/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211119.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 226
Headlines
ABBVIE INC: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Elkins Suit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Modifies Deadlines in Digiacinto Suit
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Albina Suit
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissom Suit Seeks to Certify Class
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Patel Suit vs Talos Energy
BANK OF AMERICA: Contant's Atty. to Accept AMA's Claims for Payment
BEND MEMORIAL: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended in Fulkerson Suit
CENTRAL COAST: Seeks Extension to File Opposition on Class Cert Bid
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Oakley Suit
COMPUTER HAUS: Jahagirdar Wins Class Certification Bid
CONTACTUS LLC: Pyfrom Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
CREDIT CONTROL: Andre Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 10, 2022
DIAMOND TECHNICAL: Initial OK of Settlement Deal in Gunter Sought
DUN HUANG: Restaurant Staff Get Conditional Collective Status
DYNAGAS LNG: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
ENERGY SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Certify Power Plant Worker Class
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Reconsideration of October 31 Order
EVOLENT HEALTH: Parties in PCRS Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines
EXPERIAN INFO: Initial OK of Settlement Deal in Hill-Green Sought
FEDEX GROUND: Court Allows Jane Doe to Proceed Pseudonymously
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
FIRST HORIZON: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Certifies Three Class Actions
FISHMAN GROUP: Court Strikes Kline Class Certification Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Chapman Suit Seeks Class Certification
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Court Narrows Claims in Sides Class Suit
HOWARD BANK: Brasko Mortgage Loan Suit Seeks Class Certification
INOVIO PHARMA: December 8 Deadline for Class Cert. Reply Sought
INTERSECT ENT: To Settle Investor Suit for $300,000
INTEVAC INC: Ex-Employee Adds Class Action Claims
JD PRODUCE: Lin Second Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deal Reached in Neutrogena & Aveeno Related Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Tracleer Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Class Suit
LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Losses Bid for Class Certification
MACROGENICS INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
MALLINCKRODT PLC: LEHB's Antitrust Case Remains Stayed
MDL 2567: Plaintiffs Lose Class Cert Bid in Propane Tanks Suit
MDL 2836: Judge Miller Set to Conduct Hearings on Antitrust Suit
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Seeks Review of Class Certification in Brown
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Bid to Certify Class Due August 22, 2022
MIMEDX GROUP: Pension Fund's Securities Class Suit Underway
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
MONARCH RECOVERY: Goldring Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Kennedy Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal
OCWEN LOAN: Court OK's Torliatt Bid for Class Certification
OS RESTAURANT: Must Respond to Moxley Class Cert Bid by Nov. 29
POINT PICKUP: Seeks to Stay Response Deadline to Conditional Cert.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Stedman Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Rule 23 Injunctive Relief Class Certified
SBK DELIVERY: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Miller Suit
STG INTERNATIONAL: Stay of Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
STROM ENGINEERING: Smith Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,096 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 132 PI Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,625 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Faces PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Multiple PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Identifies Potential CARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $45MM in Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water Defends 7,000 Exposure Claims
*********
ABBVIE INC: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Elkins Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER ELKINS and LORI-ANN
RIDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
persons, v. ABBVIE, INC. f/k/a ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a ALLERGAN plc,
and f/k/a ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01562-PGB-LRH
(M.D. Fla.), AbbVie asks the Court to enter an order denying
certification of Plaintiffs' proposed class action.
According to the Defendant, the Court-imposed deadline for
Plaintiffs to move for class certification was October 21, 2021.
Plaintiffs did not comply. For this reason alone, the request for
class certification in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint should be
denied and the class allegations (paragraphs 264–272, including
all subparts) should be stricken from the Amended Complaint. While
this court could deny Plaintiffs' proposed class based only on
their missed deadline, that too would give Plaintiffs' counsel
precisely what they have unsuccessfully sought in the past. There
would be no preclusive effect, or even precedential ruling on the
merits of the class claims -- leaving AbbVie to litigate those
issues from scratch in Plaintiffs' chosen forum and rewarding
Plaintiff for their dilatory efforts.
From the start, Plaintiffs' proposed personal-injury, product
liability class action was not appropriate for certification. After
a year of litigation, Plaintiffs still have failed to establish
that class certification is appropriate. Plaintiffs have ignored
this Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order, this time by
failing to move for class certification on or before the October
21, 2021 deadline, the Defendant contends.
This failure is Plaintiffs' third attempt to keep this Court from
reaching the merits of Plaintiffs' class allegations: Plaintiffs
previously moved to voluntarily dismiss this case in its entirety
(which the Court denied) and then moved to amend their Complaint to
eliminate the class allegations (which is pending) -- all to avoid
a merits ruling from a court they deem less than favorable, the
Defendant adds.
AbbVie is an American publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DwabnL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alyson B. Jones, Esq.
M. Elizabeth Roper, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste. 1400
Ridgeway, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 948-5711
Facsimile: (601) 985-4500
E-mail: alyson.jones@butlersnow.com
beth.roper@butlersnow.com
- and -
Andrew R. Kruppa, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 577-7000
Facsimile: (305) 577-7001
E-mail: andrew.kruppa@squirepb.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court Modifies Deadlines in Digiacinto Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DIGIACINTO, v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03382-KAW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore entered an order
that the deadlines set forth in the Court's Orders dated August 5,
2021 and September 9, 2021 be changed as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Date Date
-- Alternative Dispute Nov. 8, 2021 Feb. 8, 2021
Resolution Completion
Deadline
-- Motion for Class Jan. 14, 2022 April 4, 2022
Certification
-- Opposition to Motion Feb. 18, 2022 May 18, 2022
for Class Certification
-- Reply in Support of March 18, 2022 June 20, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
On August 5, 2021, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
modify the deadlines for class certification by approximately 2 and
a half months, making Plaintiff's Motion 10 Class Certification
deadline due January 14, 2022, the opposition due by February 18,
2022, and the reply due by March 18, 2022, with the hearing set for
April 7, 2022.
Albertsons Companies is an American grocery company founded and
headquartered in Boise, Idaho. With 2,253 stores as of the third
quarter of fiscal year 2020 and 270,000 employees as of fiscal year
2019, the company is the second-largest supermarket chain in North
America after Kroger, which has 2,750 stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nfDIMC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
Meredyth Merrow, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
mmerrow@lexlawgroup.com
ALIERA COMPANIES: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Albina Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANNA ALBINA and AUSTIN
WILLARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., and
ONESHARE HEALTH, LLC d/b/a UNITY HEALTHSHARE, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00496-JMH (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Joseph M. Hood entered
an order:
1. granting Plaintifffs' motion for class certification for
the class against The Aliera Companies, Inc., defined as
follows:
"All persons who, while a Kentucky resident, purchased or
were covered by a plan from The Aliera Companies, Inc.,
and Trinity HealthShare, Inc., that purported to be a
"health care sharing ministry;"
2. designating Hanna Albina and Austin Willard as Class
Representatives;
3. designating Jerome P. Prather, Ganner & Prather, PLLC;
James J. Varellas III and D. Todd Varellas, Varellas &
Varellas; Richard E. Spoonemore and Eleanor Hamburger,
Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC; and William H.
Anderson, George Farah, Rebecca P. Chang, and Stephen
Pearson, Handley Farah & Anderson, PLLC, as Class Counsel.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied their requirements under
FRCP 23(a) and FRCP 23(b)(3), and, pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(I).
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3osgRgj at no extra charge.[CC]
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissom Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE GRISSOM, et al., v.
ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02028-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
1. certifying a class:
"All persons who executed a lease with Antero for mineral
interests underlying an Antero-owned horizontal well in
the Seneca System from which streams of raw liquids-rich
natural gas can be extracted, which lease contains the
Form 2012 Gas and Market Enhancement Clause and entitled
its lessors to receive royalty payments from Antero within
the last four years;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
This case involves uniform oil-and-gas leases in Ohio's Utica Shale
Formation. The Plaintiffs and class members are landowners with
mineral interests who signed leases with Antero. Antero breached
these uniform leases by underpaying royalties owed to the
Plaintiffs and class members. Antero improperly reduced class
members' royalty payments by deducting the costs it incurred to
transform the natural gas stream taken from landowners' wells into
"marketable" natural gas products, such as processed natural gas,
known in the industry as Residue Gas, and natural-gas liquids,
known in the industry as NGLs, that Antero could sell at various
market hubs.
NGLs are liquid hydrocarbons derived from various natural gas
components. NGLs become marketable when Antero completes
"processing and fractionation." Residue Gas is the processed
natural gas separated from the NGLs. Antero performs the processing
and fractionation process through several steps via the Seneca
System: a network of Antero-owned wells connected via gathering
lines to the Seneca and Cadiz plants.
In 2012, Antero and MarkWest Utica EMG, LLC agreed to create the
Seneca System to process and fractionate Antero's natural gas
extracted from Belmont, Monroe, and Noble Counties. Antero
contracted with MarkWest to provide MarkWest's plants with natural
gas for processing and fractionation. MarkWest committed to produce
Residue Gas and NGLs for a fee.
Antero is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3222I1L
at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:
Logan Trombley, Esq.
Warner Mendenhall, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WARNER MENDENHALL
190 N. Union St., Suite 201
Akron, OH 44304
Telephone: (330) 535-9160
E-mail: logan@warnermendenhall.com
warner@warnermendenhall.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
bhollowell@karonllc.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Brian R. Swiger, Esq.
Victor Woods, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
bswiger@baileyglasser.com
VWoods@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Larry D. Shenise, Esq.
P.O. Box 471
Tallmadge, OH 44278
Telephone: (330) 472-5622
E-mail: ldshenise@sheniselaw.com
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Patel Suit vs Talos Energy
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that on Sept.
30, Vice Chancellor Zurn dismissed the putative stockholder
derivative and class action complaint filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery by Vrajeshkumar Patel against Talos Energy, Inc. its
entirety.
On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Patel filed a putative stockholder
derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc., all of the members of Talos's
board of directors (including two Apollo partners), Riverstone
Holdings, LLC, AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC in
connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex
Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020.
The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against
Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of
their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a
controlling shareholder group.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and
unspecified money damages.
On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
The motion was fully briefed and oral argument was held on February
19, 2021.
On May 17, 2021, Vice Chancellor Zurn sent a letter to counsel
ordering that the Riverstone funds and Apollo funds that hold the
relevant Talos stock be joined as necessary parties.
The parties filed a stipulation, which was entered by the court on
June 7, 2021, adding Riverstone Talos Energy Equityco LLC,
Riverstone Talos Energy Debtco LLC, Apollo Talos Holdings, L.P.,
and AP Talos Energy Debtco LLC as defendants in the action.
These parties adopted the arguments previously advanced by the
Riverstone and Apollo defendants, and did not engage in any
separate briefing or argument.
"On September 30, 2021, Vice Chancellor Zurn dismissed the
complaint in its entirety against all defendants," the Company
said.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
BANK OF AMERICA: Contant's Atty. to Accept AMA's Claims for Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CONTANT, et al., Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 3139 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ordered that Claimant AMA Capital
LLC's claims already accepted for payment will be accepted by the
Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator for calculating AMA's
pro rata award.
On Sept. 23, 2021, the Class Counsel filed a letter requesting
review of an unresolved dispute with AMA and stating the Class
Counsel's position on the dispute. On Oct. 7, 2021, AMA filed a
response in opposition. On Oct. 18, 2021, the Class Counsel filed a
reply.
On Oct. 19, 2021, a group of settling defendants filed a letter
requesting an opportunity to be heard if the dispute is resolved
based on the appropriate class definition.
The Class Counsel advances four reasons for denying AMA's claim:
(1) untimeliness, (2) insufficient documentation, (3) failure to
meet the class definition, including through purchase of access to
a trading platform and use of a prime broker, and (4) the potential
for duplicate recovery of claims submitted in the case and in In re
Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 13 Civ.
7789 (FOREX) (Dkt. No. 490).
The timeliness argument is rejected. The settlement permits the
Class Counsel to "accept late-submitted claims for processing by
the Claims Administrator." The Class Counsel accepted the late
claim, and AMA expended resources to supplement its claim based on
the acceptance.
Judge Schofield holds that the factors courts consider in
addressing untimely class action settlement claims, the Pioneer
factors, all weigh in favor of accepting AMA's claim. The factors
are: "1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; 2) the length of
the delay and its potential effect on judicial proceedings; 3) the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant; and 4) whether the movant acted
in good faith." The danger of prejudice to other claimants is
minimal, the length of the delay was minimal, AMA's claim was
untimely because AMA did not receive actual notice of the
settlement claim deadline until the day it filed its claim and AMA
acted in good faith.
The Class Counsel's documentation argument is accepted. The
settlement requires claimants to support their claims "by such
documents or proof as Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator,
in their discretion, may deem acceptable." The Claim Form, which
the Court approved, states claimants "must submit detailed
transactional records." As the Claim Form makes clear, detailed
transactional records are necessary "for purposes of calculating
claimants' pro rata claimant award."
Additional information is necessary for claims that were denied for
reasons other than insufficient documentation.
Therefore, Judge Schofield ordered that AMA's claims already
accepted for payment will be accepted by the Class Counsel and the
Claims Administrator for calculating AMA's pro rata award. Of the
denied claims, any that lack detailed transactional records are
denied. Judgment is reserved on any claims denied for reasons other
than insufficient documentation. The class counsel, the settling
defendants, and AMA will submit letters not to exceed five pages,
further addressing AMA's dispute regarding the settlement class
definition, including through purchase of access to a trading
platform and use of a prime broker, and failure to identify
duplicate transactions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/574d5dvk from Leagle.com.
BEND MEMORIAL: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended in Fulkerson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fulkerson, et al., v. Bend
Memorial Clinic, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01579 (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting Stipulated Motion for
Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines as follows.
-- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Dec. 10, 2021.
Report (ADR) is due by:
-- Pretrial Order is due by: Dec. 10, 2021.
-- Class certification discovery Feb. 14, 2022.
shall be completed by:
-- Expert reports as to class Feb. 28, 2022.
certification are due by:
-- Depositions of class certification April 29, 2022.
experts shall be completed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class May 16, 2022.
Certification/Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment shall be
filed by:
-- Defendants' Memorandum in June 20, 2022.
Opposition to Class Certification/
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in
Opposition to Summary Judgment
shall be filed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in July 8, 2022.
support of class certification/
Defendants' Reply to Motion for
Summary Judgment shall be filed by:
-- Non-dispositive motions, excluding Aug. 29, 2022.
trial and trial related motions shall
be filed by:
-- Dispositive Motions are due by: Oct. 14, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
CENTRAL COAST: Seeks Extension to File Opposition on Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER GARCIA v. CENTRAL
COAST RESTAURANTS, INC., YADAV ENTERPRISES, INC. and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-02370-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants move ex parte for relief for an order continuing the
December 9, 2021 hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and related briefing deadlines.
The Defendants move to enlarge time for them to file their
Opposition to the Motion until December 20, 2021 and for the
hearing on the Motion to be continued until January 13, 2022 or as
soon thereafter as the Court is available.
Central Coast is doing business in the Restaurants and Other Eating
Places Industry.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HoiKTK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis C. Huie, Esq.
Sharon O. Rossi, Esq.
Emily A. Wieser, Esq.
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL
311 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 956-2828
Facsimile: (415) 956-6457
E-mail: dhuie@rjo.com
srossi@rjo.com
ewieser@rjo.com
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Oakley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA OAKLEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP., and PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge David A. Faber
entered an amending scheduling order:
Event New Deadline
-- Joinder and amendments December 31, 2021
-- Completion of all discovery August 19, 2022
requests
-- Discovery completion date October 7, 2022
-- Plaintiff's expert witness May 13, 2022
disclosures
-- Defendants' expert witness June 10, 2022
disclosures
-- Rebuttal disclosures July 8, 2022
-- Mediation November 4, 2022
Coast Professional is a top-performing accounts receivable
management and customer support center.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nddLgu at no extra charge.[CC]
COMPUTER HAUS: Jahagirdar Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et
al. v. THE COMPUTER HAUS NC. INC., d/b/a/ CITYMAC, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00033-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn,
Jr. entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
denying the Defendants' motion to decertify collective
action, and certifying the case to proceed with respect to
the claims of the Amended Complaint as a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
2. defining the classes for Plaintiffs' claims as follows:
The North Carolina Class:
"All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of North
Carolina at any time from three years prior to the filing
of this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case;"
The South Carolina Class:
"All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of South
Carolina at any time from three years prior to the filing
of this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case;"
The Colorado Class:
"All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of
Colorado at any time from two years prior to the filing of
this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case;"
The Washington Class:
"All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of
Washington at any time from three years prior to the
filing of this Complaint to the entry of judgment in the
case;"
The Oregon Class:
"All persons who worked for CityMac in the state of Oregon
at any time from three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint to the entry of judgment in the case;"
3. designating Plaintiff Shailesh Jahagirdar as class
representative for the North Carolina Class;
4. designating Plaintiffs Allen Allen, Rakia Green, and Kamri
Norris as class representatives for the South Carolina
Class;
5. designating Plaintiff Connor Johnson as class
representative for the Colorado Class;
6. designating Plaintiff Jordan Blais as class representative
for the Washington Class;
7. designating Plaintiff Andrew Free as class representative
of the Oregon Class;
8. authorizing L. Michelle Gessner and Nicole Katherine
Haynes, who are the attorneys of record for the appointed
class representatives, to serve as class counsel to
represent the class; and
9. directing the parties to confer and jointly submit, within
30 days of the date of this Order, proposed class notice
documents in conformance with Rule 23(c)(2), which the
court will consider before issuing notice to the class.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23 and that their proposed classes will be certified.
This case is a putative class action concerning wage and hour
claims raised by employees of CityMac alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws. The Plaintiffs
assert a number of potential violations including failure to pay
overtime and earned commissions, off-the-clock work, pay deductions
for meal breaks not actually taken, and failure to timely pay final
paychecks. Defendants broadly deny Plaintiffs' allegations.
The Plaintiff Shailesh Jahagirdar began this action by filing a
Complaint on February 5, 2020, seeking unpaid wages and statutory
penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
In subsequent notices, additional parties consented to be added to
the action. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a
Collective Action by Order dated April 15, 2020. The parties then
proceeded to discovery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F5G86C at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTACTUS LLC: Pyfrom Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHADEZA PYFROM, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. CONTACTUS, LLC D/B/A
CONTACTUS COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04293-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
action under Section 216(b) against Defendants ContactUS,
LLC and ContactUS Technology, LTD. d/b/a ContactUS
Communications (collectively "Defendants") on behalf of
Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
FLSA claims is sent by U.S. mail and email to:
"All former and current hourly support associates,
customer service representatives, agents, or similar call
center or in-home representatives of Defendants who were
scheduled to work 40 or more hours in one or more
workweek(s) beginning three years before the filing of
this Motion and to the present;"
3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;
4. directing Defendants to provide, within fourteen days
of an order granting conditional certification, a roster
of all persons who fit the definition in Paragraph 2 (the
"Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") that includes their full
names, their dates of employment, their locations worked,
job titles, their last known home addresses, and their
personal email addresses (the "Roster"); and
5. directing that the Court-approved notice and consent to
join forms be sent to such present and former employees
within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' home and email addresses.
This case involves the Defendants' unpaid troubleshooting policies
and/or practices. The Plaintiff has submitted allegations and
evidence that under these policies or practices, Defendants
require(d) Named Plaintiff, the opt-in plaintiffs ("Opt-In
Plaintiffs"), and similarly situated individuals who have yet to
join this action because they have not been sent notice ("Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs") to perform unpaid work before, during, and
after their scheduled shifts that is integral and indispensable to
their primary work duties.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs and Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs
are/were required by the Defendants to remain off-the-clock when
they were not actively taking customer calls even though they were
still engaging in substantive work. Named Plaintiff alleges that
this unpaid work includes (potentially among other activities)
attending to technical issues and/or problems with Defendants'
systems; calling into Defendants' technical support line; waiting
for assistance from Defendants' technical support representatives;
resolving issues with computers and/or other systems or programs
that are not functioning properly; and/or otherwise when designated
by Defendants as being in "reserve" in which Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees were not actively taking customer
calls for various reasons, including but not limited to technical
problems or troubleshooting issues with Defendants' computers
and/or systems.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' employees are required
to perform unpaid work for these activities regardless of whether
they work at Defendants' physical call centers or remotely. This
policy and/or practice deprives Defendants' hourly, non-exempt
customer support employees of their hard-earned overtime pay.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FiCsOO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Peter Contreras, Esq.
CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 787-4878
Facsimile: (614) 957-7515
E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Andre Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 10, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andre v. Credit Control,
LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01139 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn
Kimball Mizelle entered an endorsed order granting motion for
extension of time to file motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff Michelle Andre has until February 10, 2022 to file a
motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Credit Control LLC is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
DIAMOND TECHNICAL: Initial OK of Settlement Deal in Gunter Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW GUNTER, On behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DIAMOND TECHNICAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01428-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of
Settlement Class Members' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e);
2. approving a proposed notice to potential Settlement Class
Members;
3. appointing Scott & Winters Law Firm as interim Class
Counsel; and
4. scheduling a fairness hearing.
Diamond Technical is a technical services and engineering
consulting company catering to the utility, oil, gas, chemical, and
refining.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cdJSXi
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mary-Jo Rebelo, Esq.
Courtney C. Brennan, Esq.
BURNS WHITE CENTER
48 26th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 995-3347
E-mail: mjrebelo@burnswhite.com
ccbrennan@burnswhite.com
- and -
Jessica L. Silko, Esq.
Alan T. Silko, Esq.
SILKO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80 Emerson Lane, Suite 1305
Bridgeville, PA 15017
Telephone: (412) 914-0144
E-mail: ASilko@Silkolaw.com
Jessica.Silko@Silkolaw.com
DUN HUANG: Restaurant Staff Get Conditional Collective Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JINXIONG CHEN and CHAN YIN
LAU, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. DUN HUANG CORP, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11883-GBD-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order granting
the plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification as
to full-time, non-exempt waiters and kitchen staff employed at Dun
Huang Grand Central on or after December 29, 2016.
The Court also entered an order that, no later than two weeks from
the date of this Memorandum and Order:
1. Defendants shall produce a spreadsheet, in Excel if
possible, containing the names, last known mailing
addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email
addresses, last known WhatsApp, WeChat and/or Facebook
usernames, dates of employment, and positions of all full-
time, non-exempt waiters and kitchen staff employed at Dun
Huang Grand Central on or after December 29, 2016; and
2. The parties shall, after meeting and conferring, prepare
and submit to the Court, for approval, a revised form of
Notice (including the related opt-in form) incorporating
the Court's rulings.
The Plaintiffs Jinxiong Chen a/k/a Jason Chen and Chan Yin Lau
a/k/a Jack Lau (Lau) allege wage violations at "Dun Huang Grand
Central," a restaurant located at 320 Lexington Avenue in
Manhattan.
In this action, brought on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the plaintiffs allege that they were employed
by Dun Huang Corp, which owns and operates the restaurant, and by
Shiyang Li and Yang Liu (the Individual Defendants), who own and/or
control the Corporate Defendant, and that these defendants "have a
widespread and long-standing policy of underpaying their employees'
statutory minimum wages and willfully not paying their employees
with overtime wages of at least one and one-half (1.5x) times the
regular pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 in a given
week," as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA ). The
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants misappropriated tips left
for Dun Huang Grand Central's waiters, and that they violated the
minimum wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, wage notice, and wage
statement provisions of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and its
implementing regulations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FlTqw1 at no extra charge.[CC]
DYNAGAS LNG: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters final Judgment in the case, IN RE
DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19-cv-04512
(AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), as against the Defendants.
A consolidated class action is pending in the Court styled In re
Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-104512-AJN. Court-appointed settlement class
representatives FNY Partners Fund LP, Mario Epelbaum, Scott Dunlop
and Irving Braun, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class;
and (b) Defendants Dynagas LNG Partners LP, Dynagas GP, LLC,
Dynagas Holdings Ltd., George J. Prokopiou, Tony Lauritzen, Michael
Gregos, Evangelos Vlahoulis, Alexios Rodopoulos and Levon A.
Dedegian, UBS Securities LLC, ("UBS"), Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.,
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, and B. Riley FBR, Inc., previously
determined to settle all claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 21, 2021
subject to approval of the Court.
By Order dated June 10, 2021, the Court: (a) preliminarily approved
the Settlement; (b) certified the Settlement Class solely for
purposes of effectuating the Settlement; (c) ordered that notice of
the proposed Settlement be provided to potential Settlement Class
Members; (d) provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity
either to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object
to the proposed Settlement; and (e) scheduled a hearing regarding
final approval of the Settlement.
Due and adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class. The
Court conducted the Settlement Hearing on Nov. 5, 2021 to consider,
among other things: (a) whether the terms and conditions of the
Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement
Class, and should therefore be approved; and (b) whether a judgment
should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against
the Defendants.
Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed
and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all
oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and
the record in the Action, good cause appearing therefor, and solely
for purposes of the Settlement of this Action, Judge Nathan finds
that each element required for certification of the Settlement
Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
has been met.
Therefore, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, she certifies, solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of: "All
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Dynagas during the period from December 21, 2017
through March 21, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), purchased or
otherwise acquired call options on Dynagas securities during the
Class Period or sold or otherwise transferred put options on
Dynagas securities during the Class Period."
Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Judge Nathan fully and finally approves the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases
provided for therein, including the release of the Released Claims
as against the Released Defense Parties; and the dismissal with
prejudice of the claims asserted against the Defendants in the
Action), and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class. The Parties are
directed to implement, perform, and consummate the Settlement in
accordance with the terms and provisions contained in the
Stipulation.
The Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the
Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice. The Parties will
bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly
provided in the Stipulation.
Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Such
orders will in no way affect or delay the finality of the Judgment
and will not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.
Judge Nathan finds that the Defendants have satisfied their
financial obligations under the Stipulation by paying or causing to
be paid $4.5 million in cash into the Settlement Fund.
There is no just reason to delay the entry of the Judgment as a
final judgment in the Action as against the Defendants pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly,
the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to immediately enter
the final Judgment as against the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/xnjeb668 from Leagle.com.
ENERGY SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Certify Power Plant Worker Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH BROWN and MARK
BARON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ENERGY
SERVICES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00611-REP
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their bid for conditional certification and notice to be sent (via
mail, email, and text message) to:
"All power plant workers who ESGI paid at less than time and
a half for hours worked over 40 in workweek (the "Putative
Class Members").
The Plaintiffs Kenneth Brown and Mark Baron filed this collective
action on behalf of Energy Services Group International ("ESGI")
workers who were paid less than the required "time and a half" for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs claim that ESGI subjected them and numerous other
power plant workers to a common and illegal practice of
compensating them with less than the required "time and a half" for
hours worked overtime in their workweek.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ceeUyk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Harris D. Butler, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Seeks Reconsideration of October 31 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEAR CREEK BIBLE CHURCH et
al., v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00824-O (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants asks the Court to
reconsider its October 31, 2021 Order on Motion to Certify Class,
and Motion for Summary Judgment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace
discrimination.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CjS3vM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
Carlotta Wells, Esq.
Benjamin T. Takemoto, Esq.
Michael F. Knapp, Esq.
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
P.O. Box No. 883, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 532-4252
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: benjamin.takemoto@usdoj.gov
EVOLENT HEALTH: Parties in PCRS Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., FRANK WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS
MCGRANE, SETH BLACKLEY, CHRISTIE SPENCER, and STEVEN WIGGINTON,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01031-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Parties submit joint
motion to stay deadlines relating to class certification pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 7.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
October 19, 2021. The Defendants' Opposition brief is currently due
on November 23, 2021, and Plaintiffs' Reply brief is currently due
on December 21, 2021.
On November 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent to
Amend Complaint. As set forth in that Notice, Plaintiffs intend to
seek leave to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint ("TAC")
by the Court-ordered deadline of November 17, 2021.
The Parties held a meet-and-confer call on November 5, 2021 to
discuss the impact of Plaintiffs' forthcoming TAC on the discovery
and litigation schedule relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
During that call, the Plaintiffs advised Defendants that the
forthcoming TAC will allege an enlarged putative class period based
on documents and new information recently produced by Defendants in
discovery, as those documents and new information relate to
statements that are not encompassed in the current, operative class
period.
A copy of he Parties's motion dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FghNLh at no extra charge.[CC]
Liaison Counsel for ther Lead Plaintiffs are:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Somers, Esq.
Josh Handelsman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
jhandelsman@cohenmilstein.com
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
brandon@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
Sara DiLeo, Esq.
Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, New York 10606
Tel: (914) 437-8551
Fax: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
sdileo@saxenawhite.com
jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com
Local counsel for Defendants are:
Robert R. Vieth, Esq.
Abigail J. Johansen, Esq.
HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC
8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Telephone: (703) 584-8366
Facsimile: (703) 584-8901
E-mail: rvieth@hirschlerlaw.com
ajohansen@hirschlerlaw.com
- and -
Ashley C. Parrish, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006-4707
Telephone: (202) 737-0500
Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
E-mail: aparrish@kslaw.com
- and -
Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
Michael J. Biles, Esq.
Jill R. Carvalho, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1800
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 457-2050
Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com
mbiles@kslaw.com
jcarvalho@kslaw.com
EXPERIAN INFO: Initial OK of Settlement Deal in Hill-Green Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA HILL-GREEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00708-MHL
(E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving a proposed class settlement;
2. scheduling a fairness hearing;
3. certifying the proposed settlement class for purposes of
the proposed class settlement;
4. appointing class counsel; and
5. approving the manner of notice proposed to be sent to:
"all members of the settlement classes, and setting a new
deadline for submission of a proposed third-party
administrator and specific class notice."
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30tzecE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
E-maiL: lenbennett@clalegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David N. Anthony, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON
SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
E-mail: david.anthony@troutmansanders.com
FEDEX GROUND: Court Allows Jane Doe to Proceed Pseudonymously
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE and JANE ROE, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees and a class of employees, Plaintiffs,
v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. and ALLIED FACILITY CARE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00395 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A.
Trauger of the U.S. District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville
Division, granted the Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously, to Permit
Filing Unredacted Consent Forms Under Seal, and for Entry of
Protective Order as to Jane Doe but denied as to Jane Roe.
Background
The Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in Davidson County,
Tennessee, and who currently work, or formerly worked, for
Defendants Allied and FedEx. FedEx contracts with Allied for the
performance of cleaning services at FedEx facilities in Nashville
and Mount Juliet, Tennessee, and the Plaintiffs worked for Allied
on the premises of the FedEx facilities.
The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, naming only Allied
as a Defendant, on May 17, 2021; they filed their Amended
Complaint, naming both Allied and FedEx as Defendants, on June 1,
2021. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert a
collective-action claim, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees, against the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 206, 207, for
failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs also bring a number of claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative Rule 23 class comprised of "foreign-born,
Hispanic women who worked for Defendants at the FedEx facilities
since May 17, 2017," including claims for sexual harassment,
retaliation, national origin discrimination, and race
discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act
("THRA") and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Counts II-V). Finally, they
assert a class-action negligence claim under Tennessee common law
against FedEx only (Count VI). The Plaintiffs filed notices of
Consent to Sue under the FLSA with their original Complaint, from
which their true names have been redacted.
The Plaintiffs' claims under the THRA, Section 1981, and Tennessee
common law are premised upon allegations that they and other
Hispanic female employees of the Defendants suffered "egregious and
outrageous sexual assault and sexual harassment and retaliation, as
well as national origin discrimination," by their supervisor Samuel
Perez. They allege that the Defendants are liable for Perez's
intentional and criminal assaults, because Perez has been employed
by Allied and has supervised the cleaning staff assigned to work at
the FedEx facilities since 2016; Perez was first accused of assault
and offensive or provocative contact in November 2016 and charged
with assault and offensive or provocative contact in September
2017; and Allied and FedEx management-level employees, including
Allied manager John Ballenger, knew of these charges and knew or
should have known of Perez's continuing assaults on Allied/FedEx
employees. Perez's employment and supervisory role over cleaning
staff at FedEx facilities nonetheless continued after the 2016
criminal allegations. Perez was allowed to continue advertising,
recruiting, interviewing, hiring, supervising, and disciplining
individuals hired to perform cleaning services at the FedEx
facilities.
The Plaintiffs allege generally that Perez "targets foreign-born,
Hispanic women who are similarly situated to Named Plaintiffs
because he believes they are more vulnerable and more easily
exploitable than workers born in the United States and workers who
are not Hispanic and that they will tolerate his egregious and
outrageous sexual assault, harassment, and rape without reporting
it to their employers or to authorities."
After the Defendants answered the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
filed their present motion and supporting Memorandum of Law,
seeking the Court's authorization to proceed pseudonymously and the
entry of a protective order. The motion is supported by the
Declarations of Jane Doe and Jane Roe.
The Plaintiffs argue generally that they should be permitted to
pursue this case under pseudonyms, because prosecution of the suit
will require the disclosure of information of the "utmost
intimacy"; they would be unnecessarily traumatized if required to
pursue the case under their real names; and the Defendants are
already aware of their true identities and will not be prejudiced
by their pursuing their claims pseudonymously.
The Defendants filed separate Responses in Opposition to the
Motion, both raising similar arguments: (1) that the fact that the
case involves sexual assault and, consequently, the "potential for
embarrassment or public humiliation," standing alone, does not
justify a request for anonymity; (2) permitting the Plaintiffs to
proceed under pseudonyms would be "grossly prejudicial" to the
Defendants, particularly because the proposed Protective Order
would "hinder the Defendants from even disclosing the Plaintiffs'
names to any witnesses or entities in the preparation of their
defense," from "conducting fact investigations or routine discovery
without the Plaintiffs' blessing as to whether the individual or
entity may be informed of the Plaintiffs' identities," and from
"disclosing any 'personally identifying information, or any other
sensitive information' they obtain about the Plaintiffs to 'any
other party or entity' absent Court order," and would require them
to disclose their attorney work-product and litigation strategies;
(3) there is a compelling public interest in open and transparent
litigation; (4) the Plaintiffs have not established compelling
grounds for a "blanket protective order," particularly in light of
their collective and class claims; (5) the additional factors
identified by the Plaintiffs does not shift the balance of the
relevant factors in favor of the plaintiffs' request for anonymity;
and (6) fairness dictates that the Plaintiffs be required to
disclose their identities, in light of the fact that their
allegations "strike directly" at the Defendants' and individual
employees' reputations.
The Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief arguing that the Defendants fail
to show they would suffer any concrete prejudice if the Plaintiffs
are allowed to proceed pseudonymously. In addition, along with
their Reply, the Plaintiffs submitted a revised Proposed Protective
Order that, they argue, cures any possible prejudice raised in the
Defendants' original Responses.
The revised proposed Protective Order would (1) authorize Jane Doe
and Jane Roe to proceed pseudonymously in public filings, while
permitting them to redact their names and personally identifying
information from any documents filed publicly in the court; (2)
permit them to file under seal unredacted versions of the same
documents, including their consent forms, and require them to
provide to the Defendants unredacted copies of all documents filed
under seal; (3) require the Defendants to refrain from filing
unredacted documents containing the Plaintiffs' names or
identifying information and to file under seal the unredacted
version of any such documents; and (4) generally authorize both
parties to disclose the Plaintiffs' identities to third parties,
"if counsel for the parties believe in good faith that disclosure
of the identities of the Plaintiffs to third parties, including
other entities, is necessary during discovery to investigate the
Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendants' defenses and to fulfill
their discovery obligations," so long as the third party is
apprised of the provisions of the Protective Order. The revised
proposed Protective Order requires either party to notify the other
party of a disclosure of protected information to third parties,
unless doing so will "reveal attorney work product."
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that they seek to protect themselves
from the "secondary trauma of having their names publicly
identified with the rapes and sexual assaults they suffered" and
that this is different from merely trying to avoid "re-triggering
the symptoms of trauma that would be an inherent risk" of pursuing
this litigation. In support of this argument, they submit the
Declaration of Emily B. Simpson, Clinical Co-Director of the Sexual
Assault Center of Nashville. Third, the Plaintiffs argue that the
case is distinguishable from those involving well known public
figures, as were involved in Ramsbottom and Rapp v. Fowler, No.
20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021), an
opinion on which this court relied significantly in reaching its
conclusion in Ramsbottom to deny the plaintiff's motion to proceed
under a pseudonym.
FedEx filed a Sur-Reply, in which Allied joined, arguing that the
Court should disregard new evidence submitted with the Plaintiffs'
Reply, including the Simpson Declaration, particularly in light of
the fact that Simpson did not meet or treat the Plaintiffs.
Discussion
Judge Trauger notes that the fact that the allegations in the case
are of a highly personal nature, involving matters of utmost
intimacy, weighs in favor of both the Plaintiffs' anonymity, but
the remaining Porter factors do not. Specifically regarding Jane
Roe, even if the Court also presumes that the risk of psychological
trauma if she is required to proceed under her real name weighs
slightly in her favor, these two factors together, under the
particular circumstances of this case, do not "substantially
outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings." Roe does
have the option, however, of seeking to seal or redact specific
court filings that contain particularly embarrassing or intimate
information.
Regarding Jane Doe, Judge Trauger finds that the allegations of
sexual assault and rape by Perez are more severe, and the Plaintiff
has submitted evidence that she has been severely traumatized and
would be further traumatized, not simply by pursuing litigation,
but by having her name associated publicly with the case. While the
other Porter factors do not weigh in favor of granting the motion,
neither have the Defendants established that they would be
prejudiced in conducting discovery in the matter, or otherwise, if
Jane Doe is allowed to proceed under a pseudonym. In addition, they
are already aware of Jane Doe's identity.
Judge Trauger finds that the substantial risk of trauma to Jane Doe
and the likelihood of setting back whatever mental health progress
she has already made in recovering from the alleged trauma, coupled
with the potential risk of irreparable harm to her relationships,
substantially outweigh the presumption of open proceedings, at
least at this juncture. Jane Doe will be permitted to proceed
anonymously.
Conclusion
Having found that Plaintiff Jane Doe should be permitted to proceed
pseudonymously, Judge Trauger granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously, to Permit Filing
Unredacted Consent Forms Under Seal, and for Entry of Protective
Order. Within 10 days of entry of the Memorandum and Order, the
Plaintiff will prepare a revised Protective Order narrowing its
application to Jane Doe rather than pertaining to both named
Plaintiffs; Plaintiff Jane Doe will file an unredacted Notice of
Consent under seal; and Plaintiff Jane Roe must submit an
unredacted Notice of Consent. The Clerk shall, thereafter, update
the case caption.
Judge Trauger emphasizes that her ruling is preliminary in nature
and does not address or resolve the question of whether Jane Doe
will be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym during trial if the
case proceeds to trial—an issue the parties' motion and responses
do not raise. Her ruling, therefore, is without prejudice to the
Defendants' ability to move to require Jane Doe to proceed under
her own name if changed circumstances or progression in the
procedural status of the lawsuit so warrant.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2babumvk from Leagle.com.
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS BONSANGUE, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated drivers, v. FERRELLGAS,
INC.; FERRELLGAS, L.P.; BLUE RHINO LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11169-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action
and PAGA settlement, including the amount of the
settlement; the amount and methodology pertaining to
distributions to the class; the procedure for giving
notice to class; the procedure for allowing class members
to opt out of or object to the settlement; and the amounts
allocated to incentive payments, attorney fees and costs,
and administrative costs;
2. granting Plaintiff leave to file and entering Plaintiff's
proposed First Amended Complaint;
3. provisionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only;
4. approving the form and content of the class notice and
directing the distribution of the class notice;
5. appointing Joseph Lavi, Vincent Granberry, and Courtney
Miller from Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel and
named Plaintiff Chris Bonsangue as Class Representative;
6. appointing Simpluris, Inc. as settlement administrator;
7. setting a Final Approval Hearing and hearing on Class
Counsel's Attorney Fees and Cost award and Class
Representative's Enhancement Payment for a date and time
convenient to the Court approximately 120 days after
granting preliminary approval; and
8. enjoining Class Members from filing or prosecuting any
claims, suits, or administrative proceedings regarding the
Released Claims unless and until such Class Members have
filed valid Requests for Exclusion with the Settlement
Administrator.
Ferrellgas is an American supplier of propane founded 82 years ago
in Atchison, Kansas by A.C. Ferrell. The company is based outside
of Kansas City in the suburbs of Liberty, Missouri and Overland
Park, Kansas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ChnRBw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
mhuether@lelawfirm.com
cmiller@lelawfirm.com
FIRST HORIZON: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAKISHA WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. FIRST HORIZON
CORPORATION, and FIRST HORIZON BANK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02553-JTF-cgc
(W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all employees and former employees who worked for the
Defendants as a Risk Compliance Officer I and/or II at any
time between February 26, 2018 through March 14, 2021 and
who were paid a salary with no overtime compensation;
2. directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel
within 10 business days of the Order granting this Motion
a list containing the names, the last known addresses,
last four digits of their social security numbers, e-mail
addresses, dates of work and position(s) held of each
putative class member ("Putative Class Members");
3. authorizing undersigned counsel, to send Notice, to all
Putative Class Members by first-class mail and e-mail;
4. providing all Putative Class Members with 30 days from the
date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
Become a Party Plaintiff; and
5. any other relief that is just and appropriate.
First Horizon is a bank holding company based in Memphis,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wK9NPA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail:rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A.
8151 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
eredden@bakerdonelson.com
tthompson@bakerdonelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dena H. Sokolow, Esq.
Ashleigh Singleton, Esq.
Emma R. Davis, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
3301 Thomasville Rd, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Telephone: (850) 425-7550
E-mail: dsokolow@bakerdonelson.com
lterry@bakerdonelson.com
asingleton@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A.
8151 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Certifies Three Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in three class action
lawsuits against FirstEnergy Corp., et al.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class defined as:
"All persons and entities resident in the state of Ohio who
have and/or will have to pay a monthly surcharge for
electric service pursuant to House Bill 6."
HB 6 was scheduled to impose the nuclear bailout fee on all
ratepayers throughout the State of Ohio. In addition,
customers of FirstEnergy's Electric Distribution Utilities
continue to pay a legacy bailout fee for two old
coal-powered plants and, until recently, paid tens of
millions of dollars of rate stabilization charges, also
known as "decoupling." While collection of these fees has
been suspended, FirstEnergy allegedly collected fees before
such corrective legislation.
The Plaintiffs contend that they have met their burden under Rule
23(a) and move for class certification under Rules 23(b)(1)(A),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). The Court agrees.
The class action lawsuits are captioned as:
"JACOB SMITH v. FIRSTENERGY CORP. AND FIRSTENERGY SERVICE
CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-3755 (S.D. Ohio);"
"BRIAN HUDOCK AND CAMEO COUNTERTOPS, INC., v. FIRSTENERGY
CORP., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-3954 (S.D. Ohio);" and
"JAMES BULDAS v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-
3987 (S.D. Ohio)."
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30r55uh at no extra charge.[CC]
FISHMAN GROUP: Court Strikes Kline Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kline, et al., v. Fishman
Group PC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-11272 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered an order striking motion to Certify
Class.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
Fishman Group is a law firm in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Chapman Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK D. CHAPMAN, et al.,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and for the appointment of Counsel and Class
Representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Specifically, Plaintiffs move for certification of the classes
listed below under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to "Class Vehicles,"
which are defined as the following CP4-equipped, GM-manufactured
vehicles with a diesel engine: 2011-2016 Duramax diesel 6.6L V8 LML
engine trucks marketed as the Chevrolet Silverado or GMC Sierra.
The Plaintiffs move for certification of the following multi-state
liability class:
Multi-State Class: For breach of implied warranty of
merchantability only
"all persons or entities who purchased or leased one or more
Class Vehicles in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming."
The Plaintiffs further move for certification of the following
single-state liability classes:
1. Alabama Class.
All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Alabama.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the Alabama Class for
a claim of unjust enrichment.
2. California Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in California."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the California Class
for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code section 1750, and of the Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200.
3. Florida Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Florida."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the Florida Class for
a claim of unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act., Fla.
Stat. Section 510.201, et seq.
4. Illinois Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Illinois."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the Illinois Class
for a claim of unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
5. Iowa Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Iowa.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the Iowa Class for
violation of Iowa’s Private Right of Action for Consumer
Frauds Act, Iowa Code Ann. section 714H.1, et seq.
6. Michigan Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Michigan. Plaintiffs seek
certification of the Michigan Class for a claim of unjust
enrichment.
7. New York Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in New York. Plaintiffs seek
certification of the New York Class for a claim of unjust
enrichment and for violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section
349(a).
8. Pennsylvania Class
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or
more of the Class Vehicles in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs
seek certification of the Pennsylvania Class for a claim
of unjust enrichment."
The Plaintiffs further propose two damage subclasses that apply
across all nine liability classes: a cost of repair subclass (to
compensate truck owners who paid out of pocket for a CP4 repair
that was not covered under warranty), and an overpayment subclass
(to compensate the remaining truck owners who overpaid for their
trucks).
The Plaintiffs further move for appointment of the following
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Multi-State Class:
Stacy Wade Sizelove, Calvin Smith, and Kevin Allen Lawson
(California plaintiffs); William Fortmayer and Ryan Begneaud
(Louisiana plaintiffs); Clay Kincheloe (Montana plaintiff); Bruce
Dawson and John Tamburini (New Jersey plaintiffs); Terri Egleberry
(Oklahoma plaintiff); John Cappiello and Bryan Joyce (Pennsylvania
plaintiffs).
The Plaintiffs further move for appointment of the following
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the single-state Classes:
Jon McCormick (for the Alabama Class); Stacy Wade Sizelove, Calvin
Smith, and Kevin Allen Lawson (for the
California Class); Holly Reasor and Melody Anne Dearborn (for the
Florida Class); Nathan Howton and Trisha Alliss (for the Illinois
Class); Arnold Recchia (for the Michigan Class); Mark D. Chapman
(for the New York Class); and John Cappiello and Bryan Joyce (for
the Pennsylvania Class). The Plaintiffs also move for appointment
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez LLP,
and The Miller Law Firm P.C. as Class Counsel for all Classes,
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The case is well suited to class certification. All Class Vehicles
contain a defective CP4 pump, all class members overpaid, and GM
did not reveal the existence of the defect to any consumer. These
allegations can be resolved on a class-wide basis using common
proof. Their motion should be granted, the Plaintiffs contend.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fl7nKA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Lauren Akers, Esq
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
lakers@hmglawfirm.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
josterwise@bm.net
apark@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
- and -
Sidney D. Torres, III, Esq.
Roberta L. Burns, Esq.
Beau F. Camel, Esq.
Valerie L. Rodrigue, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY D. TORRES, III,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
8301 West Judge Perez Drive, Suite 303
Chalmette, LA 70043
Telephone: (504) 271-8422
Facsimile: (504) 271-1961
E-mail: storres@torres-law.com
rburns@torres-law.com
bcamel@torres-law.com
vrodrigue@torres-law.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Steven Lopez, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
sal@classlawgroup.com
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Court Narrows Claims in Sides Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA SIDES, et al., v.
GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC (D.
Mont.), the Hon. Judge Susan P. Watters entered an order adopting
the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United
States Magistrate Judge Cavan regarding Plaintiff Lisa Sides, et
al.'s Motion for Class Certification and Defendant Global Travel
Alliance's Motion to Dismiss.
The Court ordered that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied; and
2. Global Travel's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Count
I, granted with leave to amend as to Count IV, and denied
in all other respects.
The Court said, "There is no benefit to the judiciary "if the
district court is required to review the entire matter de novo
because the objecting party merely repeats the arguments rejected
by the magistrate. In such situations, this Court follows other
courts that have overruled the objections without analysis." In
short, an objection to a magistrate's findings and recommendations
"is not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case." The
Court expects that future objections will conform to these
standards. Finally, Global Travel objects to Judge Cavan allowing
Plaintiffs leave to amend their declaratory and injunctive relief
claims. The Ninth Circuit has "adopted a generous standard for
granting leave to amend from a dismissal for failure to state a
claim." Global Travel urges that any amendment would be futile.
However, given the broad standard mandated by the circuit, the
Court agrees with Judge Cavan that Plaintiffs should be allowed to
amend their declaratory and injunctive relief claim."
The Plaintiffs raised six claims in their operative Third Amended
Complaint: negligence, breach of contract, violations of the
Montana Consumer Protection Act (MTCPA), declaratory and injunctive
relief, an equitable constructive trust, and the previously
mentioned class action certification.
Global Travel moved for dismissal of all six claims. Judge Cavan
recommended denying class certification and granting in part and
denying in part Global Travel's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, Judge Cavan recommended dismissing the negligence
claim and the declaratory and injunctive relief claim.
The Court takes all factual allegations asserted in the operative
complaint as true and draws any resulting inferences in the
plaintiffs' favor.
Global Travel sells educational travel packages to students,
including trips to Washington D.C. and New York City.
The Plaintiffs are various parents and students who booked trips
for Spring 2020. These trips were canceled on March 13, 2020, due
to safety implications from the COVID-19 pandemic. In the
cancellation letter, Global Travel detailed their standard
cancellation policy, refund policy, their trip protection plans,
and their right to cancel trips for safety reasons.
In a second communication, Global Travel gave affected participants
the option to reschedule their planned trip or receive a partial
refund, with the amount of the refund depending on how close the
original trip date was.
Global Travel contends that their voucher and partial refund
arrangement conforms to, and even goes above and beyond, the terms
and obligations of the Booking Agreement.
The Plaintiffs' core contention is that Global Travel conflated the
safety cancellation policy and the voluntary cancellation policy,
resulting in underpayment of refunds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CkOjKD at no extra charge.[CC]
HOWARD BANK: Brasko Mortgage Loan Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD AND LORI BRASKO,
et al., v. HOWARD BANK, successor by merger to FIRST MARINER BANK,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03489-SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order certifying the following Class and Subclasses:
"All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
mortgage loan originated by, brokered by, and/or otherwise
obtained from First Mariner Bank for which All Star Title,
Inc., provided a settlement service, as identified on the
borrower's HUD-1 or Closing Disclosure, between January 1,
2012, and January 31, 2016."
Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period
of January 1, 2012, and January 31, 2016, was an employee,
officer, member, and/or agent of First Mariner Bank, Howard
Bank, or All Star Title, Inc.
-- The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) Subclass is comprised of all members of the First
Mariner Class.
-- The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Subclass
is comprised of all members of the First Mariner Class who
were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as
defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
12 U.S.C. section 2602) between January 1, 2012, and
January 31, 2016.
Howard Bank operates a general commercial banking business.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Defrfy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
vnannis@jgllaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Melissa L. English, Esq.
SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, Maryland 21204
Telephone: (410) 821-0070
Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
menglish@sgs-law.com
INOVIO PHARMA: December 8 Deadline for Class Cert. Reply Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK McDERMID,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-GJP
(E.D. Pa.), the Parties stipulated and agreed, subject to approval
by the Court, as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in further support
of their motion for class certification on or before
December 8, 2021.
2. The Parties shall be available for a status conference
with the Court on or about the week of December 13, 2021,
subject to the Court's availability.
Inovio researches and develops pharmaceuticals. The Company
develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA vaccines, and
anti-inflammatory drugs.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Nov. 5, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3netZGl at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON & STUMP
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717) 556-1000
Facsimile: (717) 441-3810
E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Koji Fukumura, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 550-6000
Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com
INTERSECT ENT: To Settle Investor Suit for $300,000
---------------------------------------------------
Intersect Ent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the anticipated
settlement costs associated with a stockholder class action lawsuit
is $300,000.
On May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19- cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.
The Court appointed the lead plaintiff and set a schedule for
initial motions and pleadings.
By order dated June 19, 2020, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend.
On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
September 18, 2020. By order dated January 22, 2021,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint with leave to amend.
"Although the Company continues to believe this lawsuit is without
merit, on March 4, 2021, the Company agreed with the plaintiff to a
settlement-in-principle that, if approved, will resolve the
litigation in its entirety," the Company said.
The plaintiff filed its motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on May 14, 2021.
On June 22, 2021, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval and set a final settlement approval hearing
for October 22, 2021, which was subsequently rescheduled to
November 5, 2021.
During the three months ended September 30, 2021, the Company
funded an escrow account with its anticipated settlement costs
associated with this lawsuit of $0.3 million.
Intersect ENT is a publicly traded health care equipment company
based in Menlo Park, California. It manufactures drug-delivery
devices used by Ear, Nose & Throat clinicians in the treatment of
sinusitis.
INTEVAC INC: Ex-Employee Adds Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Intevac, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that a former employee has
added class action claims to his original complaint.
In July 2020, a former contract employee who worked for the Company
via a staffing agency filed an action against the Company under the
Private Attorneys General Act in California state court alleging
that the Company failed to provide rest and meal breaks, pay
overtime and reimburse business expenses for non-exempt California
employees.
"The former employee has since added class action claims to his
original complaint," the Company said.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.
Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of
the case, the Company is currently unable to estimate the amount of
loss, or range of possible loss, that may result from this action.
Accordingly, no accrual has been made with respect to this matter.
Intevac is a provider of vacuum deposition equipment for a wide
variety of thin-film applications, and a provider of digital
night-vision technologies and products to the defense industry.
JD PRODUCE: Lin Second Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUSONG LIN on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JD PRODUCE
MASPETH LLC, JD TRUCKING MASPETH INC., SHENG BO DONG, YI FENG YE,
and JESSICA DONG, Case No. 1:20-cv-02746-WFK-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Taryn A. Merkl entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's second motion for conditional
certification as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
The Court further orders that:
(1) within 4 days of this Order, by November 19, 2021, the
parties are to meet and confer in good faith, and by
December 17, 2021, the parties shall submit a revised
proposed Notice of Pendency form that complies with the
directives set forth herein;
(2) within 15 days of this Order, by November 22, 2021,
Defendants are to produce to Plaintiff a spreadsheet
including the full names, last known mailing addresses
(including apartment number if applicable), telephone
numbers, email addresses, social media, and dates of
employment of the members of the putative collective,
i.e., drivers employed by Defendants JD Produce and JD
Trucking at any time from June 20, 2017 to the present;
(3) within 30 days of final approval by the Court, Plaintiff
or his designated representative shall cause a copy of
the Notice of Pendency form to be disseminated to the
putative collective and to be posted at JD Produce
Maspeth LLC, located at 57-45 Rust St., Maspeth, New York
11378, and JD Trucking Maspeth Inc., 39-18 216th St.,
Bayside, New York, 11361;
(4) no sooner than 30 days following final approval by the
Court, Plaintiff may send one reminder notice by mail and
email to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs that the 60
day opt-in period is coming to a close;
(5) the statute of limitations period for opt-in plaintiffs
shall be tolled from June 28, 2021, the date Plaintiff
filed his second conditional certification motion, until
the close of the opt-in period, 60 days from the Court's
final approval of the revised Notice of Pendency; and
(6) within 30 days of the Court's final approval of the
Notice of Pendency, the parties are to meet and confer in
good faith, and set out a deposition schedule for the 90-
day discovery period granted herein.
On June 20, 2020, the Plaintiff Lin initiated this action on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA,
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIbugG at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deal Reached in Neutrogena & Aveeno Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the consolidated putative class
action suit related to Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen products.
Beginning in May 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed
in state and federal courts (California, Florida, New York, and New
Jersey) against various Johnson & Johnson entities alleging
violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure
of alleged benzene contamination of certain Neutrogena and Aveeno
sunscreen products and the affirmative promotion of those products
as "safe"; and, in at least one case, alleging a strict liability
manufacturing defect and failure to warn claims, asserting that the
named plaintiffs suffered unspecified injuries as a result of
alleged exposure to benzene.
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated
all pending actions, except one product liability matter, in the
United States District Court-Southern District of Florida-Fort
Lauderdale Division.
In October 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of a nationwide class, encompassing the claims of
the consolidated actions, subject to approval by the Florida
federal Court.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit related to the combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART) to treat HIV.
In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV.
The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan Tobacco.
In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2020. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
renewed motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re
Remicade Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions were
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of REMICADE(R) against
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. alleging that Janssen
has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting
strategies for REMICADE(R).
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes as In re
REMICADE(R) Antitrust Litigation in United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The consolidated complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Discovery is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Tracleer Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit related to Tracleer.
In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals
U.S., Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively
Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and
federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing
to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER(R).
TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy
required by the Food and Drug Administration, which imposes
restrictions on distribution of the product.
In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
In April 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed and remanded.
Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the securities class action against the company in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily Johnson's Baby Powder.
In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that
purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result. Plaintiff is seeking damages.
In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019.
In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss.
In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint.
In April 2021 briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was completed.
Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2021, that a lead plaintiff has
voluntarily dismissed a class action lawsuit.
On March 2, 2021, Leidos and certain current officers of Leidos
were named as defendants in a putative class action securities
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or
omissions in Leidos' public filings with the SEC and other public
statements during the period from May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021
relating, among other things, to Leidos' acquisition of the SD&A
Businesses.
"The plaintiff sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages at this
time," the Company said.
On July 30, 2021, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.
On September 28, 2021, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice.
Leidos, formerly known as Science Applications International
Corporation, is an American defense, aviation, information
technology, and biomedical research company headquartered in
Reston, Virginia, that provides scientific, engineering, systems
integration, and technical services.
LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Losses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dionne Davidson v. Logan
View LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01021-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order denying without prejudice
the plaintiff's motion for class certification, for appointment of
herself as class representative, and for appointment of her counsel
as class counsel.
The Court said, "If the class included everyone who received a
Collection Letter, class certification would be inappropriate
because commonality and typicality could not be met. If the Court
considered only the eleven non-MRHA potential plaintiffs, class
certification would not be appropriate because numerosity could not
be met."
Should plaintiff discover new facts which could support class
certification, she may move to amend her complaint and again move
for certification, says Judge Watson.
This case arises out of a series of ten debt collection letters
Defendant sent to Plaintiff and at least two telephone calls. Prior
to 2020, Foot and Ankle Wellness Center provided medical services
to Plaintiff's husband. In December 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff
a collections letter by mail.
The Plaintiff initiated this case, alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act ("CSPA"). The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and statutory damages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cs2XoV at no extra charge.[CC]
MACROGENICS INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
its securities class action against Macrogenics, Inc., the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2021.
On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Karrels, as defendants
for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements
regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.
On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.
The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019. The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss on November 30, 2020.
Plaintiff filed an Opposition brief on January 29, 2021, to which
the Company filed a timely reply.
On September 29, 2021, the District Court issued an Order
dismissing the case, with prejudice. On October 28, 2021 the Lead
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
MacroGenics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused
on discovering and developing innovative monoclonal antibody-based
therapeutics for the treatment of cancer.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: LEHB's Antitrust Case Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2021, that the antitrust class
action lawsuit initiated by Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc.
remains stayed.
In May 2021, Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as well as third-party advisors captioned
Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. Trudeau, et al., No.
3:21-cv-50215 (N.D. Ill.).
The complaint alleges antitrust claims under Section 1 and Section
2 and numerous state laws, RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §§
1962(a), 1962(c) and 1962(d), fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and
unjust enrichment and incorporates the allegations at issue in
Rockford and the Rockford-related cases.
After the complaint was filed, the Company requested that the
district court stay the case in light of the Chapter 11 Cases.
The motion to stay was granted.
In June 2021, LEHB voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
Mallinckrodt defendant entities that are debtors in the Chapter 11
Cases.
In July 2021, LEHB voluntarily dismissed without prejudice most of
the Company's officers and directors as named defendants in the
case.
"The case remains stayed," the Company said.
At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the
expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this
lawsuit.
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals is an American-Irish domiciled
manufacturer of specialty pharmaceuticals, generic drugs and
imaging agents.
MDL 2567: Plaintiffs Lose Class Cert Bid in Propane Tanks Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: PRE-FILLED PROPANE TANK ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2567), Case No. 4:14-md-02567-GAF (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Gary A. Fenner entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:
"All persons who, in Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, New
Mexico, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, South Dakota, Utah,
California, Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia, purchased
a filled propane exchange tank or paid to exchange their
already-purchased propane exchange tank, and whose tank was
provided by AmeriGas between December 1, 2009, and January
31, 2015, or by Blue Rhino between October 14, 2011, and
January 31, 2015."
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of
demonstrating that common issues will predominate as to their
claims.
This case involves portable propane exchange tanks and two of the
US'leading suppliers of them -- Ferrellgas and AmeriGas. Portable
propane exchange tanks are used in barbeques, patio heaters,
generators, and other outdoor equipment. Unlike portable propane
tanks that need to be refilled, propane exchange tanks offer
customers the convenience of exchanging an empty propane tank for a
new, filled tank at retail outlets such as big box stores, grocery
chains, hardware stores, gas stations, and convenience stores. Two
types of propane exchange tanks are available for purchase: (i)
spare tanks, which are those where a customer purchases the
cylinder itself and the propane in it; and (ii) exchange tanks,
where a customer returns an empty cylinder and purchases a filled
tank in exchange.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of customers who
purchased AmeriGas and Blue Rhino branded portable propane exchange
tanks from various retailers in 13 states. In relation to
Defendants AmeriGas and Ferrellgas (which sells tanks under the
Blue Rhino brand), Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of spare and
exchange tanks. Retailers purchase spare and exchange tanks
directly from AmeriGas and Ferrellgas at wholesale prices; those
retailers then resell those tanks to the customers that comprise
the putative class here.
The Plaintiffs allege that AmeriGas and Ferrellgas engaged in an
ongoing conspiracy to fix the fill levels of their propane exchange
tanks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wPIAuT at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2836: Judge Miller Set to Conduct Hearings on Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2836), Case No. 2:18-md-02836-RBS-DEM (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Senior Judge Rebecca Beach Smith entered an order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b) designating United States Magistrate Judge
Douglas E. Miller, to conduct hearings, including evidentiary
hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the undersigned district
judge proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommendations
for the disposition of the Motion.
The magistrate judge shall file his report of proposed findings and
recommendations with the court, and the Clerk shall forthwith
forward copies to all parties or their counsel. Within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the Magistrate Judge's report,
any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed
findings and recommendations as provided by 28 U.S.C. section
636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and the Local Rules
of this court. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy, says Judge Smith.
This matter comes before the court on the "Direct Purchaser Class
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification", filed on
September 24, 2021, by Plaintiffs FWK Holdings, LLC, Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc., and Cesar Castillo, Inc.
Ezetimibe is a medication used to treat high blood cholesterol and
certain other lipid abnormalities. Generally it is used together
with dietary changes and a statin. Alone, it is less preferred than
a statin. It is taken orally.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FapqD0 at no extra charge.[CC]
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Seeks Review of Class Certification in Brown
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that
the petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification in the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel
Brown is still pending.
In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney's fees and
costs.
In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.
Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment. Because the District Court
certified a class prior to granting the plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment, the District Court's ruling applies to
the entire class.
In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals heard the Company's oral arguments. The Company also
intends to appeal the District Court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
if permission to appeal is granted.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals.
Mid-America said, "Management estimates that the Company's maximum
exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and summary
judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which includes both potential
damages and attorneys' fees but excludes any prejudgment interest
that may be awarded."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily-focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Bid to Certify Class Due August 22, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&M PLASTICS, INC.
Individually and on behalf o all Others Similarly Situated v.
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00206-JRG-RSP
(E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Roy S. Payne entered an order that the
following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of
this Court:
-- Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Motion to December 9, 2022
Certify Class
-- Defendant's Sur-Reply to November 28, 2022
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class
-- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's October 31, 2022
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class
-- Defendant's Response to October 3, 2022
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class
-- Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify August 22, 2022
Class
-- Discovery Deadline for Class August 1, 2022
Certification issues
-- Motions to Compel Discovery July 20, 2022
on Class Certification issues
-- Defendants to designate Expert June 20, 2022
Witnesses on Class Certification
issues
-- Defendant's Expert witness report
due on Class Certification issues
-- Plaintiff to Designate Expert May 16, 2022
Witnesses on Class Certification
issues
-- Plaintiffs' Expert witness
report due on Class Certification
issues
MidAmerican Energy prepares customers for higher natural gas
bills.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30sXpY9 at no extra charge.[CC]
MIMEDX GROUP: Pension Fund's Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court has yet to rule on Carpenters Pension Fund
of Illinois' motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing its
class action lawsuit, and for leave to amend to add a new
plaintiff, Mimedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2021.
On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et
al. filed February 26, 2018).
The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as
lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, CPFI filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken,
Parker H. "Pete" Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman
and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.
The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.
Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, CPFI was granted leave to file an amended complaint.
CPFI filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael J.
Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March
30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020.
"On March 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants' respective
motions to dismiss, finding that CPFI lacked standing to bring the
underlying claims and also could not establish loss causation
because it sold all of its shares in MiMedx prior to any corrective
disclosures, and dismissed the case," the Company said.
On April 22, 2021, CPFI filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal and for leave to amend to add a new plaintiff to attempt
to cure the standing and loss causation issues.
The Company has opposed CPFI's motions and the hearing on the same
was held on September 24, 2021.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motions.
Mimedx is an advanced wound care and a therapeutic biologics
company.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that the putative class
action suit filed before the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, remains stayed.
The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.
On March 27, 2020, the court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation.
The stay may be lifted at the close of fact discovery in the
related Securities Class Action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia according to
the terms set forth in the court's order to stay litigation.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.
MONARCH RECOVERY: Goldring Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TZVI GOLDRING,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07893-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying c class defined as follows:
"All consumers within the State of New York with the same
creditor as Plaintiff, First Portfolio Ventures, that was
sent an initial dunning letter which advised the consumer
that a dispute triggering the validation rights could be made
both orally and in writing, concerning debts that were
incurred primarily for personal, household, or family
purposes within one year prior to the filing of this
complaint."
This action arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in its attempt to collect a debt
from Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on July 23, 2020, alleging
that the Defendant violated the provisions of the FDCPA concerning
the consumer's validation rights.
The class intends to pursue a common FDCPA claim against the
Defendants under U.S.C. section 1692e, and 15 U.S.C. section
1692g.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) statutory
damage class.
The Defendant is a debt collector that regularly collects debts on
behalf of third party creditors. In doing so Defendant presented
false information to hundreds of consumers concerning
their dispute rights, in violation of the FDCPA.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cgo2gc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
ea@zemellawllc.com
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Kennedy Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amanda Kennedy, On behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. Mountainside Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01199-CMA-STV (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. granting final approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement; and
2. dismissing the case with prejudice.
The Settlement Agreement resolves the collective and class-wide
claims raised in this lawsuit. The Defendants do not oppose this
motion and consent to certification of the class and collective for
settlement purposes only, the Plaintiff says.
On July 12, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
parties' Rule 23 class/Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
action settlement, and ordered the Parties to distribute Notice of
the Settlement to the class. The Notice process is now complete. Of
the 2,227 pizza delivery drivers who make up the settlement class,
0 Class Members opted out of the Rule 23 class settlement.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjnRVg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Kimble, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
- and -
David Lichtenstein, Esq.
Matt Molinaro, Esq.
Kristina Rosett, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, LLC
1556 Williams St., Suite 100
Denver, CO 80218
E-mail: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com
matt@lichtensteinlaw.com
kristina@lichtensteinlaw.com
OCWEN LOAN: Court OK's Torliatt Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TORLIATT v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04303-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order:
1. denying the defendants' Daubert motion;
2. granting Torliatt's motion for class certification; and
3. certifying class of:
"All persons in the United States (1) with a Security
Instrument on a residential loan securing a property
located in the State of California, (2) that is or was
serviced by Ocwen or PHH, (3) who were charged one or more
Pay-to-Pay fee, (4) whose Security Instrument did not
expressly allow for the charging of a Pay-to-Pay fee at
the time the Pay-to-Pay fee was charged, (5) whose
mortgage debt was due and owing at the time the fee was
charged, and (6) who were not class members in McWhorter
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-CV-01831-MHH (N.D.
Ala.);"
The parties are ordered to meet and confer and, within 20 days of
the issuance of this Order, submit a proposed notice and notice
plan. If the parties cannot agree on the notice and notice plan,
they are ordered to submit individual statements of their
proposals. The trial date is vacted and will be reset at a Case
Management Conference that will be held on December 14, 2021, at
2:00 p.m. In the Joint Case Management Statement, due December 7,
2021, the parties should propose a schedule for the remainder of
the case.
This case is one of many challenges nationwide to "pay-to-pay" or
"convenience" fees charged by lenders to borrowers who make their
loan payments online or by phone. To briefly summarize the relative
facts: Torliatt purchased a home in Sonoma County on or around
December 15, 2005. His mortgage was serviced by Fannie Mae and
sub-serviced by Ocwen, who transferred the mortgage to PHH for
servicing in April 2019. Ocwen, then PHH, charged Torliatt a $7.50
fee each time he paid his mortgage online. Torliatt knowingly paid
these fees. Although he knew other payment options were available
for no cost, Torliatt preferred to pay his mortgage online.
In July 2019, Torliatt brought this suit, alleging violations of
the Rosenthal Act, UCL, federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), as well as for breach of contract
Ocwen provides mortgage loans. The Company offers consumer home,
reverse mortgage, and investment property loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cbEEv1 at no extra charge.[CC]
OS RESTAURANT: Must Respond to Moxley Class Cert Bid by Nov. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOXLEY, et al., v. OS
RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01760 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an endorsed order
granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to extend the deadline to
respond to the motion for class certification as follows
The Defendants are directed to respond to the motion for class
certification on or before Nov. 29, 2021, says Judge Badalamenti.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
POINT PICKUP: Seeks to Stay Response Deadline to Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIC MEDEIROS and
SHEILA MARCIL, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POINT
PICKUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01056-RNC (D. Conn.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying its response
deadline to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification
pending a final determination on its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to
Arbitrate Individually and Stay this Litigation.
Point Pickup is an enterprise same-day delivery solutions company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oqu4G8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas J. Klein, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
90 State House Square, 8th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-0404
Facsimile: (860) 247-1330
E-mail: Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Stedman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOEL STEDMAN and KAREN JOYCE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE
DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C18-1254RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied Progressive's
motion for summary judgment.
The matter comes before the Court on the "Joint Briefing Concerning
Meaning of 'Based On' Maximum Medical Improvement as Used by the
Washington Supreme Court in its Durant Decision." Plaintiffs Joel
Stedman and Karen Joyce purchased personal-injury-protection
("PIP") policies from defendant Progressive Direct Insurance
Company.
The policies provide coverage for "medical and hospital benefits,"
defined as: "The reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or
on behalf of an insured person within three years of the date of
the accident for health care services provided by persons licensed
by law to render such services and for pharmaceuticals, prosthetic
devices, eyeglasses, and necessary ambulance, hospital, and
professional nursing services."
The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit in July 2018
asserting that, despite the policy language, Progressive relied on
a determination that its insureds had reached maximum medical
improvement ("MMI") or a fixed and stable condition to deny the
payment of PIP benefits in violation of the Washington Insurance
Fair Conduct Act ("IFCA") and the Washington Consumer Protection
Act ("CPA"), in bad faith, and in breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. In the context of determining that a
class should be certified, the Court requested that the parties
quickly and efficiently brief the meaning of "based on" as used by
the Washington Supreme Court in Durant v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 191 Wn.2d 1 (2018), and in light of
Progressive's communications with its insureds in order to resolve
an ambiguity in the class definition.
In Durant, the Washington Supreme Court responded to two certified
questions, the first of which asked "does an insurer violate WAC
284-30-395(1)(a) or (b) if that insurer denies, limits, or
terminates an insured's medical or hospital benefits claims based
on a finding of 'maximum medical improvement' ['MMI']." The court
answered the question in the affirmative. It explained that WAC
284-30-395(1) lists the only four permissible bases for denying or
limiting PIP benefits and makes unambiguously clear that "an
insurer may deny PIP benefits 'only' for the reasons listed; no
other reasons are permitted." Use of MMI "as a primary criterion
for limiting PIP benefits" violates the insurance regulations.
In order to succeed on their class claims, the plaintiffs must
convince the fact finder that Progressive had a policy or practice
of denying, limiting, or terminating PIP benefits "based on" its
determination that the insured had reached (or was about to reach)
MMI. The Plaintiffs offer significant evidence of such a policy,
including Progressive's template documents and their own
experiences. With regards to Mr. Stedman, for example, the medical
examiner was asked to opine separately on whether additional
treatments would be "medically reasonable, necessary, and related
to this accident" and whether Mr. Stedman's condition was at MMI.
Judge Lasnik finds that if Progressive identified the achievement
of MMI (or a fixed and stable condition) as a reason for the
denial, termination, or limitation of PIP benefits, the coverage
decision was "based on" that determination for purposes of Durant.
While the mere utterance of a term like MMI or "fixed and stable"
by a medical examiner does not, standing alone, raise an inference
that the coverage decision was based on the impermissible
criterion, where the insurer has incorporated that finding into its
coverage determination as justification, in whole or in part, for
the termination of benefits, a reasonable fact finder could
conclude that the insurer violated WAC 284-30-395.
In light of his finding, Progressive's motion for summary judgment
on the ground that the evidence does not give rise to a reasonable
inference "that Progressive ever denied benefits 'based on' a
determination that the Plaintiffs had reached MMI" is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 29, 2021 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/b8xhpeke from Leagle.com.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Rule 23 Injunctive Relief Class Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILLIAN PIERCE, NICOLE
WADE, VINCENT KEITH BELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Then-San
Francisco Sheriff's Department Sheriff VICKI HENNESSY, San
Francisco Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy MICHELE FISHER, San
Francisco Sheriff's Department Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, and County of
San Francisco employees DOES 1-50, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
4:19-cv-07659-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting leave to permit plaintiffs to amend the first amended
complaint, certifying a rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class, and
continuing certain pretrial deadlines.
The parties stipulate to certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive and
declaratory relief class of all past, present, and future pretrial
detainees housed at San Francisco County Jail No. 2 with respect to
plaintiffs' outdoor recreation claim only.
The Pretrial Conference and Trial date will remain the same. Good
cause showing because plaintiffs required amending the complaint to
maintain standing. Defendants will answer 15 ' Second Amended
Complaint no later than November 19, 2021.
The parties will subsequently supplement their respective initial
disclosures and produce additional 17 that will impact certain
pretrial deadlines. Further good cause showing because plaintiffs'
counsel is set for trial in a state court matter on January 10,
2022 and a federal court matter on February 15, 2022. With fact
discovery in this matter set to close on March 4, 2022, the
continuance of some deadlines will provide sufficient for all
parties to conduct necessary discovery in this action.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLGYSX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Siegel, Esq.
Wmilyrose Johns, Esq.
Andrew Chan Kim, Esq.
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com
emilyrose@siegelyee.com
chankim@siegelyee.com
SBK DELIVERY: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Miller Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY M MILLER II, v.
SBK DELIVERY, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04744-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures
Initial disclosures shall be made by Dec. 28, 2021.
-- Parties and pleadings
Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
parties shall be filed by FEBRUARY 4, 2022.
This is a class and collective action lawsuit arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff intends to file a
Motion for Conditional Class Certification of the FLSA
collective within 30 days. Plaintiff will file a motion
for Rule 23 Class Certification, if appropriate, by Aug.
15, 2022.
-- Issues
The Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated
Delivery Drivers were misclassified as independent
contractors and were not paid overtime premiums for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant. Defendant
denies all claims and has asserted affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff has made a jury demand.
-- Discovery procedures
All discovery shall be completed by AUGUST 1, 2022. For
purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall
schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all
responses to discovery to be served prior to the cut-off
date, and shall file any motions relating to discovery
within the discovery period unless it is impossible or
impractical to do so. If the parties are unable to reach
an agreement on any matter related to discovery, they are
directed to arrange a conference with the Court.
The parties first plan to engage in written discovery,
including Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents. Should either party conclude that
ESI is required at a later stage, the parties agree to
work with each other regarding the production of emails
and other electronic documents, including relevant date
ranges, custodians and search terms.
-- Dispositive motions
Any dispositive motion shall be filed by AUGUST 15, 2022.
-- Expert testimony
Primary expert reports must be produced by April 29, 2022.
Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by July 1, 2022.
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
The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle
this case. The parties understand that this case will be
referred to an attorney mediator for a settlement
conference in July 2022.
Sbk Delivery is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Canal Winchester,
Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YFhoCG at no extra charge.[CC]
STG INTERNATIONAL: Stay of Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NA GARCIA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. STG INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Virginia Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01701-AJB-LL (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties agreed to the following, provided the Court
approves and grants their joint motion to stay or, alternatively,
to continue, deadline to file motion for class certification
motion, as follows:
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class
Certification be stayed pending the Court's approval of
the Parties' class and collective action settlement.
2. Alternatively, that the Court continue the deadline for
Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class Certification for at
least 120 days.
STG operates as a staffing company.
A copy of the Parties' joint motion dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wBQasU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
bLauren N. Vega, Esq.
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: lauren@ferrarovega.com
nick@ferrarovega.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Linda Auerbach Allderdice, Esq.
John H. Haney, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 896-2400
Facsimile: (213) 896-2450
E-mail: linda.allderdice@hklaw.com
john.haney@hklaw.com
STROM ENGINEERING: Smith Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STROM
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following class under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act:
"All current or former hourly employees who were provided by
Strom as a replacement labor force and who performed work at
any ATI facility in Pennsylvania (Bagdad, Brackenridge,
Latrobe, Midland, Natrona Heights, Vandergrift and/or
Washington) during the August 15, 2015 to March 4, 2016
lockout and labor dispute between ATI and the USW."
Strom Engineering operates as a provider of assistance for
companies to prepare for potential labor disputes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D9Zkzt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
The Employment Rights Group
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 792-6676
E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,096 PI Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of September 30, 2021, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent approximately 3,096 individual claimants,
compared to approximately 2,075 individual claimants with actions
pending December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M
received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in
California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts
state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M
respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs
against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in
Kentucky found 3M’s 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal
miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of
approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million.
In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the then-pending coal
mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case
mentioned above. That settlement was completed in 2019, and the
appeal has been dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a
respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving
a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was
defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him
against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense
verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not
defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a
cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff's appeal is
pending.
The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. In addition, during the
second half of 2020 and through September 30, 2021, the Company has
experienced an increase in the number of cases filed that allege
injuries from exposures to coal mine dust.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Hu1JYe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 132 PI Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., has reported 132 asbestos cases
pending as of September 30, 2021, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death and seeking various
monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in building materials,
products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are
pending in Illinois state courts.
Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
September 30, 2021, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/30FUVWV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,625 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. has reportedly been defending 3,625
claims as of September 30, 2021, by plaintiffs who allege that they
have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of September 30, 2021, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,957 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.4 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.
"The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having
manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was
defending against 7,709 claims as of September 30, 2021, only
twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1,
2012, and a negligible amount of settlement costs have been
incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999,
and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.
Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a
standard reservation of rights.
"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount
Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount
Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/30wgWqI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Faces PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by its discontinued Motion Control business between
the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits.
The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of September
30, 2021, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a long-term receivable in an
amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending
and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's
insurance policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of
coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to
insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for
indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it
becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2YZM2a4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Multiple PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation has been named a defendant in a substantial
number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.
"During the three months ended September 30, 2021 the Company
incurred expenses (net of insurance) of approximately $5.6 million,
compared to $2.4 million for the same period in 2020 to defend,
resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims, including legal
and other related expenses. During the nine months ended September
30, 2021 the Company incurred expenses (net of insurance) of
approximately $10.1 million, compared to $9.0 million for the same
period in 2020 to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of
outstanding claims, including legal and other related expenses.
These expenses are included within SG&A in our condensed
consolidated statements of income.
"The Company had cash outflows (net of insurance and/or indemnity)
to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims,
including legal and other related expenses of approximately $1.2
million and $5.0 million during the nine months ended September 30,
2021 and 2020, respectively.
"Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing
claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities,
in whole or in part.
"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts. Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos claims,
however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including the
timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle. Additionally, the continued viability of carriers may also
impact the amount of probable insurance recoveries. We believe that
these uncertainties could have a material adverse impact on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows, though we currently believe the likelihood is remote.
"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Dl17BT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Identifies Potential CARO
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation has identified potential conditional
asset retirement obligations ("CAROs") related to the future
removal and disposal of asbestos that is contained within the
Warrick rolling mill facility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We believe that the asbestos is appropriately
contained in accordance with current environmental regulations. If
the facility were demolished or subject to renovation activities
that disturb the asbestos, certain environmental regulations are in
place which specify the manner in which the asbestos must be
handled and disposed. We are required to record the fair value of
CAROs if they can be reasonably estimated. As of September 30,
2021, we are in the process of evaluating and determining the fair
value of a potential CARO, if any, acquired as part of the Warrick
acquisition. No liability has been recorded on our accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets as the liability is currently
indeterminable. We may conclude at a future date that a CARO exists
and we could be required to record a liability for the related
obligations in amounts that are material to our consolidated
financial statements. While we do not currently expect that the
CARO liability will be material to our consolidated financial
statements, there can be no assurance as to the existence of a CARO
obligation and corresponding liabilities that we may be required to
record in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3clQi6K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $45MM in Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corp has an estimated range of total liabilities to
resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims
through 2059 of approximately $23 million to $45 million as of
September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Because no amount within the range of
estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded
the minimum amount of $23 million, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Amounts are
on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's
legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related
recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020."
"As previously disclosed, we have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing
component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current
products, certain of our historical products have contained
components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by
insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended
September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3oEUELS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water Defends 7,000 Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Water Solutions Corporation and numerous other unrelated
companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related
lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims, as of September
30, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries
caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers
formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not
manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn
purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled
pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
"As of September 30, 2021, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $59.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $42.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $59.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2021, is in excess
of the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of September 30, 2021, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $59.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
"Certain Company subsidiaries were named as defendants in a number
of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States
courts claiming damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated
failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes
and other structures. In fiscal 2013, the Company reached a
court-approved agreement to settle the liability underlying this
litigation. The settlement was designed to resolve, on a national
basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown
claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of
such fittings. The settlement utilized a seven year claims fund,
which was capped at $20.0 million, and was funded in installments
over the seven year period based on claim activity and minimum
funding criteria. The seven year filing period expired on April 1,
2020. Any claims after April 1, 2020 are time barred. The Company
expects to make payment on any remaining timely filed claims and
close out the settlement fund. The Company has recorded an accrual
for the balance of this liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3HuLdr6
*********
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 ***