendants are also still on the hook for possible principal-agent liability and possible aiding and abetting. The traders alleged that these entities acted as agents of Bitfinex and Tether by serving as corporate officers. What comes next Tether, Bitfinex and fellow defendants must file answers to the amended complaint by October 28. Both plaintiffs and defendants will file a joint status letter with a case management proposal by Nov. 18. Bitfinex and Tether say they look forward to litigating the case and don't plan to settle on the claims that remain. "Litigation will expose this case for what it is: a clumsy attempt at a money grab, which recklessly harms the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem," said the firm's statement.[GN] IHS MARKIT: New Mexico State Investment Council Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- IHS Markit Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit captioned New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bank of America Corp., et al, 1:21-cv-00606 (D.N.M.). On June 30, 2021, a class action lawsuit captioned New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bank of America Corp., et al, 1:21-cv-00606 (D.N.M.), was filed against nine dealers, ISDA, Creditex, and IHS Markit, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the final CDS auction price used to value CDS contracts following a credit event. The complaint alleges that the defendants adopted rules or practices to limit participation in the auctions, and that the defendants exchanged competitively sensitive information relating to CDS auctions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Commodities and Exchange Act, and state tort law. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all persons or entities who, during the period of June 1, 2005 through the present, settled a credit default swap by reference to the ISDA credit default swap auction protocol or the auction process that became the ISDA credit default swap auction process." Plaintiffs seek treble damages in an unspecified amount, restitution, attorney's fees, pre- and post- judgment interest, injunctive relief, and other remedies. The deadline for IHS Markit to respond to the complaint has not yet occurred, and discovery has not yet begun. IHS Markit Ltd. provides critical information, analytics, and solutions for various industries and markets that drive economies worldwide. The Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodle Files ADA Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Bodle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-07742-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Genaro Papale, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE The Cornerstone Building 1308 Main Street, Suite 117 St. Helena, CA 94574 Phone: (707) 963-1704 Email: lgpapale@papalelaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DANIEL MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02666, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on October 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-18128-ZNQ-LHG to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of OGX branded shampoo and conditioner products. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products, with its headquarters located in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com - and – Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and – Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com JUMP START: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Teachers ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAYLOR ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUMP START ACADEMY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-03481 (W.D. La., October 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as an assistant teacher since October 2020. Jump Start Academy, LLC is an early childhood care center based in Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas S. Colligan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH F. GAAR, JR. 114 Representative Row Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 233-3185 Facsimile: (337) 233-0690 E-mail: lucas@gaarlaw.com - and – Cliff Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TRACY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, formerly RUBY INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV28764, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01702 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Equal Pay Act, the California Public Policy, and the California Labor Code including discrimination based on gender, harassment, and retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; negligent infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination; failure to pay wages; and waiting time penalties. Kaman Industrial Technologies, formerly known as Ruby Industrial Technologies, LLC, is a company that supplies machinery and equipment, with its principal place of business in Bloomfield, Connecticut. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas G. Mackey, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Thomas.mackey@jacksonlewis.com KODIAK CAKES: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY STEWART, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order: 1. sua sponte vacating the deadline to file a motion for class certification; 2. denying plaintiffs' ex parte application to extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification; and 3. denying defendant's ex parte applications to extend the deadline to file a motion class certification and to set a briefing schedule increase the page limits therefore. Kodiak provides bakery products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ahCU2m at no extra charge.[CC] KOHL'S CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Junk Hennessey Class Status Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL HENNESSEY, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. KOHL'S CORPORATION and KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-01866-DDN (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge David D. Noce entered an order that: 1. The motion of defendants' for a hearing on their motion to deny class certification is denied without prejudice. The Court will set a hearing on any specific motion, if it believes one would be helpful. 2. The motion of defendants to strike improper errata is sustained. The Court has carefully examined the suggested errata and finds that they deal with matters of substance that ought to be subjected to cross-examination. 3. The motion of defendants for oral argument on class certification briefing and to strike errata is denied as moot. The Court has ruled the motion to strike errata, above, and, if the Court believes oral argument on the class certification issue would be helpful, it will order it. 4. The motions of defendants for leave to submit supplemental authority are sustained. The Court will consider the proffered supplemental authority. 5. The motion of plaintiff to compel depositions and production of documents is denied as mooted by the rulings by the Court during the June 7, 2021 status hearing. The Court perceives from the parties' filed memoranda and hearing comments that discovery is continuing with the parties engaging in reasonable negotiation. 6. The motion of plaintiff to file under seal portions of plaintiff's reply is sustained. 7. The motions of plaintiff for leave to respond to defendant's motions for leave to file supplemental authority (Docs. are sustained. The Court will consider plaintiff's supplemental authority. 8. The consent motion of plaintiff to file portions of plaintiff's memorandum in support of class certification under seal is sustained. 9. The joint motion of the parties to modify the briefing schedule regarding the motion to strike errata is denied as moot. Kohl's is an American department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation. As of February 2013 it is the largest department store chain in the United States, with 1,158 locations, operating stores in every U.S. state except Hawaii. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fkf5oW at no extra charge.[CC] LEEFAM CLEANING: Faces Rubio Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cleaners ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA RUBIO and MARIA MACHADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEEFAM CLEANING, INC. d/b/a NU-CLEAR CLEANERS and WILSON LEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05515 (E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Ms. Rubio and Ms. Machado were employed by the Defendants as cleaners in New York from May 2007 until July 2021 and from October 2002 until July 2021, respectively. Leefam Cleaning, Inc., doing business as Nu-Clear Cleaners, is a provider of cleaning services, with its principal office located at 172 Middle Neck Road, Great Neck, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 LONGEVERON INC: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Longeveron Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 1, 2021, that the company is facing a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On September 13, 2021, the Company, and certain of its directors and officers, were named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges material misstatements in the Company's initial public offering materials in alleged violation of the federal securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during the period from our initial public offering on February 12, 2021, through August 12, 2021. Longeveron said, "We believe that these allegations are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against them. We do not intend to file further Current Reports on Form 8-K describing any additional lawsuits that may be filed that are based on allegations substantially similar to those described above." Longeveron Inc. a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing cellular therapies for aging-related and life-threatening conditions. The company is based in Miami, Florida. LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARLOS ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2103912, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01660 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to provide adequate seating, failure to pay wages within specified time period, failure to furnish an accurate itemized wage statement, failure to furnish a place of employment that is safe and healthful, and unfair competition. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a retailer of home improvement, building materials, and home appliances, headquartered in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq. Lauren M. Fischer, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com lfischer@gibsondunn.com - and – Joseph R. Rose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: jrose@gibsondunn.com MAGNA LEGAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Guynn-Neupane ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAOMI GUYNN-NEUPANE v. MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES. LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-02652-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order: 1. granting Magna's motion for summary judgment and Wilkins's motion for summary judgment; and 2. denying Ms. Guynn-Neupane's motion for class certification as moot. Magna Legal Services provides end-to-end legal support services to law firms, corporations and governmental agencies throughout the nation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at 5:19-cv-02652-VKD at no extra charge.[CC] MAINE DOC: Judge Recommends Denial of Swain Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SWAIN, et al., v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00449-JDL (D. Maine), the Hon. Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison recommended the Court to deny without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. According to the recommendation, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of more than fifty other prisoners. None of the plaintiffs, however, can assert a claim on behalf of other individuals. "The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation. By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel." As a pro se litigant, none of the plaintiffs can represent other prisoners in this court, though they may provide advice and assistance to their fellow inmates on thei legal matters. Furthermore, "a class can only be represented by counsel who is competent to do so." The Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot prevail on their motion to certify a class. The Plaintiffs' request to certify a class also fails because Plaintiffs have not otherwise satisfied the requirements for class certification, the recommendation adds. The Maine Department of Corrections is a state agency of Maine that is responsible for the direction and general administrative supervision, guidance and planning of both adult and juvenile correctional facilities and programs within the state. A copy of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uLVJV0 at no extra charge.[CC] MAPLEBEAR INC: Levine Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled STEPHEN LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (d/b/a INSTACART), Case No. 2184CV01853, was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-11617 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Massachusetts law including failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers or full-service shoppers appropriate minimum wages, failure to reimburse them for business expenses, and failure to pay them earned sick time at a rate of at least one hour for every 30 hours worked. Maplebear, Inc., doing business as Instacart, is a company that operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rohit K. Singla, Esq. Justin P. Raphael, Esq. Juliana M. Yee, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: rohit.singla@mto.com Justin.Raphael@mto.com Juliana.Yee@mto.com - and – Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: CKaczmarek@littler.com MICHAEL STINSON: Gibbs Lending Suit Wins Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE GIBBS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, v. MICHAEL STINSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge M. Hannah Lauck entered an order granting the motion for class certification as follows. 1. certifying the following class: "All individuals who resided in Virginia at the time he or she obtained any loan: (i) from Great Plains Lending, (ii) from Plain Green prior to June 1, 2016. or (iii) from MobiLoans prior to May 6, 2017, who made any payment on the loan;" and 2. apointing Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record as Class Counsel and Named Plaintiffs Stephanie Edwards, Darlene Gibbs, George Hengle, Patrick Inscho. Lawrence Mwethuku, Tamara Price, and Lula Williams as Class Representatives. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AoS2pn at no extra charge.[CC] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ELIOT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV383681, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-07774 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to reimburse business expenses and unfair competition in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Micron Technology, Inc. is an American producer of computer memory and computer data storage based in Boise, Idaho. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rick Bergstrom, Esq. Koree B. Wooley, Esq. Joshua C. Dutton, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121.3134 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: rjbergstrom@jonesday.com kbwooley@jonesday.com jdutton@jonesday.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Loses Bid to Seal Certain Docs in Province Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HELEN PROVINCE and RONALD HOWARD, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC., Intervenor, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-110 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Stephanie L. Haines of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendants' motion for leave to file certain documents under seal. The case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Helen Province and Ronald Howard against Defendants Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq., the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"), 73 P.S. Sections 2270.1 et seq., the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. Sections 201-1 et seq., and the Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"), 7 P.S. Sections 6201, et seq. On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff's filed a class action complaint, individually and on behalf of several putative classes of similarly situated individuals, asserting claims under the FDCPA and various Pennsylvania consumer protection statutes. The Defendants responded with a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. In conjunction with that motion, the Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(H) for leave to file certain documents under seal, which they assert contain confidential and proprietary information. As directed by the Court, the Defendants have forwarded to the Court for in camera review the following documents that they wish to file under seal in their entirety as exhibits to the Affidavit of Operations Manager Adam Swaninger in support of their motion to compel/motion to dismiss: (1) Purchase and Sale Agreement 2016 OneMain Fresh Accounts dated June 21, 2016 [Exhibit J]; (2) Bill of Sale dated June 28, 2016 [Exhibit K]; (3) Purchase and Sale Agreement 2016 OneMain Fresh Accounts dated March 29, 2016 [Exhibit M]; and, (4) Bill of Sale dated Dec. 19, 2016 [Exhibit N]. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion for leave to file the documents under seal. They assert that the Defendants have not established "good cause" for sealing the documents, noting that one of the Purchase and Sale Agreements already was filed on the public record in another case, and further alleging that Defendants "routinely" disclose documents similar to the Bills of Sale to the public. The Plaintiffs indicate, however, that they would not oppose the filing of the documents with certain redactions. OneMain has been granted leave to intervene for the limited purpose of asserting its position that the Defendants should be permitted to file the documents under seal. It contends that the public dissemination of the documents at issue would negatively impact their competitive standing and would affect a clearly defined and serious injury to OneMain. They also assert that the documents are irrelevant to the allegations set forth in the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a response to OneMain's memorandum disputing their allegations of harm, but reiterating that they would not oppose the redaction of portions of the documents containing terms related to "current pricing and competitive strategies." Judge Haines opines that the common law right of access "disallows the routine and perfunctory closing of judicial records," citing Avandia, 924 F.3d at 677 (citing In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d at 193-94). Moreover, she holds that "the right of access is not a mere formality -- it promotes public confidence in the judicial system'; 'diminishes possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud'; and 'provides the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness.'" For the reasons she set forth, Judge Haines finds that the Defendants' conclusory assertion that the documents contain confidential and/or proprietary information is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to documents filed in a federal court. Nor are OneMain's vague assertions of harm to its competitive standing sufficient to overcome that presumption. As a result, the Judge Haines denies the Defendants' motion for leave to file documents under seal. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dxv9v7f from Leagle.com. MIELE INC: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, and PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIELE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02890-VC (N.D. Cal.), the parties submit joint stipulation extending plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification. On March 1, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Motion and Motion 5 for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes. On April 1, 2021, the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was denied. The parties are finalizing a revised settlement agreement and the case is ready to be resolved. The Plaintiff plans to file a Motion for Class Certification. The parties stipulate and agree to continue the date on which Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification now be due on November 1, 2021. Miele is a German manufacturer of high-end domestic appliances and commercial equipment, headquartered in Gütersloh, Ostwestfalen-Lippe. A copy of the Parties motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YqPpWC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ysaks@SteinSaksLegal.com The Attorneys for the Defendant Miele, Incorporated, are: Jim D. Newman, Esq. THE HANOVER LAW OFFICE Telephone: (818) 863-8304 500 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1280 Glendale, CA 91203 E-mail: jnewman@hanover.com NADRI INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nadri, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nadri, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08226 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NADRI -- https://nadri.com/ -- designs jewelry from luxurious sterling silver, cubic zirconia, and gemstone jewelry.[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 NAPERVILLE, IL: Halgren Sues Over Covid-19 Vaccine Requirement -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HALGREN, JOHN K. STIEGLER, GIL CORTEZ, CHRIS GARON, ROBERT McCORMICK, and JOEL FOX, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees of the CITY OF NAPERVILLE v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE, and GOVERNOR JAY ROBERT PRITZKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-05039 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for requiring their employees to take a vaccine and to submit to weekly testing for COVID-19. The State of Illinois and the City of Naperville is threatening to terminate its firefighter/paramedics unless they agree to take a vaccine for the SARS-COV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, or submit to weekly testing for COVID-19 despite the fact that many paramedics impacted have already contracted COVID-19, and are therefore largely immune to it already. The implication that these heroes are somehow public health hazards is wrong, and does a disservice to them and to the health of the people in this State, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are employees of the Naperville Fire Department. The City of Naperville is a municipal corporation located in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Lubin, Esq. 8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H Skokie, IL 60077 Phone: 773 954 2608 Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and CODY McCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-0051 (S.D.W.Va.), the Court entered an order: 1. granting the joint motion to extend brief schedule; -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is now due by October 29, 2021; -- Defendants' opposition to class certification is due by November 19, 2021; and -- Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification is due by December 3, 2021; and 2. directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Nationwide Property operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDAJyu at no extra charge.[CC] NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Neonode Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit with Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA. On September 2, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode Inc. filed a purported class action lawsuit (Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company, the Board of Directors of the Company, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, related to the Company's proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2020 for the Company's 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, with respect to the Company's August 2020 private placement. On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Proceeding, but was subsequently informed by the Company that plaintiff's counsel intended to file a fee petition with respect to the Proceeding. The Company has now been served with a complaint filed by plaintiff's counsel in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to recover plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $400,000 incurred in connection with the Proceeding. The Company does not believe that plaintiff's counsel should be entitled to any fee award and currently intends to defend against or settle this matter if possible. Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and Original Design Manufacturers who embed their technology into electronic devices. NEXT LEVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA HERNANDEZ GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. NEXT LEVEL STAFFING; JUSTMAN PACKAGING & DISPLAY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV34985 (Cal. Sup. Ct., September 22, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendants to recover civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt and hourly paid employee, alleges the Defendants of failing to pay wages for all hours she and other similarly situated aggrieved employees have worked at the legal minimum wage. Specifically, the Defendants failed to compensate them for the off-the-clock duties they performed prior to the start of their shifts, and rounded down total daily hours worked at the time of their clock-in and clock-out to the nearest quarter of an hour. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay wages for overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failed to pay wages for workdays that Defendants failed to provide legally required and compliant meal periods and rest periods; and failed to pay employees all wages due at the time of termination/resignation. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements, says the suit. Next Level Staffing provides professional, engineering, and light industrial staffing services. Justman Packaging and Display designs and distributes packaging and point of purchase display solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Kevin Joseph Farnan, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com kfarnan@lelawfirm.com whteam@lelawfirm.com NORTH AMERICAN: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lyles ADA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARLENE R. LYLES, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-00721-MJH (W.D. Pa.), Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, granted the Defendant's: -- motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and -- motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Background Plaintiff Lyles, brings claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Count I) and Breach of Contract (Count II) against her former employer, Defendant North American Dental Group, LLC (NADG). Ms. Lyles asserts two claims against NADG. First, she claims that NADG violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating her employment as a result of her alleged disability. Second, she claims that NADG breached its contractual duty by terminating her employment without cause. On Nov. 28, 2018, Ms. Lyles began employment with NADG. On her first day of employment, NADG gave Ms. Lyles a "team member handbook", which allegedly detailed the terms and conditions of her employment. After working for six months, on May 12, 2019, Ms. Lyles relocated to billing, which required substantial computer work and coding. Ms. Lyles allegedly suffers from a severe iron deficiency that requires infusion treatments. Because of her alleged iron deficiency, Ms. Lyles has lower energy levels, performs tasks at a slower rate than normal, and requires time off to recover from infusion treatments. Her alleged iron deficiency causes her to be cold and requires her to wear heavy clothing. However, NADG policy does not permit employees to wear hooded sweatshirts and/or hats at their workstation. The team member handbook states that workplace offenses are subject to progressive disciplinary action, with a listing of immediate suspension and/or termination offenses. Ms. Lyles alleges that her supervisor created a hostile work environment by consistently excluding her from meetings and by selectively enforcing the office policy against her by repeatedly telling her to remove her hat or hooded sweatshirt. Ms. Lyles also alleges that, on April 30, 2019, she was given a verbal warning that she needed to "send less tasks to departments and ensure they were correct." And, on June 3, 2019, without warning and without progressive disciplinary procedures, NADG terminated her for "poor work performance." On Aug. 9, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In its motion to dismiss, NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's Count I ADA claim should be dismissed because, for her disability discrimination claim, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing this claim in federal court. In addition, NADG argues that, even if she had exhausted her administrative remedies, Ms. Lyles's disability discrimination claim must be dismissed because she fails to sufficiently plead that she suffers from a protected disability. As regards her Count II Breach of Contract claim, NADG also moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. NADG argues that, in the absence of a viable ADA claim, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Lyles's state law claim. In the alternative, NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's Breach of Contract claim fails as a matter of law, because the Complaint does not aver that NADG owed her any valid and enforceable contractual obligation. Under the Court's Standing Order and Procedures on Civil Motion Practice, any response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should have been filed by Aug. 30, 2021. No response was filed by said date. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Court ordered Ms. Lyles to Show Cause or otherwise respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Sept. 10, 2021, or the Court would proceed to decide the Defendant's Motion without the Plaintiff's Response. To date, Ms. Lyles has not filed a Response. Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for consideration. Discussion A. ADA Claim-Count I 1. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's disability discrimination claim must be dismissed because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. As indicated, Ms. Lyles did not respond or otherwise file any opposition to NADG's motion. In order to bring a claim for disability discrimination in the employment context, a plaintiff must pursue administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a complaint in federal court. Judge Horan finds that Ms. Lyles fails to allege that she filed any claim with the EEOC or that she exhausted her administrative remedies before the EEOC in advance of filing her Complaint in federal court. Because the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter, her disability discrimination claim cannot be maintained. Therefore, NADG's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Lyles's ADA claim, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, will be granted. Count I will be dismissed. Because Ms. Lyles filed no opposition, Judge Horan holds that the Court has no indication that any amendment could cure the defect for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, leave to amend at this time will not be granted. 2. ADA Substantive Challenge Also, as regards the Count I, ADA claim, NADG contends that, even if Ms. Lyles had exhausted her administrative remedies, her Complaint fails to state a prima facie case of disability discrimination, because she fails to plead sufficient facts to support her conclusory allegation that she suffers from a disability. Because Ms. Lyles's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies is fatal to her Count I ADA claim, Judge Horan need not address NADG's substantive arguments concerning the same. B. Breach of Contract Claim-Count II NADG next contends that, if the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's ADA claim, it must also dismiss her Breach of Contract claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Judge Horan will be dismissing Ms. Lyles's ADA claim, she has no basis for subject matter jurisdiction over her Breach of Contract claim. Judge Horan holds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, because the claim arises under Pennsylvania contract law and not federal law. Further, she declines exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, because, absent the ADA claim, the Plaintiff has asserted no other federal claim with which the breach of contract claim might share a common nucleus of operative facts. Finally, the Complaint does not assert any other alternative basis upon which this Court could exercise jurisdiction over the Breach of Contract claim. Accordingly, NADG's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Lyles's Breach of Contract claim will be granted due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Count II will be dismissed. Ms. Lyles may re-file her Breach of Contract claim in a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Order Following consideration of the foregoing and for the reasons stated, Judge Horan granted NADG's Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Lyles's Complaint is dismissed. Ms. Lyles may re-file her Breach of Contract claim in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. No leave to amend is granted; however, the Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of the Order. Should no such motion be filed within said 14 days, the Clerk will mark the case closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/h2nzd3s7 from Leagle.com. PABST BREWING: Peacock Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN PEACOCK, on Behalf of Himself, and All Others Similarly Situated, v. PABST BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of all persons or entities who purchased Olympia Beer in the United States since March 15, 2014 under Rule 23(b)(2); 2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appointing Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A., and Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, as class counsel. The Pabst Brewing Company is an American company that dates its origins to a brewing company founded in 1844 by Jacob Best and was, by 1889, named after Frederick Pabst. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class the Defendant motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Flj98u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS 8306 Mills Dr Unit 248 Miami, FL 33183-4838 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com elizabeth@beckandlee.com - and - Cullin O'Brien CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com PARKMOBILE LLC: Weaver CCPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACK WILLIAM WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, and PARKMOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-05096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04112-WMR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence per se, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act for their failure to properly secure and safeguard protected personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and Class members, failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII, and failure to provide adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class members that their PII had been accessed and compromised. ParkMobile, LLC is a company that owns and operates mobile applications that provide parking services to users, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. ParkMobile USA, Inc. is a provider of smart parking and mobility solutions, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Stay Knapke Suit Pending Appeal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BARBARA KNAPKE, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT INC., Defendant, Case No. C21-262 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendant's Motion to Stay. Background The Court denied PeopleConnect Inc.'s (Classmates) motion to dismiss, finding, in part, that the Plaintiff was not bound by Classmates terms of service that might require arbitration. It rejected Classmates' strained theory that the Plaintiff's counsel's pre-suit investigation to confirm the accuracy of the allegations as required by Rule 11 bound his client to Classmates' terms of service. The Court found no evidence of actual or apparent authority that might bind the Plaintiff to her counsel's agreement to Classmates' terms of service under Ohio law. Classmates has now appealed that portion of the Court's Order and asks the Court to stay the proceedings until the Ninth Circuit resolves the appeal. Analysis Citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009); Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990), Judge Pechman states that whether to grant a stay pending an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. The party seeking the stay bears the burden to justify the request. Judge Pechman says that in weighing such a request, courts considers: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." "The first two factor are the most critical." The Court evaluates these factors on a "continuum," and the party seeking the stay "must show that irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the public interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the petitioner's favor." Considering the Nken factors, Judge Pechman finds no basis on which to grant the requested stay. She says, while Classmates has identified possible irreparable harm, it has failed to show any likelihood of success on the merits or a serious legal question to be resolved on appeal. This is fatal to the motion. And even if it had demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious legal question, Judge Pechman holds that Classmates has not shown that the public interest weighs heavily in favor a stay or that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Considering the Nken factors on a "continuum," Judge Pechman finds that a stay is unwarranted on this record. Conclusion Judge Pechman concludes that Classmates fails to demonstrate the necessity of a stay of the proceedings pending its appeal of the Court's order on its motion to dismiss. She holds that the relevant factors disfavor Classmates' position and Classmates has not convinced the Court to stay the matter pending the appeal. Judge Pechman denies the Motion to Stay and orders Classmates to file its answer within 14 days of entry of the Order, as previously required by the Order in Docket Entry 31. The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/cj4ytz7c from Leagle.com. POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Class Action --------------------------------------------- PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 28, 2021, that the company is facing a class action suit initiated by Marc Richfield. On September 24, 2021, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Marc Richfield against the Company and three officers of the Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00561-DAO. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (i) the investigational new drug application ("IND") for the Company's product, SkinTE, filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was deficient with respect to certain chemistry, manufacturing, and control items; (ii) as a result, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the IND in its current form; (iii) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated the likelihood that the SkinTE IND would obtain FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, the public statements regarding the IND were materially false and misleading. PolarityTE said, "As of the date of this filing the Company has not received notice from its registered agent that the Company has been served with a summons to answer the Complaint. At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation." PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. PORCELANA CORONA: Phase I Class Cert. Deadlines & Settings Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEBIYU BETESELASSIE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and BETHLEHEM GELAW, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A., DE C.V., Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Court entered Phase I Class certification deadlines and settings as follows: Event Deadline/Setting -- Jointly filed mediation notice Jan. 7, 2022 or confidential settlement reports emailed to ksd_james_chambers@ksd.uscourts.gov -- Mediation completed Jan. 21, 2022 -- Jointly proposed protective order Oct. 1, 2021 submitted to the court -- Motion and brief in support of Oct. 1, 2021 proposed protective order (only if parties disagree about the need for and/or scope of order) -- Toilet and Exemplar Toilet Oct. 31, 2021 Inspections -- Plaintiffs serve expert disclosures Nov. 30, 2021 and reports for class certification purposes -- Defendant serve expert disclosures Dec. 31, 2021 and reports for class certification purposes -- Rebuttal experts disclosed for Jan. 21, 2022 class certification -- All discovery completed as to Feb. 11, 2022 class certification -- Class certification motion filed March 2, 2022 -- Response to class certification March 24, 2022 A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uYSYj9 at no extra charge.[CC] PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Loses Class Decertification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY LAURENT, et al., v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02280-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order as follows: -- PWC's motion for class decertification is denied; and -- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on liability with respect to the Plan's normal retirement age and the Plan's projection rate. Summary judgment is denied as to relief. The parties are directed to confer regarding the next phase of this litigation. Within days after the date of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall file a joint letter of up to 6 single-spaced pages addressing each side's proposals for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 216 and 260, says Judge Oetken. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a multinational professional services network of firms, operating as partnerships under the PwC brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FrttvL at no extra charge.[CC] QUEBEC: Court Approves $60M Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that that Superior Court of Quebec has approved a settlement agreement for an aggregate amount of $60 million in relation to class actions filed against the religious congregation of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. The class comprises all those who have been sexually assaulted by a religious member of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart either: while they were in any training establishment, school, college, leisure establishment, activity center, camp, residence, parish, place of worship or any other place in Quebec before July 9, or while they were students, boarders or candidates for admission to Mont Sacre-Coeur de Granby, including the College Mont-Sacre-Coeur, the boarding schools and the juniorate, between 1932 and 2008. The defendants and their counsel will have no right to challenge, review or intervene in the claims process, said a news release from Kugler Kandestin LLP, class counsel. Class members must file a claim form by July 30, 2022 in order to benefit from the settlement agreement, and will then attend a private and confidential meeting with a claims arbitrator. Class counsel appointed Claudette Picard and Pepita Capriolo, retired judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, as arbitrators, in which role they will decide on the admissibility of the claim and the category of compensation that each class member can receive. The amount of compensation for each category will only be determined after the arbitrators have decided all claims. According to Kugler Kandestin's website, in November 2017 the Quebec Superior Court granted an application for authorization to file a class action for access to justice for those sexually abused during their childhood by religious members of the Brothers of Sacred Heart associated with College Mont-Sacre-Coeur in Granby, Que. The action alleged that at least 18 religious brothers committed systemic, reprehensible and unacceptable sexual abuse over several decades. In February 2019, class counsel brought an application for authorization for another class action that sought access to justice for other victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by religious members of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart across the province, which was granted by the Quebec Superior Court in December 2019. The resulting class lawsuit asked for compensatory damages for each victim, as well as $15 million in punitive and exemplary damages. The Superior Court conducted a case management conference on Oct. 2, 2020, at which point it decided on the timeline to allow the case to proceed. [GN] QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hong Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNG EI HONG, Plaintiff v. QUEST INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07908 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a limousine driver from in or about 2010 through late 2018. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on May 13, 2019 contending that throughout his employment with the Defendant, he was not paid full wages owed to him. The Defendant, however, filed their Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims alleging the Plaintiff of false allegations that the Plaintiff had threatened to sue and did sue companies that did business with Quest for the sole purpose of injuring Quest's business and that Plaintiff further encouraged other drivers leave the Quest for other limousine companies and to join the Collective Action, to hurt the Defendant. Allegedly, the Defendant brought the claims against the Plaintiff to retaliate against the Plaintiff for filing the Collective Action to recover unpaid wages on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees. As a result of the Defendant bringing a baseless lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and incurred attorneys' fees to defend himself. Quest International Limousine, Inc. provides a comprehensive luxury vehicle service that is available to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for business or leisure requirements in the NYC region. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret McIntyre, Esq. 195 Montague Street, 14th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (212) 227-9987 - and – Jonathan Bernstein, Esq. BERNSTEIN ISAACS, P.C. 1250 Broadway, 36th Floor New York, NY 10001 Tel: (917) 693-7245 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"), containing new allegations and an expanded class definition, has been filed against Raytheon Technologies Corporation ("Raytheon" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTX) and certain of its officers. The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and docketed under No. CV-20-00468-TUC-JCH, has a class period of February 10, 2016 through October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and is on behalf of a class consisting of anyone who: -- purchased or acquired Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) common stock from the beginning of the Class Period on February 10, 2016 until the date the merger between Raytheon Company and United Technologies Corporation was completed on April 3, 2020; -- purchased or acquired United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX) common stock from June 10, 2019, the first trading day after the merger was announced, until the date the merger was completed on April 3, 2020; and -- purchased or acquired Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX) common stock from the date the merger was completed on April 3, 2020, until the end of the Class Period on October 27, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. On July 27, 2021 the Court appointed The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as Interim Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP as Interim Lead Counsel. (Dkt. No. 30). If you are an investor who (1) purchased or acquired Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) common stock from the beginning of the Class Period on February 10, 2016 until the date the merger between Raytheon Company and United Technologies Corporation was completed on April 3, 2020; (2) purchased or acquired United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX) common stock from June 10, 2019, the first trading day after the merger was announced, until the date the merger was completed on April 3, 2020; or (3) purchased or acquired Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX) common stock from the date the merger was completed on April 3, 2020, until the end of the Class Period on October 27, 2020, you have until October 21, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Non-Interim Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Raytheon purports to be an aerospace and defense company providing advanced systems and services for commercial, military, and government customers worldwide. Among the Company's four main operational divisions is its Raytheon Missiles and Defense segment, which designs, develops, integrates, and produces missile and combat systems for the armed forces of the United States and allied nations. During the class period, Raytheon derived a vast majority of its revenues from contracts it received from the U.S. government. U.S. government contracts are subject to heavy scrutiny and contractors are required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing the government's acquisition of goods and services. These laws and regulations impose a broad range of requirements, many of which are unique to government contracting. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in severe repercussions including, but not limited to, reduction to the value of contracts, forfeiture of profits, and bars from future government contracts. Government contractors are also subject to audits and investigations by U.S. government agencies to ensure compliance with contracts. During the Class Period, Raytheon repeatedly engaged in egregious misconduct in relation to its contracts with the U.S. government. The misconduct included several improper practices designed to overcharge the government under existing contracts. Specifically, Raytheon double-charged the government by miscoding labor charges, purchased and mislabeled goods as services to charge a higher markup and avoid certain registration and oversight requirements, and made unnecessary purchases, without the required authority from the government, for materials that were scheduled to arrive after the end date of the task orders. Raytheon also misappropriated funds, failed to submit sub-contracts for competitive bidding, deliberately prolonged projects to inflate Estimates at Completion, and conducted business with foreign companies in direct violation of presidential executive orders. This misconduct resulted in a gross overstatement of many important financial metrics such as revenues, operating income, and operating expenses. Rather than disclose the misconduct, Raytheon concealed it by doctoring contracts in advance of government reviews and audits. This slight-of hand included manipulating dates and other information in the contracts. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading statements regarding the effectiveness of Raytheon's internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, as well as a number of relevant financial metrics. Contrary to the Defendants' representations to investors, the aforementioned internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures were not effective and did not provide reasonable assurances that transactions were properly executed and/or recorded. Raytheon was not entitled to the benefits of the revenue it generated from its government contracts due to the misuse, misappropriation, and violations of the prescribed protocols and parameters of those government contracts. The material overstatement of reported revenues resulted in the improper reporting of other important financial metrics, like operating income, operating margin, income from operations and net income. The misconduct subjected Raytheon to significant fines and other punitive remedies, in addition to future bars from government contracts. On October 27, 2020, during after-market hours, Raytheon filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 10-Q"). The 3Q20 10-Q announced a criminal investigation by the DOJ into the Company, stating, in pertinent part: On October 8, 2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking information and documents in connection with an investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009. We are cooperating fully with the DOJ's investigation. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation. Based on the information available to date, however, we do not believe the results of this inquiry will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or approximately 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] RECRO PHARMA: Investor Group Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ALBERICI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RECRO PHARMA, INC., GERALDINE A. HENWOOD, STEWART MCCALLUM AND JOHN HARLOW, Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff Recro Investor Group asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. certifying this action as a class action; 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of the Class; and 3. appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel, with Kaskela Law LLC as Class Liaison Counsel. Recro Pharma is a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company develops non-opioid therapeutics for the treatment of pain in the post-operative setting. Recro Pharma offers its products to the medical industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uRgL4G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brenda Szydlo, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Brenda Szydlo, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com bszydlo@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258–1585 Facsimile: (484) 258–1585 E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com RICHARD ZEITLIN: Donors File Class Action Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- publicintegrity.org reports that political donors filed a class action lawsuit against Richard Zeitlin, a Las Vegas-based telemarketer they accuse of facilitating a "massive money-making scheme." Zeitlin was the focus of an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity in 2019. The lawsuit alleges Zeitlin and his companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by "siphoning . . . . donations out in the form of enormous profits." It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The donors allege they were duped by telemarketers calling on behalf of "scam PACs," which are political action committees that raise significant sums of money from donors but spend little - if anything - on the people they claim to champion, such as children with leukemia, women with breast cancer, police officers, firefighters and veterans. "Instead of putting the millions of dollars raised by the Zeitlin companies to work for these noble causes, the scam PACs and their complicit treasurers (who also profit from this massive scheme), funnel nearly all of the funds back to the Zeitlin companies through an array of bogus and inflated overhead expenditures," the lawsuit states. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits calling a cell phone using automatic dialing systems or artificial voices (also known as soundboard technology) without prior consent. Violating the act carries fines of $500 to $1,500 per phone call.[GN] ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Securities Suit Over Trading Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------------ tokenist.com reports that the GameStop/AMC saga has resulted in a class-action lawsuit against parties that are allegedly responsible for restricting the trading of short-squeezed securities. A Quick Recap of the GME/AMC Situation On January 28, 2021, retail trading hit a new milestone when Robinhood decided to restrict short-squeezed stocks, citing market volatility, in addition to raising margin requirements. "In light of recent volatility, we restricted transactions for certain securities to position closing only." Soon after, TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab joined Robinhood in imposing similar restrictions. Headed by GameStop (GME) and AMC Entertainment (AMC) as the main ones, the restricted list also included the following securities: Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY) BlackBerry (BB) Express (EXPR) Koss (KOSS) Nokia (NOK) Naked Brand Group (NAKD) Up to that point, hedge funds were heavily invested in betting against GME/AMC. However, they failed to account for the power of social media combined with zero-fee trading. Robinhood had established itself as one of the most popular trading apps, having grown by 80% between 2019 to 2021, from 10 million to 18 million users. During the pandemic, day trading became something of a new hobby among millennials and Gen Xers, notably spearheaded by the likes of Dave Portnoy and Keith Gill. [GN] SAFELITE GROUP: Alvarez Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled EDMOND ALVAREZ and THOMAS NEWELL, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC.; SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC.; SAFELITE GLASS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV23779, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07874 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to pay for non-compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment, failure to pay overtime, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Safelite Group, Inc. is a provider of vehicle glass repair, replacement, and calibration services and insurance claims management company, based in Columbus, Ohio. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is a company that provides auto glass fulfillment services based in Columbus, Ohio. Safelite Glass Corporation is a provider of auto glass repair and replacement services, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Cory D. Catignani, Esq. Christopher M. Lapidus, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 526-7900 Facsimile: (949) 526-7901 E-mail: cdcatignani@vorys.com cmlapidus@vorys.com SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Seeks to Certify August 30, 2021 Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ASNER, et al., v. THE SAG-AFTRA HEALTH FUND, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10914-CAS-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Court's August 30, 2021 Order that was electronically filed on the docket on September 1, 2021 for an interlocutory appeal. The Defendants seek this certification to petition the Ninth 20 Circuit to review the Order's denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss the First and Third Count of the First Amended Complaint. This request is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, Defendants' supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Order, all pleadings and papers on file with the Court in this action, and on such other matters as may be presented to the Court at or before the hearing of this Motion. The Defendants are the SAG-AFTRA Health Fund, the Board of 6 Trustees of the Screen Actors Guild-Producers Health Plan, the Board of Trustees of the SAG-AFTRA Health Fund, Daryl Anderson, Helayne Antler, Amy Aquino, Timothy Blake, Jim Bracchitta, John Carter Brown, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, Barry Gordon, J. Keith Gorham, James Harrington, David Hartley-Margolin, Harry Isaacs, Robert W. Johnson, Sheldon Kasdan, Matthew Kimbrough, Lynne Lambert, Allan Linderman, Carol A. Lombardini, Stacy K. Marcus, Richard Masur, John T. McGuire, Diane P. Mirowski, D.W. Moffett, Paul Muratore, Tracy Owen, Michael Pniewski, Ray Rodriguez, Marc Sandman, Shelby Scott, David Silberman, Sally Stevens, Gabriela Teissier, Lara Unger, Ned Vaughn, David Weissman, Russell Wetanson, David P. White, and Samuel P. Wolfson. A copy of Defendants' motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YoTefg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Myron D. Rumeld, Esq. Neil V. Shah, Esq. Anastasia S. Gellman, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com nshah@proskauer.com agellman@proskauer.com - and - Scott P. Cooper, Esq. Jennifer L. Jones, Esq. scooper@proskauer.com jljones@proskauer.com PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 - and - Jani K. Rachelson, Esq. Evan R. Hudson-Plush, Esq. COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP 900 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022-4869 Telephone: (212) 563-4100 Facsimile: (646) 473-8254 E-mail: jrachelson@cwsny.com ehudson-plush@cwsny.com SAN JOSE, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over George Floyd Protests ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Salonga at mercurynews.com reports that a wide-ranging federal lawsuit against San Jose over severe protester injuries and violent police actions at last year's George Floyd demonstrations is moving ahead after a judge largely rejected the city's attempt to get the case dismissed early. An order by Judge Phyllis Hamilton means that the suing attorneys - the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco Bay Area and experienced police-misconduct litigators Rachel Lederman, Jim Chanin, and Michael Flynn - are a step closer in securing class-action status for the suit, which would significantly expand the plaintiff group beyond the current 14 named clients. The lawsuit, filed in March, alleges civil-rights violations by San Jose police and city leadership covering excessive force, wrongful arrest, and First Amendment infringements stemming from both enforcement tactics and the issuing of a city-wide curfew after the first few days of violent clashes at the end of May 2020. Attorneys are also seeking to compel wholesale changes in police training and policies that authorized the violence that drew national infamy to the city. While Hamilton's order was a procedural assessment of the legal standing of the lawsuit's 16 claims, plaintiff attorneys consider it an encouraging sign that their critiques of how the city and police cracked down on demonstrators protesting the police killing of George Floyd will eventually be affirmed by the court. "This tells both San Jose and other jurisdictions that they have to be very careful with what tactics they use to engage with their citizens, that they have to make people feel comfortable and safe to listen to instructions to police, and move freely in their city," said Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, an attorney fellow for the lawyers' committee. "We're really hoping that this order demonstrates to city officials and police that criticism of how they operate is also constitutionally protected." The City Attorney's Office declined to weigh in on the judge's order, citing a practice of not commenting on pending litigation. Scores of people were injured during a week of demonstrations that started May 29, 2020 in downtown San Jose, most of them by police's prolific use of rubber bullets and other projectiles and chemical weapons. In previous comments, the police union asserted short staffing factored into the protest response and that 100 officers were injured over the course of the demonstrations. "We saw the city trying to push the narrative that folks protesting were violent and disruptive, and this (order) recognizes the city has a lot more responsibility in that situation. If violent people are there, you have to discern if there is an actual threat, and be very specific how you approach that single incident," Ressl-Moyer said. "You cannot just have an indiscriminate response to everyone present." The filing addressed by Hamilton is the largest lawsuit filed from the fallout from the protests. Among the plaintiffs are Michael Acosta, a resident who asserts he lost an eye to a police projectile; Joseph Cañas, who was also hit in the eye by a police munition as he played guitar at the protests; a pre-elected Assemblymember Alex Lee; and activist Shaunn Cartwright, who claims that while serving as a legal observer, was shoved repeatedly by an officer even after she alerted them to her physical disabilities. Eleven of the city's dismissal motions were denied by the judge outright. That means First Amendment violation claims, alleging that police targeted demonstrators based on their viewpoints and that a city curfew infringed their free expression, can move ahead to the evidentiary phase. The same goes for federal claims of excessive force, wrongful arrest, failure of officers to intervene with other officers using unlawful force, failure to accommodate a disability, and a series of parallel claims of state-law violations. Hamilton did agree with the city in dismissing claims alleging race-based targeting of protesters and that officers specifically violated protesters' freedom of movement. She partially dismissed a claim over the curfew and limited potential liability to Mayor Sam Liccardo, former city manager Dave Sykes, former police chief Eddie Garcia and the City of San Jose. The judge did not decide on issues addressing qualified immunity for officers - legal protections for officers against monetary damages - and questions over officers' lack of crowd-control training. Hamilton wrote that the next information-gathering phase - discovery - will have to be done first. She will then evaluate those issues in later summary judgment proceedings, where she will decide again if the case can advance toward trial. [GN] SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Dialysis Technicians, Soliman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANY SOLIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SATELLITE HEALTHCARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV387218 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse employee expenses, failure to pay correct sick pay wages, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages at termination, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dialysis technician in California from April 2017 until her termination on October 7, 2020. Satellite Healthcare, Inc. is a provider of kidney disease care and dialysis services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. Kacey E. Cook, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387—7200 Facsimile: (949) 387—6676 SBK DELIVERY: Miller Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages, Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY M. MILLER II, for himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBK DELIVERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04744-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, September 22, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver between approximately October 2020 through July 9, 2021. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant of breach of contract by failing to pay him and other similarly situated delivery drivers the agreed upon percentage of total route income. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses, attorney's fees, injunctive relief for the Defendant to cease violations of the FLSA, and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court and available under the FLSA in an amount greater than $75,000. SBK Delivery, LLC provides delivery services for Watco Supply Chain Services, Lasership, Need it Now, and others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dryer, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 796-4325 Fax: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@ManellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com SOMETHING NAVY: Slade Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SLADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOMETHING NAVY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-08196 (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.Somethingnavy.com, requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denying the Plaintiff and other blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or make purchases on the website. This access barrier hinders them to enjoy the benefits of the Defendant's online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Something Navy, Inc., is an apparel and fashion accessories retailer, with its principal place of business located at 183 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Gardner ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered 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/3Afx3Fwat 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 STAY DRY: Gloss et al. Seek Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY GLOSS, JOSEPH CRASE, TRAVIS MORGAN, and KYLE SANNER, for themselves and al others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAY DRY WATERPROOFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04747-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, September 22, 2021) bring this complaint as a collective and class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Laborers, allege that the Defendant has violated the FLSA and OMFWSA by failing to properly compensate them and other similarly situated laborers. The Plaintiffs claim that despite regularly working over 40 hours in a single workweek, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, they were paid a "day rate" for each day of work, regardless of the number of hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of the litigation and administration of the common fund, and attorneys' fees, injunctive relief for the Defendant to cease violations of the OMFWSA, and such other or additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Stay Dry Waterproofing, LLC provides basement waterproofing, foundation repair, mold testing and removal, crawl space encapsulation, yard drainage, biohazard clean up, water and fire damage restoration, and basement finishing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dryer, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 796-4325 Fax: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com STERICYCLE INC: Poston Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poston, et al., v. Stericycle Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00655 (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. entered an order denying as moot motion to certify class in light of amended motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Malone Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VELVET MALONE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC; ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00584-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. Defendants Stoneledge Furniture, LLC and Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, filed the Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims, and Stay the PAGA Claim. Plaintiff Malone will arbitrate his claims against the Defendants on an individual basis pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. His putative class claims are dismissed pursuant to the class action waiver provision in the Arbitration Agreement. The action, including the Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim, will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration, but the Court will retain jurisdiction to enter or confirm an award of the arbitrator. Not later than 60 days following the date the Order is electronically filed, and every 60 days thereafter until the stay is lifted, the parties will file a joint status report advising the Court as to the status of that arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/463966wr from Leagle.com. TEXAS: Families Join Lawsuit Against Districts Over Mask Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------- fox4news.com reports that families in three North Texas school districts are part of a federal lawsuit aimed at implementing COVID-19 safety measures like mask wearing. The families from Frisco ISD, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD and the Hurst-Euless-Bedford school district joined the lawsuit along with families from Lago Vista ISD, which is northwest of Austin. All four districts encourage mask wearing but don't require it because of Gov. Greg Abbott's order banning mask mandates in public schools. "We know masking works. The CDC said counties with schools that had mask requirements had a smaller increase in pediatric cases than counties without school mask requirements. And we're just using the courts because we're not like other people who want to use intimidation or violence in disagreements without government," said Kathleen Thompson, a Grapevine-Colleyville ISD parent. The families accuse the school districts of violating their children's constitutional rights to equal protection as stated in the 14th Amendment. U.S. Justice Department supports challenge to mask mandate ban The Biden Administration threw its support behind another set of families suing to overturn Gov. Abbott's mask mandate ban. Those families who have students with disabilities argue the order prevents their children from going to school safely. The United States Justice Department filed a statement with a federal court in Austin that's hearing the lawsuit. It says Abbott's order violates the rights of students with disabilities even if their school district offers an online option.[GN] TGF MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHANNA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21LBCV00514 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Ms. Sanchez worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee from October 2009 until October 2, 2020. TGF Management Group Holdco Inc. is a logistics, trucking and management company based in Delaware and doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. George B. Singer, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net gsinger@rnahoney-law.net TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Cardenas ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER CARDENAS, KURT KIRTON, PAMELA BAKER, and MICHELLE MONGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING, INC.; and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-22798-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno entered an order that Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied with the exception of plaintiff Monge who is dismissed without objection. The Court said, "The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions for Summary. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on September 2, 2021. Magistrate Judge Louis recommended denying summary judgment in all respects except as to Michelle Mange's RICO claim, because she did not purchase her vehicle at an authorized Toyota dealer. The Plaintiffs elected not to object to Mange's claim being dismissed but filed objections as to other recommendations. With the benefit of oral argument and after conducting a de novo review the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds sufficient evidence presented to preclude summary judgment in favor of the Defendants at this stage. The Court will consider the Defendants' arguments again in their expected motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law at trial." Toyota and Southeast Toyota Distributors moved for summary judgment. Toyota argued, among other things, that the substantive and conspiracy RICO claims fail for myriad reasons, that there is no evidence of a defect in the class vehicles, and that the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims fail for want of causation and damages. Southeast Toyota Distributors similarly argued that there was no evidence of an underlying Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violation or conspiracy and that there was no deceptive act, causation, or damages under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). This putative class action is brought by current and former owners of 2012 through 2014 non-hybrid Toyota Camrys. The Plaintiffs allege that the Toyota entities responsible for designing and manufacturing the vehicles, along with Southeast Toyota Distributors, a distributor of Toyota vehicles to authorized dealers, conspired to conceal a defect in the vehicles' Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems. Plaintiffs' claims are brought under RICO and FDUTPA. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan. It was founded by Kiichiro Toyoda and incorporated on August 28, 1937. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BomTnm at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Technicians Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNILEVER MANUFACTURING (US), INC., A Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02803-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a class of: "similarly situated current and former general maintenance technicians who were employees of Unilever Manufacturing (US), Inc. at any of their non-unionized facilities during the last three years ("the putative class"). Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an Order: (1) authorizing Plaintiff's claims to proceed as a FLSA collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class for overtime pay violations; (2) directing Defendant to immediately provide Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment and last known telephone numbers of all the putative class members; (3) providing that Court-approved notice be posted at all of Defendant's non-unionized facilities where putative class members are employed, enclosed with all of Defendant's currently employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and emailed to the the putative class so that they can timely assert their claims; (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and (5) requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AcPj2g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com UNITED ASSOCIATION: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Poe Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. POE, ET AL. V. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AFL-CIO LOCAL 198 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ET AL., Case No. 3:18-cv-00667-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order: 1. confirming the certification of the following, non-opt-out Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for settlement purposes only: "All persons who had a notional balance in his or her HRA by virtue of his or her membership in and work through the Local 106 Union when the HRAs were terminated effective September 30,2017" 2. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and approving the Settlement Agreement; 3. directing that as of the Effective Date, all Plaintiffs' Released Claims against Settling Defendants Releasees shall be extinguished, discharged and released, subject only to compliance by the Plaintiffs and Local 198 Defendants with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order; 4. As of the Effective Date, barring the Settling Parties and enjoining from the institution and prosecution, either directly or indirectly, of any actions in any court asserting any or all of Plaintiffs' Released Claims against Settling Defendants Releasees; 5. As of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs, permanently enjoining Settlement Class Members, and the Plan from asserting, commencing, prosecuting or continuing, either directly, individually, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity, any other actions in any court asserting such Plaintiffs Released Claims, or from receiving any additional recovery or relief from any of Settling Defendants' Releasees with respect thereto; 7. dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' action as to the Local 198 Defendants, which operates to extinguish, discharge, and release any and all Released Claims against Releasees, without an award of costs except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and this Order; and 8. granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Final Approval Of Attorney's Fees, Costs, And For Case Contribution Award: a) Class Counsel is awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $96,667.67, or thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of the $290,000.00 gross Settlement Fund; b) Class Counsel is awarded litigation-related expenses in the amount of $656.85; c) Class Counsel is awarded expert fees in the amount of $15,000 for work performed by Fiduciary Counselors, the Independent Fiduciary for the Settlement; and d) Named Plaintiff Michael D. Poe is awarded a case contribution award in the amount of $38,000. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3afWEnhat no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE: Brandon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFFORD BRANDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02576 (D. Colo., September 23, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay all overtime due to its hourly employees. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid utility locator from June 2018 until November 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other similarly situated utility locators for all hours they have worked. Specifically, the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent attending required project meetings, traveling to and from job sites, working through required thirty-minute lunch breaks, mapping out his route to complete inspections, reading and responding to work emails, and preparing reports at the end of their shift. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they were not properly paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. United States Infrastructure Corp. specializes in the locating utility services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, MATTHEW WHITAKER, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-6-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Background Following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, Congress urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") to re-examine the classification of bump stock devices. In response, the Department of Justice issued a Final Rule, Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) ("Final Rule"). Plaintiff John Doe filed the instant putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, claiming the Final Rule exceeds ATF's statutory authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Constitution. Doe asserts the following causes of action in the Complaint: Count I - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration period/amnesty; Count II - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) is facially unconstitutional as being in excess of the authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause; Count III - 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to firearms registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as being in excess of the authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause; Count IV - 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is an unconstitutional direct tax in violation of Article I of the Constitution; Count V - 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is a violation of the Due Process Clause; and Count VI - The Final Rule is a Taking requiring just compensation. The case is now before the Court for consideration of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doe opposes the motion. Discussion Doe asserts that the Final Rule is unlawful on its face and as applied to him as a bump stock owner. He alleges that 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration or amnesty period for newly regulated bump stocks and that the Defendants have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, contrary to law, and in violation of the Constitution by concluding they lack authority to institute an amnesty or initial registration period. He also challenges the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on machineguns. The Defendants argue that each of Doe's claims is subject to summary dismissal. I. Registration/Amnesty Period Claim (Count I) Doe contends the Defendants have abused their discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to enact an amnesty period to allow current bump stock owners to register their devices under the NFA. He cites Section 207(d) of the 1968 Amendments to the NFA to support his assertion that the ATF has authority to grant amnesty for bump stocks. Judge Yandle finds that Doe concedes that a bump stock is a machinegun. Doe does not take issue with the fact that a bump stock is a "machinegun." While certainly questionable whether the drafters of the term used in the U.S. Code ever envisioned a device like a bump stock, for purposes of the litigation, Doe has already conceded the point. And an amnesty period would clearly violate Section 922(o)'s prohibition on machineguns. As such, the administrative record and legislative history support ATF's interpretation which is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, summary judgment in the Defendants' favor is warranted on Count I. II. Commerce Clause (Counts II and III) Doe contends that the statutory ban on machineguns in Section 922(o) exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause because the possession of a machinegun is not a channel or instrumentality of commerce nor is it an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Judge Yandle holds that Doe offers the Court no basis to differentiate his commerce clause claims from those rejected by numerous courts. Thus, consistent with well-reasoned rulings upholding the constitutionality of Section 922(o), Doe's facial and as-applied challenges to the NFA and Section 922(o) fail; the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Doe's commerce clause claims. III. Direct Tax Claim (Count IV) Next, Doe maintains that Section 922(o) and the NFA represent an unconstitutional direct tax in violation of Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. As an initial matter, Section 922(o) does not impose any tax. Rather, the Government prohibits the registration of machineguns (and now bump stocks) covered by Section 922(o) and will not accept the tax that would otherwise be required by the registration requirements of the NFA. Further, the regulation of machineguns is not a direct tax -- it is permissible as an excise tax under Congress' authority to levy taxes. For these reasons, Judge Yandle holds that the Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on Doe's direct tax claim. IV. Due Process Claim (Count V) Doe argues that the NFA and Section 922(o) violate the Due Process Clause because the statutes are not enforced equally as to all classes of persons and are therefore void for vagueness. He also contends the statutes are enforced on "an ad hoc and subjective basis" -- allowing the Defendants to change their mind on the interpretation of what constitutes an NFA firearm and forcing innocent possessors to come into compliance with the constantly shifting rules. Judge Yandle notes that there is nothing irrational about Congress differentiating between machinegun possession by law enforcement and possession by civilians. As the Final Rule notes, she states, the Congress provided this exemption because it recognized the necessity of military and law enforcement to continue to use and possess machineguns. Prohibiting Doe, a civilian, from possessing a machinegun and therefore, a bump stock does not run afoul of the equal protection clause. The Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Count V. V. Unconstitutional Taking Claim (Count VI) The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause provides that private property will not "be taken for public use without just compensation." Judge Yandle finds that the Final Rule's prohibition of bump stock devices was triggered by Congress' directive that dangerous machines guns be regulated as part of the effort to fight violent crime. This classification and seizure of contraband is one of the most basic exercises of the police power -- it does not implicate the Takings Clause. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Yandle granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. All pending motions are terminated as moot and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/72mc9963 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Hachicho's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMMAR YOUSSEF HACHICHO, Petitioner v. CHAD F. WOLF, ET AL., Respondent, Case No. EDCV 20-1228-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Hachicho's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petitioner has filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 challenging his detention in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") custody. The Petitioner presents two claims: (1) a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim based on his placement in disciplinary segregation without review ("Claim One"); and (2) a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim based on the conditions at the Adelanto Detention Facility during the COVID-19 pandemic ("Claim Two"). Claim Two is identical to the claim presented in in Roman, et al. v. Wolf, et al., CV 20-768-TJH (PVCx). On April 23, 2020, the court in Roman provisionally certified that action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and issued a class-wide Preliminary Injunction. Therefore, on July 23, 2020, the Court stayed Claim Two pending resolution of Roman. On Sept. 22, 2020, the Court in Roman certified the mandatory Roman class on a non-provisional basis. Claim Two is, thus, now dismissed as moot. In addition, on Dec. 15, 2020, the Court previously denied and dismissed the Petitioner's Claim One with prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Phillips dismissed the Petition. To the extent the Petitioner was released pursuant to an order issued in Roman, the Petitioner will remain released subject to the terms and conditions previously ordered by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzft2bra from Leagle.com. VALLARTA FOOD: Faces Thomas Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00040501-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., September 22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the California's Labor Code and the California's Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from November 17, 2017 to January 30, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has unlawfully deducted wages from her and other similarly situated employees' paychecks to pay for the shoes it required them to buy. As a result, the Defendant allegedly failed to accurately reflect net wages and deductions on employees' paystubs. The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for recovery of unreimbursed expenses, penalties, unpaid and/or illegally deducted wages and unjust gains. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Vallarta Supermarkets operates supermarkets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 325-0492 Fax: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org - and – Noam Glick, Esq. GLICK LAW GROUP, PC 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 382-3400 Fax: (619) 393-0154 E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com - and – Evan D. Dwin, Esq. DWIN LEGAL, APC 2121 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 160 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Tel: (760) 536-6471 E-mail: edwin@dwinlegal.com WASHINGTON HEALTH: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LYNCH v. WASHINGTON HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, and SUE BIRCH, Case No. 3:21-cv-05138-BHS (W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to set aside DUCivR 23-1(d)'s 90-day deadline to file motions to certify class or, in the alternative, to continue the deadline until after class discovery. The Class Plaintiffs shall have 90 days after the resolution of Crown Asset Management's motion to dismiss to file a motion for class certification. The parties are ordered to incorporate class discovery deadlines and the class certification deadline into any proposed schedule they subsequently submit to the court, says Judge Oberg. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BkE2yi at no extra charge.[CC] WASTE PRO: Court Initially Approves Settlement Deal in Hansen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HANSEN and AHMAD YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASTE PRO OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02654-DCN (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Norton entered an order that the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of settlement agreement is granted: 1. The following class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All individuals who previously joined this action as Opt- in Plaintiffs or individuals who the Parties' agree may have potential claims under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act." 2. The Court approves the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and proposed Claim Form. 3. The Court authorizes a third-party Settlement Claims Administrator, as agreed to by the Parties pursuant to the terms of the proposed Agreement, to send settlement notices to all Settlement Class Members containing the Court's approved Notice, Claim Form, and a postage paid return envelope addressed to the Settlement Claims Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; 4. The Court approves the proposed schedule and procedure for the final approval of the proposed Agreement and Orders that the final approval hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 3 of the J. Waties Waring Judicial Center, located at 83 Meeting Street, Charleston, South Carolina, 29401. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/305eqHW at no extra charge.[CC] WAYNE, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Ingram Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM ET. AL., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-10288-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion to abstain on the claims asserted by the Plaintiff Stephanie Wilson; 2. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to abstain or stay, or in the alternative, granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss the claims asserted by the Plaintiff Robert Reeves; 3. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's asserted motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion asserted for summary judgment on the claims asserted by asserted the Plaintiff Melisa Ingram; 4. directing the parties to seek an interlocutory appeal asserted under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) of the Court's asserted rulings on Counts II and IV; 5. adjourning pending interlocutory appeal the Plaintiff's asserted motion to certify class or for leave to conduct asserted class discovery; 6. granting the Defendant's motion to adjourn Plaintiffs' asserted motion to certify class; 7. granting the Defendant's motion to strike; 8. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion For leave to asserted conduct discovery on Counts I and VII. The Court said, "Considering that this case presents a putative class action with a pending motion for class certification, the Court finds it proper to make two caveats to its holdings, for the sake of promoting efficiency for both the judiciary and the litigants alike. The Court finds that this case warrants such a certification its holdings on Counts II and IV. First, under Count II, Plaintiff characterizes the Ross holding as a pre-decision. Although the Court does not read Timbs as impacting Ross' conclusion regarding excessive fines, the Court finds that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion in this regard, warranting a certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). Second, considering that the Sixth Circuit had yet to rule on whether a prompt post-seizure, pre-forfeiture judgment hearing is required under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause, the Court’s finding of such a requirement under Count IV also warrants certification for an interlocutory appeal." As alleged by the Plaintiff, "Wayne County has an official policy of unreasonably seizing cars and other property, without probable cause to believe that the property is connected to a crime." The Wayne County Sheriff Department, Detroit Police Department, and Michigan State Police seize these cars via the Vehicle Seizure Unity and Asset Forfeiture Unit at the direction of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office. The Plaintiffs allege that their cars were seized even when neither they, as owners, nor the drivers of the vehicles were arrested at the time of seizure, simply because their cars were present in an area known for crime. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yoxikq at no extra charge.[CC] WICKED AUDIO: Delacruz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WICKED AUDIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-08193-JPO (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://wickedaudio.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, (b) empty links that contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Wicked Audio, Inc. is an operator of an online retail store, with its principal place of business in Lindon, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal YANFENG US: Bid to Dismiss Dover's First Amended Complaint Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON DOVER, et al., Plaintiffs v. YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS I LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-11643-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Background The Plaintiffs in the case seek to represent a class of persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the Defendants' employer-sponsored retirement plan. The FAC claims that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties towards plan participants, and failed to adequately monitor other fiduciaries, resulting in tangible losses to the retirement savings accounts of the Plaintiffs -- as well as to those of potential class members. The case is a proposed class action on behalf of persons who were participants or beneficiaries of retirement plans offered by Defendants to employees from June 22, 2014 to present. The Named Plaintiffs alleged they participated in the Plan during their periods of employment with Defendant Yanfeng. All three Plaintiffs allege they suffered financial harm due to Defendants' actions as related to sixteen of the twenty-five investment options in the Plan. The "Plan" in question is defined in the FAC as being composed of 25 different funds (investment options) in which participants may invest. Its current form is the result of the change and/or merger of several Predecessor Plans. The current Plan, also known as the "Yanfeng Plan," represents a merger of the previously existing Yanfeng USA Plan and the Interior Savings and Investment Plan. The Plaintiffs make a variety of allegations as to why the Defendants' conduct with respect to each fund violates ERISA, and they make several distinct arguments regarding the Defendants' mismanagement of the funds overall. These allegations all contribute to two claims in the FAC: First, that the corporate and committee Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and second, that the corporate and board Defendants failed to adequately monitor other fiduciaries. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC on Dec. 14, 2020. They argue that the Plaintiffs cannot sufficiently plead fiduciary breach. The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 14, 2021. It notes that each of the parties have also filed extensive supplementary briefing and the Court has considered the authorities submitted therein as well. Discussion A. Standing The Defendants make a factual attack under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) that the named Plaintiffs do not have constitutional standing to challenge the Defendants' selection and/or management of some of the funds that comprise the Plan. There are 11 challenged funds in the Plan that none of the Named Plaintiffs personally participated in. Therefore, the Defendants say they have suffered no "injury in fact" with relation to these funds, as is required for standing. Judge Berg holds that although the facts are about retirement benefits rather than insurance, the claims arise under the same sections of the ERISA statute, so it is reasonable to expect that the Sixth Circuit would approach the issue similarly. Some courts have explicitly indicated that the standing challenge raised by the Defendants has merit, but is more properly addressed at the class certification stage, because it pertains to whether the named Plaintiffs may serve as appropriate class representatives. Accordingly, while this issue may be thoroughly scrutinized in connection with any class certification motion (at which point the Plaintiffs may be in a position to present more concrete information about the Defendants' alleged wrongful practices and to what extent they impact all of the funds at issue), at this point, the Plaintiffs have standing to move forward. The Motion to Dismiss will not be granted on this ground. B. Sufficiency of breach of fiduciary duty allegations To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant was a fiduciary of an ERISA plan who, (2) acting within his capacity as a fiduciary, (3) engaged in conduct constituting a breach of his fiduciary duty. The fiduciary duty under ERISA includes a duty of prudence as well as a duty of loyalty. Breaches of either duty will amount to a breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs make arguments that the Defendants have violated ERISA under both theories. Judge Berg concludes that the Plaintiffs frame their allegations regarding breach of the duties of prudence and loyalty under one count for breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, even though they fail to state a valid claim for breach of loyalty, their allegations regarding a breach of the duty of prudence are sufficient such that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty survives dismissal. Those alleged breaches of the duty of prudence include allegations against Defendants for failure to enroll in lower-cost share classes, failure to select lower-cost alternative funds, and failure to get rid of underperforming funds. The Motion to Dismiss as to Count I is therefore denied. C. Failure to monitor Count II of the FAC alleges that certain Defendants did not appropriately monitor the Committee Defendants who were responsible for making investment choices, hiring outside advisors, and generally engaging in all the conduct that is the subject of the breach of fiduciary duty allegations. Because a claim that certain Defendants failed to monitor the imprudent or disloyal actions of others requires a preliminary finding of breach of those duties, courts generally treat a "failure to monitor" claim as rising or falling with a breach of duty claim. Judge Berg has found that the Plaintiffs' allegations of breach of fiduciary duty (prudence) are sufficient, and therefore the claim for failure to monitor can also stand. The Motion to Dismiss as to Count II is denied. The Defendants also argue that, even if Judge Berg find the breach of duty to be sufficient, this claim should fail because the Plaintiffs do not make sufficient allegations regarding the monitoring processes. But at the Motion to Dismiss stage, again, the Plaintiffs can only be expected to know so much about the Defendants' internal monitoring structures. The allegations they have made are sufficient to make out this claim at this stage. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Berg denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/eazhxcac from Leagle.com. [*] Minnesota Class Action Lawsuit Against Beef Processors Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqui Fatka at beefmagazine.com reports that a federal judge in Minnesota ordered a class action lawsuit against JBS, Tyson, National Beef and Cargill to proceed. In the ruling, Judge John R. Tunheim found that plaintiffs have plausibly plead that defendants conspired to suppress the price of fed cattle and increase the price of beef. "We are pleased the effort to restore pricing transparency and competitiveness to the cattle markets is moving forward in the courtroom. This case is nearly two-and-a-half years old, and we look forward to the next step in the litigation," comments Rob Larew, National Farmers Union president, which is a plaintiff in the case. The case now enters the discovery phase of the trial, where evidence and information will be presented to demonstrate how packers violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. The class-action antitrust lawsuit was originally filed in April 2019 by R-CALF USA though its counsels Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, along with Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. USA's antitrust action alleges the four processors violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy. It also alleges the entities violated the Packers and Stockyards Act as well as the Commodity Exchange Act. "As the case moves to discovery, NFU will continue to hold the packers accountable. Malfeasance in the cattle markets has been very damaging to independent farmers and ranchers, and we look forward to continuing to advocate for our members in the courtroom," Larew adds. A public version of the order will be available at a later date, according to plaintiffs. Separate DOJ investigation On May 22, 2020, the DOJ's Antitrust Division sent civil investigative demands to the nation's four biggest meatpackers. Since that time, the American people have seen no public results from the investigation. In fact, there is no information to even suggest whether the investigation has concluded or is still ongoing, the letter notes. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. previously reported that Congress has not received any update from the Department of Justice on its own investigation into the cattle price changes. He says this is not "unusual" as "agencies are notoriously tight-lipped about ongoing investigations, and there are legal reasons for that." However, he did note that the joint statement from leading cattle groups out of a Phoenix meeting in May confirmed their joint desire for a final report from DOJ. At the producer-led meeting, four member leaders from each the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Farmers Union, R-CALF USA and the United States Cattlemen's Association established several action items including demanding DOJ issue an update on its investigation into packer activity. Johnsons says it's important to make sure these investigations get run to the ground and that the DOJ investigation is "for real, rather than just investigations for show." "I think there is a strong bipartisan coalition on the fact that these investigations really do need to conclude, and then we need to have a very transparent release of their findings." Following the meeting, Johnson and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., led a bicameral letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging the Department of Justice to move forward with their investigation into anticompetitive practices in the meatpacking industry. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***