/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. -4 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Suit Over Floods ABSOPURE WATER: Court Grants in Part Guy's Bid to Stay Discovery ALIF SAMI CORP: Rahaman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ALPHA CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Semantix Merger AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood's Bid to Reconsider Denied AMERICAN HONDA: $2.26-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Banh Suit ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Hancock Suit Over Fruit Cocktail Labels ARRIVAL SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 22 Deadline ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Ryke Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASTORIA DENTAL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AVEC DRINKS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 14 Deadline BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline BAKER PETROLITE: King Sues Over Chemical Technicians' Unpaid Wages BAPTIST HEALTH: Misclassifies Salaried Employees, Macheak Suit Says BARSTOOL SPORTS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEAUTY SCIENCE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEENVERIFIED INC: Escobar Sues Over Stolen Personal Information BERKELEY LIGHTS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 7 Deadline BERKELEY LIGHTS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of February 7 Deadline BIO WORLD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 19, 2022 BLACKBERRY LIMITED: NY Case Goes to Trial After Failed Mediation BOISSON INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BRENDA FORMAN: Suit Filed in S.D. Florida BRINKER RESTAURANT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROOKLYNESS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CALFORNIA PIZZA: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Didier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANADA: Courts OK $8BB First Nations Drinking Water Settlement CAPITAL ONE: Harper Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM CAREWELL FAMILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CENTRAL PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Custom Hair Suit CENTURY LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop CHEGG INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline CHERYL A. LARABEE: Bourgeois Files Suit in Del. Chancery. Ct. CHINA: Grant of Aharon's Bid to Continue Service Efforts Endorsed CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022 CLAYA INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CLOOPEN GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline CMC MATERIALS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Violation COCA-COLA: Barnes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Status Hearing in Willis Rescheduled COLLEGE TOWN: Mainville Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONSTANT FORCE: Timothy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Everett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Olsen Files Suit in D. Maryland CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DAVID SHINN: Court OKs Parties' Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadlines DEL TACO: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Possible Breach Class Action DELAWARE, OH: Class Certification Bid Extended to Feb. 25, 2022 DEMANDBASE INC: Gbeintor Files Suit in N.D. California DENKA PERFORMANCE: DuPont Dismissed with Prejudice in Butler Suit DHC SUPPLY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DISCOVERY INC: Finger Balks at Merger Deal With WarnerMedia DISCOVERY NATURAL: Delaughter Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Collins Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop DOCUSIGN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline DOCUSIGN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline DOTFIT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DR. SCHAR USA: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DR. SHRINK: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRACO DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Petri Files Suit in D. New Jersey EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EDWARD R. MARSZAL: James Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Raus Files Suit in S.D. New York ESSENDANT CO: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Crews Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California FAITHLIFE LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline FARADAY FUTURE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline FAT SNAX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FOREVER HOME SERVICES: Koga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FRESNO, CA: Feb. 14 Water Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set FTP DESIGNS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GANGESHWAR LLC: Chavez Files Suit in E.D. New York GARDEN GROVE, CA: Phan Files Suit in C.D. California GARTNER STUDIOS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GAVLAK LLC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GEMPLER'S INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Snyder Sues Over Inaccurate Information Labels GENESCO INC: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in N.D. New York GINGKO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline GMRI INC: Breland Slams Improper Wages, Unsafe Workplace GN AUDIO USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Settles Location Data Breach Class Action in Canada HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Action Dismissal HAIRTAMIN LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARBOR BAY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARTFORD INSURANCE: Hobson Files Suit in D. New Jersey HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Freitas, Calvert Seek Class Certification HEARTWISE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HENKEL CORPORATION: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Lazo Suit Alleges HENKEL US: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Simmons Suit Says HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Synergy Over Anticompetitive Practices HOLLYWOOD CHAIRS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida INDIVIOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Suboxone Drug INFOPAY INC: Bensen Files Suit in D. Massachusetts JAMES BELFORD: Ct. Tosses Plummer Bid for Class Certification JANKMAN LLC: Chimienti Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages JUPITER WELLNESS: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action KINGS COUNTY NURSERIES: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KNIFECENTER INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Foster Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania LAMPSUSA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LARKSTONE ACQUISITIONS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LISA CHARMEL USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOCKS GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LYNN & LAUREN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAJOR ENERGY: Glikin Suit Transferred to D. Maryland MAKEY MAKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MALONE'S SERVICE: Long Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages MANHATTAN MIDTOWN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Schlatre Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop MARATHON DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Files RICO Suit in D. Maine MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Southwestern Central Files RICO Suit MCMC LLC: Mauthe Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit MDL 1917: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule MID-STATES CONCRETE: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA MIMECAST LIMITED: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Sandro Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Licensed Products, Class Suit Says NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Partly OK'd NAVIENT CORP: $35MM Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 17 NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: 2d Cir. Tosses George Lehman Securities Suit NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit over Merger Deal Remains Pending NEW BALANCE: Faces New "Made in the USA" Class Action Lawsuit OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Cert Hearing Reset for March 30, 2022 ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline PAYSAFE LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 8 Deadline PEOPLEASE LLC: Court Denies Bids for Arbitration in Espinoza Suit PHARMACIELO LTD: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Doe Class Action Suit Over Data Breach PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 24 Deadline REDWIRE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline REHABILITATION CENTER: Court Issues Final Judgment in Valentine ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline SEQUITUR ENERGY: Delaughter Seeks Drilling Consultants' Unpaid OT SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Issues $295K Final Judgment in Arreola Suit SLEEP NUMBER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline SLEEP NUMBER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 14 Deadline SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND: Claims in Cabrera Suit vs AgReserves Narrowed SUTTELL & HAMMER: DeAngelis Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection T-MOBILE USA: Winkler Suit Transferred From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo. TARGET CORP: Faces Maybaum Class Suit Over Free Gift Cards TENET FINTECH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Continues After Death of Newborn TIKTOK INC: Faces Suit From Content Moderators Over Child Abuse TIKTOK INC: Moderator Files Class Action Over Emotional Distress VIZIV TECHNOLOGIES: Family Trust Balks at Beach of Fiduciary Duties VW CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Boehm Suit WEST MONROE: Faces Daky ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties WILBUR-ELLIS CO: Billing Rates Order Issued in Blue Buffalo Suit YOUNG LIVING: Court Junks MacNaughten Class Suit ZYMERGEN INC: Biao Wang Named as Lead Plaintiff in Shankar Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------ William Clements, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC, INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03953-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 6, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Suit Over Floods ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Fumano, Gordon Hoekstra, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a pair of Sumas Prairie residents filed a proposed class-action suit on Dec. 23 in B.C. Supreme Court against local authorities and the province for damages suffered in the devastating flood caused by a torrential downpour in mid-November. In the suit filed in an Abbotsford court, Caroline Mostertman, a winery, distillery and farm owner, and Ted Dykman, who runs a family dairy operation, list the City of Abbotsford, the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Province of B.C., as well as a number of unnamed companies, as defendants. Class-action suits, which allow one or more people to sue for a group of people with similar claims, have to be approved by the courts. Prospective plaintiffs in this case could include any residents in the Abbotsford region who suffered losses in the floods. While an official cost of damages has not been tabulated, Abbotsford mayor Henry Braun earlier pegged repair costs at $2 billion for the devastating flood that caused damages to farms and other properties, and caused thousands of people to evacuate the Sumas Prairie area and other areas of Abbotsford. Sumas Prairie residents argue the city, regional district and province "failed to warn of the impending and foreseeable Sumas flood in a timely manner" and "failed to implement emergency measures and warnings." If the city, regional district and province had provided "adequate and timely" warning to Mostertman, Dykman and others of the impending weather events preceding the flood, and implemented emergency measures and warnings, the damages suffered would have been prevented or lessened, states the civil claim. It would have given Sumas Prairie residents time to move equipment, inventory, personal property and other movable items, the suit argues. The plaintiffs are seeking general, special and punitive damages. As the claim was filed on Dec. 23, there has been no response in court from the defendants. In response to Postmedia questions, the city and regional district each said they had no comment on the suit. The province also said it had no comment on the suit, but noted it takes the health and safety of British Columbians seriously in emergency situations. The claim was filed by lawyer Anthony Vecchio, founding partner of Slater Vecchio, a Vancouver-based firm specializing in class action and personal injury suits. Vecchio said he was moved by what he called the "tragedy" of the Fraser Valley farmers. "They're salt of the earth, they're very resilient," Vecchio said. "But they were devastated … It's heartbreaking." Dykman said his dairy farm, on the Sumas Prairie's western edge near the U.S. border crossing, has suffered three floods in the past decade, but November's was the worst. The Dykman Cattle Company lost about 10 cows and 30 calves during the flood, he said. "It was pretty hard on everybody. When you start losing your animals and your livelihood, that hits home. It was definitely an emotional time, there's no doubt about it. The suit hinges on the Sumas Prairie residents proving "gross negligence." That's because there is a provision in the province's Emergency Program Act that exempts the province and local authorities from civil liability for damages, for omitting to do any act authorized or required by the law unless there is gross negligence. In their argument for "gross negligence," the Sumas Prairie residents laid out 21 particulars in their claim, including failing to warn of the risk of the impending Sumas flood in a timely manner, or not at all. The particulars also included failing to adequately monitor weather conditions despite knowing Sumas Prairie farmers and others were at an increased risk of harm from flooding due to their proximity to the Sumas and Nooksack rivers, the history of flooding in the Sumas Prairie and the inadequacy of the Sumas dike. In commenting on the civil liability exemption, Vecchio said: "We're using that Act as a sword, not as a shield. . . . That Act basically sets out the policies and procedures that they need to follow." [GN] ABSOPURE WATER: Court Grants in Part Guy's Bid to Stay Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN GUY, Plaintiff v. ABSOPURE WATER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-12734 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion & Order: (1) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery; and (2) amending the scheduling order. Plaintiff Justin Guy has filed a motion to stay discovery. Guy requests a stay or, alternatively, a three-month extension of the discovery deadline and all other deadlines. Guy argues that a stay or extension is necessary to allow sufficient time for the discovery dispute resolution process with the special discovery master, who was appointed to help the parties resolve their outstanding discovery disputes. The parties discussed Guy's motion with the special discovery master, and the special discovery master then wrote an interim report setting forth her views on the issues raised by the motion. Following the special discovery master's interim report, the Court conferred with the special discovery master to better understand the parties' positions. The Court then issued an order informing the parties that it believed that an extension of discovery until March 1, 2022, and an extension of the dispositive motion deadline to March 29, 2022, would be appropriate. The Court gave the parties an opportunity to file memoranda regarding their views on the Court's proposal. Guy filed a memorandum, asking the Court to enter a stay until the Court resolves Guy's forthcoming motion to compel. Judge Goldsmith notes that due to the parties' demonstrated difficulty in judiciously resolving their discovery disputes, deadlines are necessary to properly incentivize the parties to timely complete discovery. Thus, a stay would be inappropriate. However, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by two and a half months, which will give the parties sufficient time to work with the special discovery master to resolve their outstanding discovery disputes. Accordingly, Guy's motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the deadlines contained in the scheduling order are amended as follows: -- March 1, 2022 -- Discovery as to conditional certification issues and as to the individual Plaintiff's claims as it stands at the present time; -- March 1, 2022 -- Discovery as to MCA exemption; -- March 29, 2022 -- Motions for Summary Judgment on the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption; -- March 29, 2022 -- Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action; -- Joint Status Report -- 10 days after ruling on motions for summary judgment and motion to conditionally certify class action; -- TBD -- All Other Motions, Including Motions in Limine; -- TBD -- Final Settlement Conference; -- TBD -- Joint Final Pretrial Order; -- TBD -- Final Pretrial Conference; and -- TBD -- Trial - Jury. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8en54v from Leagle.com. ALIF SAMI CORP: Rahaman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Mizanoor Rahaman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALIF SAMI CORP., SUB39 INC., SUBWAY WORLDWIDE, INC., DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES LLC, FRANCHISE WORLD HEADQUARTERS, LLC, 3132 PARTNERS LLC, MOHAMMED MATIN, ABWABUL CHOWDHURY, and JANET GOMES, Case No. 531206/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Dec. 7, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: requiring Employees to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; denying Employees their lawful meal breaks; requiring Employees to perform work without compensation outside of their scheduled shifts; failing to pay Employees at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; failing to pay Employees overtime of time and on-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; illegally withholding wages lawfully earned by Employees; failing to provide Employees with complete and/or accurate wage statements; failing or refusing to provide Employees with accurate statements regarding hours worked and corresponding dates of work performed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at various fast-food Subway Restaurant locations throughout the New York City area between 2018 and 2021. Alif has a main office located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Herlihy, Esq. SCALE, LLP 50 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (914) 424-9312 Email: Mherlihy@scalefirm.com ALPHA CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Semantix Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Alpha Capital Acquisition Co. (ASPC), relating to its merger with Semantix. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/alpha-capital-acquisition-co. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Holdings plc (OCDX), relating to its proposed acquisition by Quidel Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, OCDX shareholders will receive 0.1055 shares of Quidel and $7.14 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ortho-clinical-diagnostics-holdings-plc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. SeaChange International, Inc. (SEAC), relating to its proposed merger with Triller HoldCo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, SEAC will merge with Triller, and be renamed as "TrillerVerz Corp." Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/seachange-international-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Skillsoft Corp. (SKIL), relating to its merger with Codecademy. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/skillsoft-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Zanite Acquisition Corp. (ZNTE), relating to its merger with Eve UAM LLC. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zanite-acquisition-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Heat Biologics, Inc. (HTBX), relating to its merger with Elusys Therapeutics, Inc. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/heat-biologics-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It is listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2021 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood's Bid to Reconsider Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-1977-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of its denial of the motion for class certification. Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., notes that the matter has been pending since 2017. A related case was filed by the same attorneys and a different plaintiff in 2014 and then dismissed on the eve of the class certification hearing. The plaintiff in the 2014 lawsuit was Radha Geismann M.D., P.C. The case was filed shortly thereafter. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on Aug. 19, 2021, after protracted discovery and briefing. The Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration or, in the alternative, clarification of the Court's order denying class certification. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent out thousands of unsolicited faxes to the putative class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The TCPA generally provides for penalties of $500 per fax transmission, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3), meaning that a class action comprised of thousands of recipient-plaintiffs--if the elements of the claims can be proven--stands to raise far more money in the aggregate than through individual claims. However, the Court held that class certification was inappropriate for several reasons. Judge Limbaugh notes that the matter has largely revolved around the Plaintiff's unsuccessful search for certain fax logs relevant to the case both in this case and the earlier, 2014 case. The 2014 case's plaintiff, Geismann, did not file its lawsuit until almost 14 months after receiving the relevant fax. As part of discovery in that case, the Defendant searched its fax server, electronic databases, and the "SQL" servers used by RightFax for the transmission logs relevant to Geismann's complaint. But it could not locate any fax transmission logs for the period in question. The Defendant explained that it did not retain fax logs as a routine part of its business practice, and the fax logs from June 2013 were likely automatically overwritten, or "purged," well before Geismann filed suit. Just before the hearing on Geismann's motion for class certification, Geismann dismissed its lawsuit. Approximately one week prior, on June 22, 2017--four years after receiving the Medicare fax--Plaintiff Presswood initiated this lawsuit in Missouri state court. The Court allowed the Plaintiff repeated discovery extensions. In 2019, the Court, over the Defendant's objection, ordered a third-party inspection of 26 backup tapes from June 2013 and then of additional backup tapes from September 2013 and December 2013. Nothing came of those searches. The parties had already collectively served four subpoenas on AT&T, the Defendant's telecommunications provider for the relevant outgoing fax transmissions, for relevant documents, to no avail. Then, the Plaintiff discovered the identity of another of the Defendant's telecommunications providers, MetTel, from whom the Plaintiff wanted to subpoena fax transmission logs. In line with the Defendant's objection, the Court observed that it is perhaps likely that MetTel will not have any responsible documents to the Plaintiff's proposed subpoena. Regardless, the Court allowed the reopening of discovery for that subpoena in June 2021 because it appeared to be the Plaintiff's last chance to find evidence regarding whether the Defendant's faxes were actually received by the recipients. In that June 2021 order, the Court noted that the Plaintiff also points out that, to the extent AT&T actually was the Defendant's service provider, the Defendant was unable to provide any account numbers with AT&T to assist with the investigation. Then, in its order on Class Certification, the Court noted that the Defendant "states in its Response Memorandum in opposition to class certification that defendant has in fact repeatedly identified the AT&T account numbers associated with the fax numbers at issue, both in this action and in Geismann. This Court regrets the error, and plaintiff is admonished not to mislead the Court." The Plaintiff contends in its motion for reconsideration that it did not mislead the Court, insisting that AT&T had in fact told it that the AT&T account numbers supposedly provided by the Defendant were not AT&T account numbers. The Plaintiff also stated in its motion that it had again "reached out to AT&T" for confirmation. But the Plaintiff asked the Court to correct its footnote to reflect that the Plaintiff had in fact not misled the Court. Two weeks later, the Plaintiff moved to supplement its motion. The Plaintiff divulged that it had heard back from AT&T and that AT&T had in fact found documents responsive to the account numbers that were provided. AT&T apparently explained that account numbers related to a subsidiary phone company of AT&T, and AT&T produced nearly 8,000 pages of responsive documents. The Plaintiff, thus, moved to supplement its motion with this information but maintained that its earlier statement about the Defendant's failure to provide account numbers was correct to the best of its knowledge at the time. I. Legal Standard Because a ruling on class certification is interlocutory, a motion for reconsideration of such a nonfinal order must meet the Rule 60(b) standard. See Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006); Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 525 (8th Cir. 2003). II. Discussion Judge Limbaugh holds that the Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances to justify the Court's reconsideration. The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration has two prongs. First, the Plaintiff wants the Court to withdraw the footnote addressing the AT&T account numbers. The Court stated that as noted in the June 2021 order that the Plaintiff also points out that, to the extent AT&T actually was the Defendant's service provider, the Defendant was unable to provide any account numbers with AT&T to assist with the investigation. The Defendant states in its Response Memorandum in opposition to class certification that the Defendant has in fact repeatedly identified the AT&T account numbers associated with the fax numbers at issue, both in this action and in Geismann. The Court regrets the error, and the Plaintiff is admonished not to mislead the Court. The Plaintiff insists that it did not mislead the Court because it understood at the time that the account numbers provided by the Defendant could not be AT&T account numbers. That later proved to be untrue, as AT&T found relevant documents with an AT&T subsidiary. It appears to the Court that communication between and among counsel and third parties has been deeply flawed at every turn in this case. Judge Limbaugh states that the memorandum and order of which the Plaintiff complains is not inaccurate, and anyone wishing to delve further into this case's tortured history is free to read the relevant documents for a full understanding of the matter. The Court declines to alter its past order. Second, the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant certification of its proposed class of fax recipients despite having already considered and denied the motion. The Plaintiff's primary argument is that the Defendant should not be able to rely on class member identification problems resulting from its own failure to keep records (quoting Practice Management Support Services, Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil, Inc., 301 F.Supp.3d 840, 859 (N.D. Ill. 2018)). The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant never adequately searched its backup tapes to locate the required information. The Court disagreed. The Plaintiff offers no new facts or law to change the Court's conclusion nor its determination that class certification is inappropriate under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Plaintiff's motion to supplement is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/299brwf8 from Leagle.com. AMERICAN HONDA: $2.26-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Banh Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, issued an order granting award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards in the lawsuit entitled JIMMY BANH, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-5984 RGK (ASx) (C.D. Cal.). The Court, having considered (1) the Stipulation and Notice of Defendant's Non-Opposition to Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards ("Stipulation"); (2) Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards, and the Memorandum of Points and the Authorities thereto ("Motion") and attached exhibits and declarations; (3) Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion and attached exhibits and declarations; (4) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion and attached exhibits and declarations; and (5) the pleadings and other papers on file in this Action, and with good cause appearing, therefore, orders that: 1. The Stipulation contains the Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,260,794, and the Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $477,701. The Stipulation also contains the Defendant's statement that it does not oppose, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the total amount requested by the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant takes no position on the Plaintiffs' requested allocation or apportionment of the total amount requested. 2. The Court finds the requested Stipulated fee award of $2,260,794, which represents approximately 67% of the Class Counsel's lodestar, is fair and reasonable under the lodestar method based upon the following factors: (1) the results achieved; (2) the risks of litigation; (3) whether there are benefits to the class beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund; (4) the contingent nature of the representation and the opportunity cost of bringing the suit; and, (5) reactions from the class. As such, the Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of the case. 3. The Court further finds that the Class Counsel's lodestar, as modified by the Stipulation, was reasonable because the Class Counsel's current hourly rates are reasonable for the Los Angeles area and that the total number of hours billed by Hagens Berman and Goldenberg Schneider timekeepers, as modified by the Stipulation, were also reasonable. 4. In sum, upon consideration of the Stipulation, the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and accompanying Declarations and exhibits, and based upon all matters of record including the pleadings and papers filed in the action, the Court finds that $2,260,794 is a reasonable and proper fee award in the case. 5. The Court also finds that the costs incurred by Class Counsel in this matter totaling $477,701 were reasonable in light of the needs and scope of the case. 6. Finally, the Court has determined, in its discretion, that the distribution of service awards to 18 Class Representatives totaling $120,000 is also reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances for this case, and will be paid as follows: $10,000 service awards for Roberta Bilbrey, Jamal Samaha, George Quinlan, Sarah Gravlin, Mark Klein, Daniel Allan, Paul Gonzales, and Kristen Gratton, and $4,000 service awards for Jimmy Banh, Mark Peoples, Alexis Chisari, Michael Brumer, Dave Jahsman, John Bartholomew, Vimal Lawrence, Mark Klein, Adam Pryor, and Srikarthik Subbarao. Accordingly, it is ordered and decreed that: 1. The Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees totaling $2,260,794 is granted; 2. The Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation costs and expenses totaling $477,701 is granted; and 3. The Class Representatives are awarded $120,000 in total service awards, to be paid as set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhnn8t4 from Leagle.com. ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Hancock Suit Over Fruit Cocktail Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01735-SMY (S.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2021) sues over Defendant's alleged false and deceptive representations and omissions of "Mucho Mango Fruit Cocktail" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue. The Plaintiff and class members desired to purchase a product that contained more vitamin C than similar beverages, and was the type of food acceptable to contain added nutrients. According to the complaint, the relevant front label representations include "Mucho Mango," "Fruit Juice Cocktail," "All Natural," pictures of mangos and "VITAMIN C FORTIFIED" and "VITAMIN C FORTIFIED - ANTIOX." Nutrient content claims tell consumers about the levels of a nutrient in a food. FDA regulations, identical to those of this State, restrict nutrient content claims to those that are specifically authorized. If a nutrient content claim is not authorized, it is prohibited. The purpose is to prevent consumers being deceived by the endless terms that marketers can devise in order to gain advantage in the marketplace, at the detriment of the public. Relative nutrient content claims compare the level of a nutrient in one food with another food, the suit says,. Arizona Beverages manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mango drinks identified as "Mucho Mango Fruit Cocktail," under the Arizona brand ("Product"). Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less than approximately $3.79 per 128 oz, a higher price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations and omission, added the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ARRIVAL SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrival ("Arrival" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ARVL, ARVLW) on behalf of purchasers of Arrival securities between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/arvl. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, and made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would record a substantially greater net loss and adjusted EBITDA loss in the third quarter of 2021 compared to the third quarter of 2020; (2) the Company would experience far greater capital and operational expense to operate and deploy its microfactories and manufacture EV vehicles than it had disclosed; (3) the Company would not capitalize on or achieve profitability or provide meaningful revenue in the time periods disclosed; (4) the Company would not achieve its disclosed production and sales volumes; (5) the Company would not meet the disclosed production rollout deadlines. Accordingly, the Company materially overstated its financial and operational position and/or prospects, and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/arvl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Arrival you have until February 22, 2022, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. [GN] ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Ryke Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Patricia Ryke, All other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New Hyde Park, Respondents, Case No. 615853/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 20, 2021). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 SPRUCE ST CEDARHURST, NY 11516-1915 ASTORIA DENTAL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Astoria Dental Group, P.C. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Astoria Dental Group, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-10966 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Astoria Dental Group -- https://www.cosmeticdentistrynewyork.com/ -- offers routine cleanings, X-rays, fillings and expert dental advice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal AVEC DRINKS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avec Drinks Co. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Avec Drinks Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-06993-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AVEC -- https://avecdrinks.com/ -- is re-examining cocktail mixers with its all-natural ingredients and low-sugar and -calorie products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIDU) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Baidu securities between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 14, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants traded while in possession of material non-public information and about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because of margin call pressure. While in possession of material, non-public adverse information, Defendants collectively sold billions of dollars' worth of Company shares. Later, when the information became publicly known, the price of the Company's common stock declined sharply as a result of such disclosure. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Baidu shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 24 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Baidu Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Baidu securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Baidu class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2228.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the complaint, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley sold a large number of Baidu shares during the Class Period while in possession of material, non-public information. Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley knew that Archegos Capital Management, a family office with $10 billion under management, would need to fully liquidate its position in Baidu because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined and the price of Baidu's stock declined sharply, damaging investors. To join the Baidu class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2228.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BAKER PETROLITE: King Sues Over Chemical Technicians' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER KING v. BAKER PETROLITE LLC, BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC, BAKER HUGHES ENERGY SERVICES LLC, BAKER HUGHES HOLDINGS LLC, and DOES 1 though 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV46202 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 17, 2021) seeking only to recover penalties for himself, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees that worked for the Defendants. The Plaintiff does not seek to recovery anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699, the suit says. The penalties sought for the underlying violations are for the following statutory violations: (i) failure to pay all wages earned by California workers, including the required minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages, (ii) failure to indemnify employees for all business-related expenditures, (iii) failure to provide mandated timely meal periods and/or rest periods and related break premium pay for missed or late breaks, among other violations of the California Labor Code, Wage Orders and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, sections 2698 et seq (PAGA), added the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at a Los Angeles County jobsite as a chemical technician for about four months until his separation from the company on or about May 25, 2021. During his employment, he contends that the Defendants failed to pay aggrieved employees, including him, wages for all hours worked. Aggrieved employees also did not receive any premium pay for late or missed breaks per the requirements of California law. The Defendants also failed to reimburse workers, include Plaintiff for all business related expenditures such as use of personal cell phone for work for the initial weeks of their employment, he adds. Baker Petrolite manufactures petrochemicals. The Company provides chemical services and products in the hydrocarbon recovery and processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Y. Chen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN 13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 475 City of Industry, CA 91746 Telephone: (626) 381-9886 Facsimile: (626) 389-5455 E-mail: attorney@KellyChenLaw.com BAPTIST HEALTH: Misclassifies Salaried Employees, Macheak Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL MACHEAK, individually and On behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAPTIST HEALTH, Case No. 4:21-cv-01217-BRW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 20, 2021) is a class action and a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's alleged intentional misclassification of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as exempt from FLSA and AMWA maximum hours requirements. As a result of Defendant's intentional misclassification, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated salaried employees were not paid the legally required overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours in any one-week period, says the suit. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received a set salary from the Defendant, regardless of how many hours they worked in any given work week. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated salaried employees did not qualify as exempt computer systems analysts, engineers, programmers, or other similarly skilled workers, the suit added. Baptist Health is a not-for-profit health care organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WHLAW I WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law BARSTOOL SPORTS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barstool Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barstool Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10978 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Barstool Sports -- https://www.barstoolsports.com/ -- is a sports & pop culture blog covering the latest news and viral highlights of each and everyday with blogs, videos and podcasts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BEAUTY SCIENCE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Science Group, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beauty Science Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10732 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Beauty Science doing business as Hair La Vie -- https://hairlavie.com/ -- offers a complete line of chemical-free, organic hair care products that are designed to promote hair growth using 100% natural ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com BEENVERIFIED INC: Escobar Sues Over Stolen Personal Information --------------------------------------------------------------- David Escobar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BEENVERIFIED, INC. and BEENVERIFIED, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-09433-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2021), is brought against the Defendants who violated California's Right of Publicity statute, California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness, and California's Unfair Competition Law, by using the Plaintiff's names, likenesses, photographs, and personas in advertisements for website subscriptions without consent, in violation of their intellectual property and privacy rights. The Plaintiff and Class Members have never used www.beenverified.com or www.peoplesmart.com, nor did they provide their names, ages, phone numbers, addresses, photographs, or any other personal information to BeenVerified. The Plaintiff was distressed to discover that BeenVerified is using his name, personal information, and persona to advertise paid subscriptions to its website. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to BeenVerified using their names, personal information, photographs, and personas to advertise website subscriptions or any other product. BeenVerified advertises website subscriptions by publicly displaying teaser profiles of Plaintiff and Class Members with their names, ages, current and past addresses, current and past phone numbers, names of relatives, and other personal information. The Plaintiff does not know how BeenVerified obtained his name, current and past home addresses, phone numbers, names of relatives, and additional personal information. BeenVerified states on its website that the profiles "include information from multiple databases, career history, social media profiles, online photos and other records." BeenVerified does not disclose specific sources. BeenVerified misappropriated Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, personal information, and personas without permission or consent from Plaintiff or the Class, says the complaint. BeenVerified owns and operates at www.beenverified.com and www.peoplesmart.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 Email: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. 102 Bergen St. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (347) 645-0464 Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com - and - Sam Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703-3515 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (509) 4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com BERKELEY LIGHTS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkeley Lights, Inc. ("Berkeley Lights" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:BLI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Berkeley Lights securities between July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 7, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns, high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems, limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (2) Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation systems, including complaints related to the design and manufacturing; (3) the actual market for Berkeley Lights' products and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented to investors because of, among other things, the relatively high cost of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability to provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these high costs; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements to investors during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights' business, operations and financial results were materially false and misleading. On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital issued a scathing investigative report, titled "Fleecing Customers And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker, While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0," which criticized Berkeley Lights' technology and questioned the durability of Berkeley Lights' most important business relationships and its business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of Berkeley Lights' largest customers. Among other findings, the report detailed a "trail of customers who allege they were 'tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon" and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute outright fraud." On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common stock fell by nearly 30% over two trading days, damaging investors. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Berkeley Lights shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. [GN] BERKELEY LIGHTS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of February 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Dec. 24 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Berkeley Lights, Inc. ("Berkeley Lights" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLI) between July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Berkeley Lights common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than February 7, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Berkeley Lights investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Berkeley Lights Securities Class Litigation Berkeley Lights, headquartered in Emeryville, CA, is a biotechnology company. The chief product in its platform is the "Beacon," a system for detailed analysis of cells at scale. The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Beacon had multiple design and manufacturing issues including breakdowns, high error rates, and data integrity problems, effectively hindering the Company's customers from consistently using machines at scale; (2) Berkeley Lights had received many customer complaints regarding the Company's automation systems, including complaints related to their design and manufacturing; and (3) the true market for Berkeley Lights' products and services was only a portion of the $23 billion market that the Company represented to investors, in view of the comparably large cost of the Berkeley Lights' products and their incapacity to perform consistently enough to justify their high costs. On September 15, 2021, research firm Scorpion Capital released a report on the Company entitled "Fleecing Customers And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker, While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0." The report detailed problematic issues with Berkeley Lights' technology and called into question the strength of Berkeley Lights' primary business relationships as well as the Company's plan to grow its business. Scorpion Capital purportedly based its report on 24 research interviews with former employees of Berkeley Lights, and 17 scientists and users among 14 of the Company's biggest customers. The report found a "trail of customers who allege they were ‘tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon," and that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute outright fraud." On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common stock fell by $6.14, or 18.74%, from its closing price of $32.76 on September 14, 2021, to close at $26.62 on September 15, 2021, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] BIO WORLD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bio World Merchandising, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bio World Merchandising, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10981 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bio World Merchandising, Inc. -- https://www.bioworldmerch.com/ -- manufactures and distributes apparel, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 19, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tuition Payer 100, et al., v. The Bishop of Charleston, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00613 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order extending time to respond to Plaintiffs motion for class certification until Jan. 19, 2022. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury.[CC] BLACKBERRY LIMITED: NY Case Goes to Trial After Failed Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, that a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York will proceed to trial after the parties failed to reach an agreement following mediation. The Court has not set a trial date. Between October and December 2013, several purported class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against the company and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada alleging that they made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial condition and business prospect. These class actions are still pending in their respective court of jurisdiction. On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Count granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint which added the company's former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. Blackberry filed a reply in support of their summary judgment motion and a motion to strike plaintiffs' response to their separate statement of undisputed facts on July 22, 2021. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to strike on August 5, 2021 and Blackberry filed a reply in support on August 10, 2021. On August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of a class notice plan. On September 10, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of the class notice plan. Postcard notice was mailed on October 8, 2021, publication notice was issued starting on October 18, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation Judge Layn Phillips which did not result in an agreement. The Court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world based in Waterloo, Ontario. BOISSON INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boisson Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Boisson Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06996 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boisson Inc. doing business as Slow Cow -- https://slowcow.com/ -- is a relaxation drink Dubbed an "anti-energy" drink, produced in Quebec, Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BRENDA FORMAN: Suit Filed in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brenda F. Forman, et al. The case is styled as John Doe, Jane Roe, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Brenda F. Forman, in her capacity as Clerk of the Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida; Harold F. Pryor, in his capacity as State Attorney for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida; Gregory Tony, in his capacity as Sheriff, in and for Broward County, Florida; Case No. 0:21-cv-62523-KMW (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Brenda F. Forman -- https://www.browardclerk.org/AboutUs/AboutTheOffice -- is the first African American and female to serve as Clerk in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary Kollin, Esq. LAW OFFICES GARY KOLLIN, P.A. 1856 N. Nob Hill Road, Suite 140 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33322-6548 Phone: (954) 723-9999 Fax: (954) 791-6565 Email: pleadings@garykollinlaw.com BRINKER RESTAURANT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Veronica Saldana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P., Brinker International, Inc., Case No. CGC21597124 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 15, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Brinker International, Inc. -- https://brinker.com/ -- owns, operates, and franchises the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant concepts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 535 Mission St 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-508-7786 Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com BROOKLYNESS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyness, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyness, Inc. doing business as: Beyond, Case No. 1:21-cv-10983 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyness, Inc. doing business as Beyond -- https://ridebeyond.com/ -- is a micromobility subscription service transforming the way people commute and move in cities throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com CALFORNIA PIZZA: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jean Andrews, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00312816-CU-PO-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other PI/PD/WD – Civil Unlimited." California Pizza Kitchen -- https://www.cpk.com/ -- is an American casual dining restaurant chain that specializes in California-style pizza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Fax: (510) 891-7030 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Didier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Statewide Communities Development Authority, et al. The case is styled as Mary Didier, Leticia Jones, Shane Jones, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons similarly situated within the State of California v. California Statewide Communities Development Authority, Edwards Builders & Developers Inc, Edwards Builders and Developers, PACE Funding Group LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 34-2021-00313065-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 21, 2021). The case type is stated as "Business Tort – Civil Unlimited." The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) -- https://cscda.org/ -- was created in 1988, under California's Joint Exercise of Powers Act, to provide California's local governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of community-based public benefit projects.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Martin, Esq. DAVID W. MARTIN LAW GROUP 108 Springs St. Fort Mill, SC 29715-1722 Phone: (803) 855-1607 Email: david@davidwmartinlaw.com CANADA: Courts OK $8BB First Nations Drinking Water Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Liewicki, writing for CBC News, reports that thousands of people who have been affected by years-long drinking water advisories could see compensation, after courts approved an $8-billion class-action settlement in what one chief called a "historic moment" for First Nations in Canada. Canada's Federal Court and Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench issued a joint decision on Dec. 22 approving the settlement in two national class-action lawsuits launched against the federal government by First Nations living under drinking water advisories. The settlement in the two class-action suits was first agreed upon in July. The class included any member of a band whose land was subject to a water advisory that lasted at least one year, at any point from Nov. 8, 1995, until the present. In addition to compensation, the suits also sought to force the government to immediately construct, or approve and fund the construction of, appropriate water systems for the class members. The agreement approved on Dec. 22 will offer compensation to individuals deprived of clean drinking water and modernize Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation. Doreen Spence, chief of Tataskweyak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba, said she is "extremely pleased" with the courts' decision to approve the settlement agreement. "This is a historic moment for Tataskweyak Cree Nation and First Nations across the country. First Nations will now be able to work with Canada in a more meaningful way, and have access to water standards on reserve that have never existed before," Spence said in an emailed statement to CBC "We look forward to seeing the day where all First Nations have access to safe water, now and forever." Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which has been under a drinking water advisory since 2017, and two Ontario communities -- Curve Lake First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation -- led the class-action lawsuits, which could see approximately 142,000 individuals from 258 First Nations compensated, along with 120 First Nations. Michael Rosenberg, a lawyer from McCarthy Tétrault LLP, was lead counsel for the three plaintiffs. The settlement in the case, which he started working on in 2019, is "a game-changer" for First Nations communities that have been affected by long-term drinking water advisories, he said. "On the one hand, it will provide compensation so that they can begin to heal from harms that they should never have had to suffer. On the other hand . . . it provides a path forward and hope for the future and infrastructure commitments to ensure that they will not continue to be plagued by long-term drinking water advisories," Rosenberg said. "They will . . . have access to safe drinking water that so many Canadians take for granted." In addition to an infrastructure commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves, the settlement agreement includes $1.5 billion in compensation to individuals deprived of clean drinking water, the creation of a $400-million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund and the creation of a First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water. Curve Lake First Nation Chief Emily Whetung hasn't known clean drinking water -- that didn't have to be boiled -- for most of her lifetime. The Dec. 22 decision is "monumental" and "is going to change so many things," she said. "It gives the agreement a legal enforceability that First Nations have never had in the conversation about access to clean drinking water," Whetung said. "It didn't feel like a reality until I had the decision in my hand and could say, 'Look. This is going to be something that's going to be enforceable. This is going to be something that's going to actually meaningfully change access to clean drinking water for First Nations across Canada." Rosenberg said the current water advisories will be lifted as soon as possible. "Some should be lifted in the coming weeks, months, and the hope is that ultimately we close the infrastructure gap in these First Nations communities so that we don't come back to a situation like we see presently and have seen," he said. There is a 60-day appeals period, but following that the next step will be the implementation of the settlement. Rosenberg said each First Nation in the settlement will have to decide as a community whether or not they wish to participate in the settlement, agree to it and accept its terms. With files from Raffy Boudjikanian [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Harper Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- NIQUAY HARPER and KRYSTLE GRANDERSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00800 (E.D. Va., Dec. 21, 2021) seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 206, 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia common law. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who have worked for Capital One as hourly call-center employees, anywhere the United States, at any time during the relevant statutes of limitation through the final disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours worked or the proper amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law. Allegedly, Capital One has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly required (and continues to require) its non-exempt hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members -- to perform work off-the-clock and without pay. Capital One's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek, the suit says. Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the suit adds.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, 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 craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM -------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that Capital One Financial Corp. agreed to pay $190 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that customers filed against the firm after a hacker broke into its cloud-computing systems and stole their personal information. Representatives for those customers, Capital One and Amazon Web Services -- the lender's cloud provider -- jointly asked Judge Anthony Trenga to pause proceedings while the court evaluates the agreement. The settlement will cover 98 million Americans, and Capital One said it is fully reserved for the amount. "While Capital One and AWS deny all liability, in the interest of avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of continued litigation, plaintiffs and Capital One have executed a term sheet containing the essential terms of a class settlement that, if approved by this court, will fully resolve all claims brought by plaintiffs," according to a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In July 2019, Capital One announced data from about 100 million people in the U.S. was illegally accessed. Federal prosecutors ultimately arrested Paige A. Thompson, a former Amazon cloud employee, for breaking into the bank's server. "The key facts in this case have not changed since we announced the event in coordination with federal authorities more than two years ago: the hacker was arrested and the stolen data was simultaneously recovered before it could be disseminated or used for fraudulent purposes," Capital One said in an emailed statement on Dec. 23. "We are pleased to have reached an agreement that will resolve the consumer class litigation in the U.S." Capital One has remained one of the financial industry's earliest and biggest proponents of cloud technology, and last year finished exiting its data centers. The McLean, Virginia-based firm, which also has been investing in cybersecurity, last year poached Andy Ozment to become one its leading information-security executives. [GN] CAREWELL FAMILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carewell Family, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carewell Family, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10998 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carewell -- https://www.carewell.com/ -- is a family-run company that provides advocacy for caregivers and an e-commerce site for home health products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com CENTRAL PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Custom Hair Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the Defendant's motion to decertify the class in the lawsuit entitled CUSTOM HAIR DESIGNS BY SANDY, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and SKIP'S PRECISION WELDING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL PAYMENT CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:17CV310 (D. Neb.). A. Defendant's Motions: 1. With regard to the motion to continue trial, Filing No. 287, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that this case has been lingering for over four years. The Plaintiff opposes the continuance, so long as all motions are decided by January 18th, prior to the pretrial conference. The Court intends to try this case as scheduled, absent any priority criminal cases on its docket. The parties should prepare for trial. It is time to move this case along. Filing No. 287 is denied. 2. The Defendant has filed to decertify this case, Filing No. 242. The Defendant raises the same issues previously decided by the Court with regard to class certification. The Court has again reviewed this material, and the motion is again denied. The factual issues discussed in the brief and the submitted evidence are issues for trial. Filing No. 242 is denied. 3. In the motion for partial judgment, Filing No. 238, the Defendant asks this Court to grant summary judgment as to certain claims, including, fraud, RICO, and various other issues. After reviewing the briefs for both sides, the Court is of the opinion that there are significant and material facts that must be decided at trial. The Court must hear and review the evidence as it is submitted at trial. If, thereafter, the Defendant feels a motion is appropriate, the Defendant is free to submit the same. The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, Filing No. 238, is denied. 4. With regard to the motion to exclude the proposed testimony of Steve W. Browne, Filing No. 227, filed by the Defendant, the Defendant contends that pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993) and its progeny, such testimony should be excluded. Specifically, the Defendant contends that Browne's reports should be excluded for failure to comply with Rule 26; should be excluded because it is inadmissible under Rule 702; should be excluded because it is an inadmissible factual narrative; and should be excluded as Browne is not qualified to offer an opinion regarding the propriety of payment processing fees. The Defendant states that Browne is a certified public accountant ("CPA"), a certified information technology professional ("CITP"), a certified fraud examiner ("CFE"), and a certified information systems auditor ("CISA"). He is also certified in financial forensics ("CFF") and accredited in business valuation ("ABV"). He has served as an expert witness for many years and has been retained by both public and private entities. His firm, Meara Welch Browne, P.C., has worked with and consulted for multiple businesses that accept credit and debit card payments (as does every modern business in the United States). However, he has never provided expert testimony in a case related to payment processing. This case would be his first. However, thereafter, the Defendant argues against the methodology used by Browne, as well as the numbers he uses to calculate his resulting opinions, Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon notes. Mr. Browne is a qualified expert, Judge Bataillon says. He has many areas of expertise, most of which appear to be relevant to this case. He is offering opinions connected to the evidence, and it does not appear that he intends to testify via a "factual narrative." Further, the Defendant has an expert on these issues. The opinions will most likely be hotly contested by both sides. That is a product of the trial process. It is not for this Court to make advance decisions regarding factual issues. Such arguments go to the weight of the testimony and not to its admissibility. That is what the Defendant is asking this Court to do, Judge Bataillon points out. The Court will allow Mr. Browne's testimony. If, during the trial, the Defendant determines that an objection is needed, the Defendant is free to make the appropriate objection or motion, Judge Bataillon holds. The Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Browne, Filing No. 227, is denied. B. Plaintiff's motions: 1. The Plaintiff files a motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Liability for Express Breach of Contract, Filing No. 232. Again, the Court after reviewing the briefs and evidence finds this to be both a legal and factual issue. The Court must hear the evidence presented at trial and see the context of the facts as they relate to the contractual terms. If, after offering that evidence, the Plaintiff still believes a motion is appropriate, it may offer one at the appropriate time. Accordingly, Filing No. 232, will be denied. 2. The Plaintiff's move to Exclude All Testimony of Patrick Moran and Limited Testimony of Ian Ratner, Filing No. 234. The conflicting but admissible views of different experts must ultimately be decided, not by the Court, but by the trier of fact, Judge Bataillon holds, citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). Judge Bataillon explains that these issues must be determined at trial by vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof. It appears that much of this testimony will be offered to challenge the methodology of the Plaintiff's expert. This goes to weight and credibility. The Court will permit these two experts to testify, and if the Plaintiff believes the testimony wanders from that which is permissible, an appropriate objection can be made at that time. The motion to exclude, Filing No. 234, is denied. Therefore, it is ordered that the: 1. Motion to Exclude the Proposed Testimony of Steve W. Browne, Filing No. 227, filed by the Defendant, is denied; 2. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Liability for Express Breach of Contract, Filing No. 232, filed by the Plaintiffs, is denied; 3. Motion to Exclude All Testimony of Patrick Moran and Limited Testimony of Ian Ratner, Filing No. 234, filed by the Plaintiffs, is denied; 4. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filing No. 238, filed by the Defendant, is denied; 5. Motion to Decertify the Class, Filing No. 242, filed by the Defendant, is denied; and 6. Motion to continue trial, Filing No. 287, Filed by the Defendant, is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyrdvj4 from Leagle.com. CENTURY LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Century, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10735-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Century, LLC -- https://www.centurymartialarts.com/ -- manufactures and distributes martial arts and fitness equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN LEVENTHAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CHEGG, INC., DANIEL L. ROSENSWEIG, ANDREW J. BROWN, NATHAN SCHULTZ, JOHN P. FILLMORE and ROBIN TOMASELLO, Case No. 5:21-cv-09953 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2021) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegedly, the Defendants falsely touted that the Company was "in a unique position to impact the future of the higher education ecosystem" and that the primary cause of the Company's success was "our strong brand and momentum" which would allow Chegg "to continue to grow and take advantage of the ever-expanding opportunities in the learner economy." In fact, defendants knew that Chegg's increase in subscribers, growth, and revenue was a temporary effect of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in remote education for the vast majority of U.S. students. The Defendants were also aware that the platform was helping students cheat on their exams. Once the pandemic-related restrictions eased and students returned to campuses nationwide and schools and universities implemented protocols to eliminate cheating, students predictably stopped subscribing to the platform. In short, Chegg had no basis to believe that the extraordinary, but temporary, growth trends would continue, but failed to adequately inform investors of that reality, the suit says. While Chegg's stock price was artificially inflated, several officers and directors sold $95 million worth of stock -- far exceeding the amount sold in the prior comparable period -- including $48 million by the Company's Co-Chairman, CEO and President and $25 million by the Company's President of the Learning Services division. Certain putative class members traded contemporaneously with these defendants and were damaged thereby. In addition, the Company took advantage of the artificially inflated trading price of Chegg stock by selling more than $1 billion of common stock to investors in a February 18, 2021 secondary offering at the artificially inflated price of $102 per share. Certain putative Class members purchased stock directly in this secondary offering and have standing to assert additional claims against the Company and the underwriters of that offering pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. On November 1, 2021, Chegg revealed its financial results for the first quarter in which students returned to campus across the United States, and stunned investors with fewer-than-expected enrollments and did not provide 2022 guidance. In fact, CEO and President Dan Rosensweig admitted that defendants were aware of the slowdown in September 2021. Chegg's stock price plummeted nearly 50% (from over $62 to $32 per share) on more than 45 times the average daily volume as investors realized defendants' rosy statements about subscribers, growth, and revenues had been misleading, which decline immediately erased billions of dollars in market capitalization. Mr. Leventhal purchased Chegg common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Defendant Chegg is a provider of online research tools, online tutoring services, digital and physical textbook rentals, and other educational resources. Chegg and several of its senior insiders made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period about the primary drivers of the Company's success dramatically increasing subscribers, growth, and revenues. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company. Defendant Chegg operates a direct-to-student learning platform that supports students on their journey from high school to college and into their career with tools designed to help them to learn their course materials, succeed in their classes, and save money on required materials. The Company offers Chegg Services, which include subscription services; and required materials that comprise its print textbooks and eTextbooks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com CHEGG INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Law Firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Chegg, Inc. notify investors that a securities class proceeding has been filed against ("Chegg") ("Chegg")NYSE: CHGG). The proceedings indict Chegg for violating federal securities law, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations related to the company's business, operations, and outlook. Chegg investors suffered significant losses as a result of virtually misleading statements to the masses of Chegg. Plaintiff's deadline: February 22, 2022 Class period: May 5, 2020 finished November 1, 2021 Contact a lawyer to discuss your rights: James Malo, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Call charges are free (844) 887-9500 or email info@ktmc.com Cheggs Alleged misconduct Chegg operates a learning platform for students. Chegg's services include a subscription service and the necessary materials to configure print textbooks and eTextbooks. In the complaint, the defendant advertised that the chegg is "in a unique position to influence the future of the higher education ecosystem" throughout the lesson, and the main reason for the success of the chegg is the "strong" that enables the chegg. It claims to have been "brand and momentum." "Take advantage of opportunities to continue to grow and expand in the learner economy." The truth was revealed to November 1, 2021When Chegg reported financial results that revealed less registration than expected, while failing to provide guidance for 2022. CEO in addressing these concerns Dan Rosen's Wage "Variations, increased employment opportunities, a combination of rewards, and a feeling of fatigue have significantly reduced the number of enrollments than expected this semester, and enrolled students are taking less stringent classes and grades. We are receiving low challenges." Following this news, Chegg's stock plummeted by nearly 50%. November 2, 2021. February 22, 2022 is the deadline for the main plaintiff's representative of the class to be appointed through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or you may choose to remain a member of another lawyer, or a class that was absent without doing anything. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Chegg investors who have suffered significant losses are encouraged to contact the company directly for more information. Who can be the primary plaintiff? The plaintiff chief is the representative party acting on behalf of all class members in conducting proceedings. The main plaintiff is usually an investor or a small group of investors who have the greatest financial benefit and are appropriate and typical for the proposed class of investors. The Chief Plaintiff selects the Chief Plaintiff and the attorneys representing the class, who, if approved by the court, are the Chief or Class attorneys. The ability to share recovery is unaffected by the decision to act as the main plaintiff. About KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts nationwide and around the world. The company has built a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate fraud. All of our work is driven by the common goal of protecting investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and trustees. After all, if the bad guys paid and recovered their assets, we were successful. The proceedings in this proceeding were not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] CHERYL A. LARABEE: Bourgeois Files Suit in Del. Chancery. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheryl A. Larabee, et al. The case is styled as Herman Bourgeois, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Cheryl A. Larabee, Chris Ahern, Daniel R. Maurer, Edward Terino, Michael T. Birch, P. Scott Stubbs, Ronald G. Garriques, Tayloir Smith, Case No. 2021-1107-LWW (Del. Chancery. Ct., Dec. 22, 2021). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Cheryl A. Larabee is currently chairman of the board of ZAGG, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com CHINA: Grant of Aharon's Bid to Continue Service Efforts Endorsed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MORIAH AHARON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-80604-ALTMAN/REINHART (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion to continue service efforts be granted. On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought the class action lawsuit on behalf of front-line medical workers in the United States against the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants knew about the dangers of COVID-19 but failed to contain the virus and actively sought to conceal its dangers. The Plaintiffs contend that they suffered damages caused by the Defendants' hoarding and stockpiling of Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE"), and their prohibition on factories located in China, including those owned by U.S. corporations, from exporting PPE to the United States. The Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in effectuating service on the Defendants. On July 6, 2020, the Honorable Roy K. Altman administratively closed the case but permitted the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and ordered that service be perfected by Oct. 5, 2020. Judge Altman ordered the Plaintiffs to file monthly status reports regarding their service efforts. The following day, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding a new defendant, PetroChina International (America), Inc., an American-based subsidiary of China-state owned PetroChina International Co., Ltd. PetroChina was served and their attorneys filed notices of appearance, however, PetroChina was relieved from responding to the Amended Complaint until the international Defendants were served. The Plaintiffs continued to file their monthly status reports explaining their inability to serve the international Defendants. On June 7, 2021, Judge Altman denied the Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case. Judge Altman rejected the Plaintiffs' request in their reply papers to proceed under the remaining steps available in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (28 U.S.C. Section 1608(a)(4)), finding that the request must be made by separate motion after conferral with PetroChina. On July 9, 2021, in accordance with Judge Altman's order, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking permission to effect service on the international Defendants via the U.S. Department of State ("State Department") by diplomatic channels (28 U.S.C. Section 1608(a)(4)). On Nov. 23, 2021, Judge Altman referred this motion to Judge Reinhart for a report and recommendation. According to the Plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint and summonses have already been translated into Chinese in accordance with State Department requirements. Although the Clerk of the Court will need to issue new 60-day summonses, the Plaintiffs contend that the information on them will remain the same as before, and thus the translations can be "quickly" copied. They further state that they are already working with a service vendor, known and recommended for their experience in completing service through the State Department, to prepare all of the documentation and fees so that the process can start immediately upon the order of the Court directing them to proceed. The Plaintiffs further represent that they have conferred with counsel for PetroChina America, who take no position with respect to the relief requested. Having reviewed the motions and monthly status reports filed by the Plaintiffs, Judge Reinhart finds that they have acted diligently in this matter and should be permitted to pursue service on the international Defendants with the assistance of the State Department in accordance with step four of the FSIA. It appears that continued diligent efforts should resolve this service issue within a few months. Recommendation The Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Service Efforts should be granted. The Clerk of the Court should issue new summonses, which the Plaintiffs will have immediately translated into Chinese. The Plaintiffs should be permitted to contact the U.S. Department of State directly to effect service on the international Defendants. The Plaintiffs should be ordered to continue filing monthly status reports regarding the progress of service. Notice of Right to Object A party will serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within fourteen (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections shall constitute a waiver of a party's "right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions," 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016). If counsel do not intend to file objections, they will file a notice advising the District Court within five days of this Report and Recommendation. A full-text copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4mbafbyp from Leagle.com. CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Bernard G. Skomal entered an order granting joint motion to modify the deadline for class certification as follows. -- The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is continued from January 18, 2022 until February 17, 2022. -- All other dates and deadlines set forth the Court's Scheduling Order remain in effect. Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIqu08 at no extra charge.[CC] CLAYA INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Claya, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Claya, Inc. doing business as: Rootine, Case No. 1:21-cv-07064-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Claya, Inc. doing business as Rootine -- https://rootine.co/ -- is optimizing health and human performance with precision nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com CLOOPEN GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloopen Group Holding Limited ("Cloopen" or the "Company") (NYSE: RAAS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen securities between February 9, 2021 and May 10, 2021, both dates included, (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 8, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021 United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full exercise of the underwriter defendants' over-allotment option) at $16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from the offering. The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen's much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling, up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen's representations concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges, Cloopen's growth strategy was not working and its existing customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen's Registration Statement failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the fair value of certain recently-granted warrants. On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million - $2 million shy of analysts' consensus - net losses of $46.8 million, representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen's remarkable net loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2% increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the price of Cloopen's ADSs fell by more than 18%. Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far below historical periods, Cloopen's share price fell again. At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced, Cloopen's share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CMC MATERIALS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the firm Monteverde & Associates PC ("M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating CMC Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCMP), relating to its merger with Entegris, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CCMP shareholders will receive 0.4506 shares of Entegris and $133.00 in cash per share they own. The investigation focuses on whether CMC Materials, Inc. and its Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair process, and 2) whether the transaction is properly valued. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cmc-materials-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It is listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you owned common stock in the Company and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2021 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] COCA-COLA: Barnes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coca-Cola Business Services North America, LLC. The case is styled as Elversa Barnes, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Coca-Cola Business Services North America, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00553-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla., Dec. 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an American multinational beverage corporation incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Jason Hartwig, Esq. TISDAL & O'HARA, PLLC 13808 Wireless Way Oklahoma City, OK 73134 Phone: (405) 471-5226 Email: jhartwig@tisdalohara.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Status Hearing in Willis Rescheduled -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal, the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order rescheduling hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification and defendant's motions to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence as follows: -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Colgate's motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence shall be continued from December 20, 2021 to January 24, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It specializes in the production, distribution and provision of household, health care, personal care and veterinary products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qxaSaT at no extra charge.[CC] COLLEGE TOWN: Mainville Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mainville, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. College Town Pizza, Inc.; Route 41 Pizza, LLC; 5 Star Pizza, LLC; Two Ten Twenty Pizza, Inc.; Dough Management Inc.; Susan Graves; Dave Randall; Dennis Denman; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 0:21-cv-02699 (D. Minn., Dec. 20, 2021) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin wage and hour laws, and for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have worked at the Team Honey Badger stores. The Defendants operate 178 Domino's Pizza locations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa (the "Team Honey Badger stores").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter G. Christian, Esq. Timothy S. Christensen, Esq. SCHAEFER HALLEEN, LLC 412 South 4th Street, Suite 1050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 294-2600 Facsimile: (612) 294-2640 E-mail: pchristian@schaeferhalleen.com tchristensen@schaeferhalleen.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Aholiva Justiniano Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Community Medical Centers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UCC-2021-0011353 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Complaint - Other." Community Medical Centers -- https://www.communitymedical.org/ -- is a private, not-for-profit healthcare network based in Fresno, California.[BN] CONSTANT FORCE: Timothy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constant Force LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charles Timothy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Constant Force LLC, Seko Worldwide, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00313080-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 21, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Constant Force LLC -- http://constantforce.com/-- is a premier logistics provider in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-300-1705 CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Containment Solutions Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Darrick Floyd, an individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. Containment Solutions Services, Inc., Containment Solutions, Inc., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Case No. BCV-21-102972 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 22, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Containment Solutions -- http://containmentsolutions.com/-- manufactures, sells, and installs storage and handling products for hazardous and non-hazardous fluids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Everett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Frank Everett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-07020 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one of America's leading collections agencies since 1950.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Olsen Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Hairdressers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicole Olsen, and a class of similarly situated individuals, Appellant v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc., Ratner Companies, L.C., Appellees, Case No. 8:21-cv-03289-TDC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The nature of suit is stated Bankruptcy Appeal (801). Creative Hairdressers, Inc. provides beauty services. The Company offers haircuts, shampoos, perms, styling services, facial wax, and various hair products.[BN] The Appellant is represented by: Ronald Jay Drescher, Esq. DRESCHER AND ASSOCIATES PA 4 Reservoir Cir Ste 107 Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: (410) 484-9000 Fax: (410) 484-8120 Email: rondrescher@drescherlaw.com The Appellees are represented by: Joel I. Sher, Esq. SHAPITO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER 250 W. Pratt Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 385-0202 Fax: (410) 539-7611 Email: jis@shapirosher.com CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brigit Navarro, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Helios Healthcare, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00312914-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc. -- https://crestwoodbehavioralhealth.com/ -- is proud to be California's leading provider of mental health services, assisting thousands of clients from across the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com DAVID SHINN: Court OKs Parties' Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzsman, et al., v. David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge James F. Metcalf entered an order: 1. granting the Parties' joint motion to stay; 2. staying all discovery, class certification, and dispositive motion deadlines, including kitchen inspections at three Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) prison complexes to be conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel and their religious expert through January 31, 2022; and 3. directing the Parties to participate in an informal exchange of information as set forth in the Motion. The Court had previously granted a 90 day stay of discovery and stayed various deadlines to permit the parties to exchange information and workout their disagreement over ADCRR's Common Fare Meal provided as a vegan, kosher diet. The parties were required to report on the status of the matter, which they did on December 7, 2021. The parties now again assert that the new Common Fare Kosher Meat Meal plan has been implemented, and additional time is required for evaluation and exchanges of information. They request a continued stay through January 31, 2022, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zdtII6 at no extra charge.[CC] DEL TACO: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Possible Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (NASADAQCM: TACO) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of TACO to Jack in the Box Inc. for $12.51 in cash per share of TACO owned. If you are an investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] DELAWARE, OH: Class Certification Bid Extended to Feb. 25, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seattle House LLC v. City of Delaware, Ohio, Case No. 2:20-cv-03284 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order: 1. The time for class certification motion is extended to Feb. 25, 2022. 2. Discovery Related to Class Allegations is due by Jan. 26, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act involving civil rights -- Housing/Accommodations.[CC] DEMANDBASE INC: Gbeintor Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Demandbase, Inc. The case is styled as Amos Gbeintor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Demandbase, Inc., InsideView Technologies, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09470-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Demandbase -- http://www.demandbase.com/-- is a targeting and personalization platform for business-to-business companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Francis Ram, Esq. Marie Noel Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Fax: (415) 358-6923 Email: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Benjamin Ross Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen Street, Apt. 4 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (347) 645-0464 Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com - and - Raina Challeen Borrelli, Esq. Samuel Joseph Strauss TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703-3515 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com DENKA PERFORMANCE: DuPont Dismissed with Prejudice in Butler Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANEA L. BUTLER, individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-06685-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order granting the defendant DuPont Performance Elastomers' motion to dismiss and dismissing DuPont with prejudice. The Court said, "The Plaintiff's counsel has done her and this Court a disservice. He has declined to reckon with binding law established by the Fifth Circuit in this very case. He has declined to reckon with this Court's rulings on nearly identical motions in this very case. And he continues to advance claims that he ought to know are foreclosed. Finally, he does this while calling out the other side for making "baseless" claims. The plaintiff in this case has failed to state a claim against DuPont upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff's case has been hindered, not advanced, by her counsel. The Court has no choice but to dismiss the claims against DuPont with prejudice. This environmental tort litigation arises from the production of neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John the Baptist Parish. Neoprene production allegedly exposes those living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of chloroprene above the upper limit of acceptable risk and allegedly may result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national average. Juanea L. Butler has lived in LaPlace, Louisiana since 1998. She sued the Louisiana Department of Health, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company seeking class certification, damages, and injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene releases from her industrial neighbor, the PWF. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HzPhWr at no extra charge.[CC] DHC SUPPLY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHC Supply, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DHC Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10790 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DHC Supplies, Inc. -- https://www.dhcsupplies.com/ -- is specialty construction supplies serving Northern California and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DISCOVERY INC: Finger Balks at Merger Deal With WarnerMedia ----------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE FINGER v. DISCOVERY, INC., ROBERT R. BECK, ROBERT L. JOHNSON, J. DAVID WARGO, ROBERT J. MIRON, STEVEN A. MIRON, SUSAN M. SWAIN, PAUL A. GOULD, KENNETH W. LOWE, DANIEL E. SANCHEZ, ROBERT R. BENNETT, JOHN C. MALONE, and DAVID M. ZASLAV, Case No. 2:21-cv-09799 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Discovery and the members of Discovery's Board of Directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Plaintiff seeks to to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which : (i) Discovery will be merged with the WarnerMedia segment of AT&T Inc. through AT&T's subsidiary Magallanes, Inc. and Discovery's subsidiary Drake Subsidiary, Inc. and (ii) the combined company will be renamed Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (Proposed Transaction). On May 17, 2021, Discovery and AT&T issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into a series of definitive transaction agreements, including an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 17, 2021 and a Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated May 17, 2021, pursuant to which AT&T will separate and transfer WarnerMedia Business to Spinco, which will continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of WBD. Under the terms of the agreements, existing shareholders of Discovery will own approximately 29% of the outstanding shares of WBD on a fully diluted basis. On November 18, 2021, Discovery filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Discovery stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning the financial projections for Discovery and the WarnerMedia Business after giving effect to the Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, Discovery's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction, says the suit. Discovery is a global media company that provides content across multiple distribution platforms, including linear platforms such as pay-television ("pay-TV"), free-to-air and broadcast television, authenticated GO applications, digital distribution arrangements, content licensing arrangements and next generation direct-to-consumer ("DTC") subscription products, including discovery, the definitive real-life subscription service. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com DISCOVERY NATURAL: Delaughter Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ BRUCE DELAUGHTER Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISCOVERY NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00243 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2021) is a collective action complaint seeking to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Discovery Natural Resources, LLC was formerly the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff worked as a drilling consultant for Discovery from June 2019 until October 2019. While employed by Discovery, the Plaintiff was allegedly misclassified as an independent contractor, despite the fact that he worked full time for Discovery, and virtually every aspect of his job was controlled by Discovery. Discovery misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor to avoid paying employment taxes, benefits and overtime. During his time with Discovery, the Plaintiff typically worked approximately 100 hours per week. The Plaintiff received a day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked in a given day or week, and never received overtime pay. The class of similarly situated employees sought to be certified as a collective action under the FLSA is defined as: "anyone who worked for discovery as a drilling consultant, drilling supervisor, company man, or well site manager during the past 3 years who was classified as an independent contractor and paid a day-rate (the "class members"). Discovery is an oil and gas production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Collins Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN D. COLLINS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Case No. 1:21-cv-07071 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of DocuSign between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021, both dates inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 27, 2020, DocuSign filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2020. Attached to the 2020 10-K were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") signed by Defendants Springer and Sheridan attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2020 10-K listed among its Risk Factors the potential harm the then-new Covid-19 pandemic could have on the Company's business. On June 4, 2020, DocuSign held an earnings conference call for its first quarter fiscal 2021 ("1Q 2021 Earnings Call"). During the 1Q 2021 Earnings Call, Defendant Springer said, in relevant part: "The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally shifted the global macroeconomic environment and impacted countless lives around the world. Also on December 2, 2021, DocuSign published a press release announcing its third-quarter fiscal year 2022 financial results and guidance for the fourth-quarter fiscal year 2022. The guidance provided, in pertinent part, midpoint revenue guidance of $560 million, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $573.8 million. The guidance also provided a billing guidance of $653 million, missing consensus estimates of $705.4 million. On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased DocuSign's securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Defendant DocuSign purportedly offers the Agreement Cloud, a broad cloud-based software suite that enables users to automate the agreement process and provide legally binding e-signatures from nearly any device. The Company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices located at 221 Main St., Suite 1550, San Francisco, CA 94105. The Company's securities are traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DOCU." The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com DOCUSIGN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign") (NASDAQ: DOCU). The action charges DocuSign with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of DocuSign's materially misleading statements to the public, DocuSign investors have suffered significant losses. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 22, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: March 27, 2020 through December 2, 2021 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com DOCUSIGN'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT DocuSign provides cloud based software in the United States and internationally. Specifically, DocuSign offers e-signature solutions that enables businesses to digitally prepare, sign, act on, and manage agreements. Beginning on March 27, 2020 and throughout the Class Period, DocuSign touted its growth and continued strong demand. As recently as September 2, 2021 earnings call, DocuSign touted its billings and revenue growth, including, among other things, assuring investors that the company continued to see strong early renewals and expansions of existing customers that DocuSign had visibility into and tracked, and that DocuSign did not see significant slowdown in its business. Then, on December 2, 2021, after the market closed, DocuSign announced that it sustained a significant deceleration in billings growth and disappointing year-end projections for billings and revenue. According to DocuSign, "After six quarters of accelerated growth, [DocuSign] saw customers return to more normalized buying patterns, resulting in 28% year-over-year billings growth." Following this news, DocuSign's stock price fell $98.73 per share, or 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021. WHAT CAN I DO? DocuSign investors may, no later than February 22, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages DocuSign investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] DOCUSIGN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (PRNewsfoto/Levi & Korsinsky, LLP) To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Docusign, Inc. ("Docusign" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOCU) and/or sold Desktop Metal put options between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/docusign-inc-loss-submission-form or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Docusign, Inc. NEWS - DOCU NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's business was positive, not negative; (2) DocuSign misrepresented the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its growth; (3) DocuSign downplayed the impact that a 'return to normal' would have on the Company's growth and business; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Docusign you have until February 22, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Docusign securities between March 27. 2020 and December 2, 2021 you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/docusign-inc-loss-submission-form or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] DOTFIT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dotfit, LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dotfit, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10806-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DotFIT -- https://www.dotfit.com/ -- offers research-based nutrition programs and dietary supplements support your weight lifting, recovery, nutrition, and sport performance goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DR. SCHAR USA: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Schar USA, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Schar USA, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10984 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dr. Schar -- https://www.drschaer.com/ -- is a manufacturer of gluten-free foods that is headquartered in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com DR. SHRINK: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Shrink, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Shrink, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10804 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dr. Shrink -- https://dr-shrink.com/ -- is the global leader in shrink wrap, and it doesn't stop at just the products to make it possible.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DRACO DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draco Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Draco Distribution, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10974 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Draco Distribution is a retail company in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Petri Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drive New Jersey Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Kristin Petri, Sherdon Green, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drive New Jersey Insurance Company, Progressive Garden State Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-20510 (D.N.J., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mineral Fusion -- https://www.mineralfusion.com/ -- offers a variety of natural beauty products powered by minerals.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Educational Testing Service. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Educational Testing Service, Case No. 1:21-cv-10789 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Educational Testing Service -- https://www.ets.org/ -- founded in 1947, is the world's largest private nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com EDWARD R. MARSZAL: James Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward R. Marszal Enterprises Inc, et al. The case is styled as Lakreshae James, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edward R. Marszal Enterprises Inc., a California corporation, Does 1 through 50, Case No. 34-2021-00313157-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 23, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Edward R. Marszal Enterprises Inc. -- http://www.circlek.com/-- is located in Elk Grove, California and is part of the Gasoline Stations Industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Raus Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elements Production, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Raus, Yessica Navarro, Moya Ferenchak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Elements Production, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; BangOn!NYC; Brett Herman, Timothy Monkiewicz, individuals; Tested Contained Retreats, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Case No. 1:21-cv-10431-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Personal Property. ELEMENT Productions -- https://element.cc/ -- is a full-service production and post-company creating content for distribution across all media platforms.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Eric Lust, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 256 5th Avenue, Ste. 4th Floor New York, NY 10061 Phone: (914) 589-4642 Email: lust@geragos.com ESSENDANT CO: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essendant, Co. The case is styled as Fernando Ochoa, on behalf of himself an all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Essendant, Co., Case No. BCV-21-102962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 21, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Essendant -- https://www.essendant.com/ -- formerly known as United Stationers, is a national wholesale distributor of office supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Crews Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mckay Crews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-02103 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com FAITHLIFE LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faithlife, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Faithlife, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10994 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Faithlife -- https://faithlife.com/ -- publishes and creates electronic tools and resources for Bible study.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Dec. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Zhou v. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-9914) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. ("Faraday" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. ("PSAC") securities between January 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from December 24, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Faraday investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On October 7, 2021, J Capital Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Faraday Future was unlikely to ever sell a car, noting that after eight years in business, the Company has "failed to deliver a car," "has reneged on promises to build factories in five localities in the U.S. and China," "is being sued by dozens of unpaid suppliers," and "has failed to disclose that assets in China have been frozen by courts." Moreover, the report alleged that Faraday Future's claimed 14,000 deposits are fabricated because 78% of these reservations were made by a single undisclosed company that is likely an affiliate. The report further alleges that contrary to representations of progress toward manufacturing made by Faraday Future in September 2021, former engineering executives did not believe that the car was ready for production. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35 per share, or more than 4%, to close at $8.05 per share on October 8, 2021. On November 15, 2021, Faraday Future announced that it would be unable to file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2021 on time. Faraday Future further announced that its board of directors "formed a special committee of independent directors to review allegations of inaccurate disclosures," including the claims in the J Capital report. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.28 per share, or approximately 3%, to close at $8.83 per share on November 16, 2021. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had assets in China frozen by courts, (2) that a significant percentage of its deposits for future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed affiliate; (3) that the Company's cars were not as close to production as the Company claimed; (4) that, as a result of previously issued statements that were misleading and/or inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly report; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Faraday securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from December 24, 2021, the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] FARADAY FUTURE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. F/K/A Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. ("Faraday Future" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) and/or sold Faraday Future put options between January 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-inc-f-k-a-property-solutions-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. F/K/A Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. NEWS - FFIE NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the Company had assets in China frozen by courts, (2) a significant percentage of its deposits for future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed affiliate; (3) the Company's cars were not as close to production as the Company claimed; (4) as a result of previously issued statements that were misleading and/or inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly report; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Faraday Future you have until February 22, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Faraday Future securities between January 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021 you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-inc-f-k-a-property-solutions-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] FAT SNAX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fat Snax, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fat Snax, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10997 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fat Snax -- https://fatsnax.com/ -- provides low-carb snacks and desserts to customers since 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com FOREVER HOME SERVICES: Koga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever Home Service, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Valentina T. Koga, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forever Home Service, LLC, Does 1 - 10, Case No. 34-2021-00312750-CU-MC-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 15, 2021). The case type is stated as "Misc Complaints Other – Civil Unlimited." Forever Home Services -- https://yourforeverhomeservices.com/ -- is a home repair service company doing a wide variety of home repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrei Armas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI ARMAS 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (858) 336-2518 FRESNO, CA: Feb. 14 Water Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Montalvo, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that residents of northeast Fresno are a step closer to seeing the results of a class action lawsuit against the city of Fresno for alleged damages caused by the city's water delivery system, according to Fresno County Superior Court records. In early 2016, northeast Fresno residents filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Fresno, alleging that the city's water ruined their galvanized plumbing, causing iron and other heavy metals to leach into their tap water from the corroded plumbing. Earlier in December, a court of appeals denied a request from the city to block the class action lawsuit from moving forward. The city of Fresno denies any liability or wrongdoing associated with the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit. Notices of the lawsuit were made public on the city's website. Hundreds of residents in northeast Fresno are expected to receive notices in the mail. A jury trial is set to start on July 25, 2022, in the Fresno County Superior Court. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Starting in early 2016, residents in northeast Fresno started complaining about discolored water coming from the faucets in their homes. In response, the city conducted an "exhaustive" 90-day study, which revealed the problem appeared to have been pinned down: corroding, unwrapped galvanized piping; dissimilar metal corrosion; and soil erosion. The first of two class action lawsuits was filed in September 2016; the second was filed in May 2017. In August, a judge granted a motion to certify the class that represents between 1,800 to 2,400 residents, which made the multiple claims more manageable by having only one case instead of dozens of individual lawsuits. In September, the city of Fresno asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the Superior Court ruling, but was denied. "We're very appreciative and grateful for the court making the order that it did and the appellate court allowing that (class action) order to stay in place," said Stuart Chandler, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, who in August told The Bee that the city was fighting "tooth and nail" to stop the lawsuits from being combined into a class action case. Today's top headlines Sign up for the Afternoon Update and get the day's biggest stories in your inbox. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. NORTHEAST FRESNO: HERE'S WHO IS IMPACTED BY THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT To be included as part of the class action, you must be the owner of residential single-family real property located within the city of Fresno's discolored water investigation area (from E. Copper Avenue to E. Sierra Avenue, and from Highway 41 to N. Willow Avenue). Also, you must have lived in the area anytime from Jan. 1, 2016 to Aug. 2, 2021 and had galvanized iron plumbing, received water service from the city of Fresno and reported discolored "rusty" water at that address to the city. Chandler said the court also certified two sub-classes — one for class members who obtained water quality test results from the city indicating iron at any tested fixture above 0.3 mg/L, and another for class members who have not obtained water quality test results from the city of Fresno. Residents that meet these criteria are automatically class members on the lawsuit. No further action is required. The city of Fresno is expected to be sending the short-form class notice by mail to the billing addresses of city water customers at single-family residential properties located within ZIP codes: 93710, 93720, and 93730. For residents that would like to opt out of the class action, the deadline is February 14, 2022. Those who wish to opt out of the lawsuit must mail a completed, signed, and dated Request for Exclusion form to the CPT Group, Inc., at the following address: Micheli, et al. v. City of Fresno c/o CPT Group, Inc. 50 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 [GN] FTP DESIGNS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FTP Designs, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. FTP Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10818 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ftp Designs, LLC -- https://www.pistildesigns.com/ -- was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of piece goods or yard goods of natural or manmade fibers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GANGESHWAR LLC: Chavez Files Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gangeshwar LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gangeshwar LLC, Globiwest International Management Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06981 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights. Globiwest International Management Services Inc. -- https://www.globiwest.com/ -- operates as a hotel management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Email: msegal@segallegal.com GARDEN GROVE, CA: Phan Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Garden Grove, et al. The case is styled as Tri Nhu Phan, individually and on behalf of a Class of Persons similarly situated v. City of Garden Grove, Garden Grove Calif Police Dept, Chief Tom Dare, Officer E. Leyva, Officer R. Luz, Officer Inspector Brown, Romantix Adult Bookstore, Does 1 through X, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01987-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Garden Grove -- https://ggcity.org/ -- is a city in northern Orange County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Nickerson, III, Esq. BRUCE W. NICKERSON LAW OFFICES 231 Manor Drive San Carlos, CA 94070 Phone: (650) 594-0195 Fax: (650) 596-0595 Email: brucenic@pacbell.net - and - Audrey Stephanie Loftin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AUDREY STEPHANIE LOFTIN 782 Pacific Avenue Long Beach, CA 90813 Phone: (562) 621-6300 Email: asloftin@longbeachlaw.com GARTNER STUDIOS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gartner Studios, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gartner Studios, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10733-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gartner Studios, Inc. -- https://www.gartnerstudios.com/ -- is a leader in print and social stationery, greeting card, licensed digital design, party goods, print-at-home and personalized stationery, and event supplies throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com GAVLAK LLC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gavlak L.L.C. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Gavlak L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-10799-ER (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GAVLAK -- https://www.gavlakgallery.com/ -- is a contemporary fine art gallery based in Los Angeles and Palm Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com GEMPLER'S INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gempler's Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gempler's Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10996 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gempler's -- https://gemplers.com/ -- offers landscaping, growing, safety supplies, clothing, footwear and pest control needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com GENERAL MOTORS: Snyder Sues Over Inaccurate Information Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Snyder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-24256-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 6, 2021), is brought against the Defendant on behalf of all persons in the United States who are current or former owners and/or lessees of model year 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 and 2020 Chevy Silverado 1500, as a result of inaccurate and incorrect Trailering Information Labels. On September 28, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 from a local car dealership in Pembroke Pines, Florida. Plaintiff consulted the Trailering Information Label on the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 prior to purchasing the vehicle, because he intended to use the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 specifically to tow a recreation vehicle. Accordingly, Plaintiff relied on the advertised gross combined weight rating ("GCWR") of 16,800 pounds when purchasing the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500. Then, in April 2021, GM sent a letter to the Plaintiff and Class Members informing them that the advertised GCWR on the Trailering Information Label for the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 was inaccurate. According to Defendant's disclosure, Plaintiff's 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 had a GCWR of 15,000 pounds – 1,800 pounds less than the GCWR that Defendant used to advertise and sell the vehicles to Plaintiff and Class Members. The 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 was likewise affected by incorrect Trailering Information Labels. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known that the Class Vehicles' actual GCWR at the time of purchase, and in light of the safety hazard posed by towing loads in excess of a vehicle's capacity, they would have not bought the Class Vehicles or would have paid much less. As such, the Plaintiff and Class members have not received the value of their bargain in purchasing their Class Vehicles and have suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased his 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 primarily for personal, family or household use. GM designs, builds, markets and sells the Class Vehicles throughout the United States, including Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: 305.357.9000 Facsimile: 305.357.9050 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com GENESCO INC: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesco Inc. The case is styled as Michael Kirkpatrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genesco Inc. doing business as: Journeys, Case No. 1:21-cv-01369-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Genesco Inc. -- https://genesco.gcs-web.com/ -- is an American publicly owned specialty retailer of branded footwear and accessories and is a wholesaler of branded and licensed footwear based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com GINGKO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. ("Ginkgo") (NYSE: DNA) f/k/a Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SRNG). The action charges Ginkgo with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Ginkgo's materially misleading statements to the public, Ginkgo investors have suffered significant losses. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 18, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: May 11, 2021 through October 5, 2021 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com GINKGO'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Ginkgo, headquartered in Boston, is a biotech company that develops platforms for cell programming which are used to enable biological production of products, such as novel therapeutics, food ingredients, and chemicals currently derived from petroleum. On October 6, 2021, analyst Scorpion Capital published an investigative report concluding "Ginkgo is a house of cards - in our opinion, one of the most brazen frauds of the last 20 years." The report indicated that Ginkgo's business model is a related-party model whereby essentially 100% of the company's deferred revenue are derived from related-party "customers" it created, funded, controls or influences via its ownership position and board seats. Scorpion also alleged that Ginkgo has engaged in a brazen effort to misclassify and misreport related-party revenue and deceive investors with phony accounting and at least half of Ginkgo's reported foundry revenue is phantom, non-cash and "pure accounting hocus-pocus." Following this news, Ginkgo's stock price fell $1.39, or approximately 12%, to close at $10.59 per share on October 6, 2021. Recently, on November 15, 2021, Ginkgo admitted that shortly after the issuance of the Scorpion Capital report, the company received an inquiry from the United States Department of Justice relating to the financial misconduct allegations in the report. WHAT CAN I DO? Ginkgo investors may, no later than January 18, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Ginkgo investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] GMRI INC: Breland Slams Improper Wages, Unsafe Workplace -------------------------------------------------------- Jason Breland, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GMRI, Inc., Olive Garden Holdings, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV46911 (Cal. Super., December 23, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Breland was required to participate in temperature checks and COVID-19 health questionnaires prior to clocking in, wherein they were under his employer's control but not compensated for their time in doing so. He also alleges that timecards were routinely rounded to the quarter hour, where oftentimes the rounding would cause employees to not be paid for all hours they worked. Breland also alleges that his employer failed to take safety measures required to keep employees safe during COVID-19.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GRO 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: garen@maj arianlawgroup. GN AUDIO USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GN Audio USA Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GN Audio USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10810 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The GN Group -- https://www.gn.com/ -- is a global leader in intelligent audio solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GOOGLE LLC: Settles Location Data Breach Class Action in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Klein Lawyers LLP disclosed that class actions were brought against Google LLC in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The class actions relate to the collection of location data from Android phones. Google implemented a project to transmit location information to itself from smartphones. The conduct began January 1, 2017 and ended December 31, 2017. This action has been settled. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at: http://www.callkleinlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/National-Settlement-Agreement-1.pdf [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on December 17, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously vacated and remanded for reconsideration the dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of a putative securities class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, against a health food product manufacturing company (the "Company") and certain of its executives, for alleged misstatements regarding the Company's sales and internal controls. In re: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 20-1517 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2021). The late District Judge Arthur Spatt granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), holding that plaintiffs failed to allege a fraudulent scheme or business practice in violation of the terms of Rule 10b-5(a)-(c), and further failed to sufficiently plead scienter. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with respect to their Rule 10b-5(b) claims. The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim relied on plaintiffs' pleading a fraudulent business scheme or plan. According to plaintiffs, defendants allegedly made misleading statements that attributed the Company's "high sales volume to strong consumer demand" while concealing an alleged channel stuffing scheme. The alleged scheme -- a practice whereby the Company's customers were offered valuable incentives to purchase more of the Company's product than needed before the end of each financial quarter -- allegedly allowed the Company to report "unsustainably inflated quarterly sales results." In dismissing plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims, the district court held that the alleged channel stuffing conduct did not constitute "inherently fraudulent" conduct. Finding that the channel stuffing was "legitimate," the district court dismissed plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim, holding that it similarly failed "because its predicate [was] the illegitimacy of the channel stuffing practices [which] the [district court] already found to be legitimate." Accordingly, the district court held that the SAC did not sufficiently plead violations of Rules 10b-5(a)-(c) and scienter and dismissed the SAC with prejudice. The Second Circuit first addressed the differences among Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c). Whereas clauses (a) and (c) require allegations of the "use of a fraudulent deceptive device, scheme, artifice, act, or practice," the Court clarified that Rule 10b-5(b) is "significantly different" because it "focuses not on schemes, devices, or practices, but on statements made." The Second Circuit held that the district court's finding with respect to the legitimacy of the channel stuffing "is not dispositive of [p]laintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim" because the "conduct underlying a purportedly misleading statement or omission" does not need to be fraudulent itself. In particular, the SAC alleged the defendants misleadingly stated that the Company's favorable sales figures were attributable to "strong consumer demand" for its products while failing to disclose that demand for its products was declining and that a significant percentage of sales was in fact attributable to the alleged practice of channel stuffing. The Second Circuit held that the district court's reasoning "reflect[ed] a misunderstanding of the requirements of clause (b)," and accordingly vacated the district court's decision that the SAC "failed to satisfy" the requirements of Rule 10b-5(b). Turning next to the issue of scienter, the Second Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to weigh plaintiffs' scienter allegations "as a whole." The Court found that the district court's "mistaken understanding" of the alleged misstatements and underlying conduct "inevitably affected" its finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter. In particular, the Court noted that, although the district court separately considered both the individual defendants' knowledge of the alleged channel stuffing and their "motive and opportunity to commit fraud," the district court erred by not considering "the total weight of the circumstantial allegations together with the allegations of motive and opportunity." (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that on remand the district court should consider the "cumulative effect of the circumstantial allegations of intent" and the "pleaded facts relating to motive and opportunity." However, the Second Circuit "express[ed] no views" as to whether the SAC's allegation are sufficient to plead scienter. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the dismissal of the SAC to the district court. Noting that the case must be reassigned to a new judge upon remand, the Court instructed that the newly assigned judge should "consider afresh" whether the SAC sufficiently alleged a violation of Rule 10b-5(b). The case is In re: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation [GN] HAIRTAMIN LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hairtamin LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hairtamin LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10731-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hairtamin LLC -- https://hairtamin.com/ -- covers dietary and nutritional supplements for the hair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com HARBOR BAY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Bay Group, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbor Bay Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10803-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Harbor Bay Group, Inc. was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes providing various business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HARTFORD INSURANCE: Hobson Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest. The case is styled as Janet Hobson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Case No. 2:21-cv-20696 (D.N.J., Dec. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest -- https://www.thehartford.com/ -- operates as an insurance service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Freitas, Calvert Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG FREITAS and RYAN CALVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, Case No. 2:19-cv-00383-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): -- Washington Class: "All current and former employees of Interstate Distributor Co. or Heartland Express, Inc. who drove as over-the-road truck drivers on at least one tour of duty away from home for 24 hours or more, while residents of Washington, at any time from November 5, 2015 through the date of the class notice;" and -- California Class: "All current and former employees of Interstate Distributor Co. or Heartland Express, Inc. who drove as over-the-road truck drivers on at least one tour of duty away from home for 24 hours or more, while residents of, and/or based out of a facility in California, at any time from November 5, 2015 through the date of the class notice." These definitions are intended to narrow those alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, to exclude any Drivers who returned home nightly during their employment; and/or who have not resided in and/or been based out of facilities in California or Washington during the alleged liability period. Heartland dispatches its employee truck drivers on multi-day tours of duty for days and often weeks on end before returning home. The Drivers literally live in the workplace (the Heartland trucks), as Heartland's general 6 policy is to not provide motels or other lodging. Instead, Heartland has its Drivers attempt to rest in the truck's cramped “sleeper berth,” a small compartment in the cab without a bathroom or sink. At the same time, Heartland maintains a uniform policy of not paying the Drivers for any sleeper berth time incurred during their multi-day tours of duty. The question of whether this uniform policy passes muster under Washington and California state law is ideally suited for class treatment, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJ1WOJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Erika L. Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com enusser@terrellmarshall.com - and - Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com HEARTWISE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartwise Incorporated. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heartwise Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-10808 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heartwise Incorporated -- https://www.heartwise.com/ -- offers nutritional supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HENKEL CORPORATION: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Lazo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Lazo, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation and Thriving Brands LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01702 (D. Conn., Dec. 22, 2021) alleges that Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Right Guard body spray line of products contain benzene, which Defendants do not list or mention anywhere on the Products' packaging or labeling. This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing and sale of Defendants' Right Guard body spray line of products throughout the country, including, but not limited to, the following products: -- Right Guard – Sport, Fresh, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection; and -- Right Guard – Sport, Powder Dry, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection. The Defendants do specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of these Products but fail to disclose that the product contains "benzene." Benzene is a widely recognized and incredibly dangerous substance, especially in the context of applying it to the skin, and it offers no body spray benefit whatsoever. Rather, it is a harmful carcinogen. Benzene has been recognized, acknowledged, and accepted as a well-known health hazard and human carcinogen for approximately a century. The Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. The Defendants orchestrated deceptive marketing and labeling practices. Defendants' customers were uniformly impacted by and exposed to this misconduct. Accordingly, this Complaint is uniquely situated for class-wide resolution, including injunctive relief. The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products anywhere in the United States during the Class Period. The Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a subclass of individuals who purchased the Products in the state of New York at any time during the Class Period (the “New York Subclass”). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that the body spray they purchase will comply with its labeling and not contain any knowingly harmful substances or carcinogens like benzene, says the suit. Accordingly, Defendants' alleged conduct violated and continues to violate, the New York General Business Law sections 49 and 350. The Defendants also breached and continue to their warranties regarding the Products. In addition, the Defendants have been and continue to be unjustly enriched. Lastly, Plaintiff brings a claim for medical monitoring costs associated with testing, monitoring, and remediating the effects of Plaintiff and Class Members' benzene exposure. The Plaintiff purchased Defendants' Products that contained benzene, including Right Guard -- Sport, Fresh, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection and Right Guard -- Sport, Powder Dry, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection. Henkel Corporation is a domestic corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Henkel Corporation conducts business throughout the United States, including this district. Henkel Corporation's line of body spray products, including the Products purchased by Plaintiff and Class Members, are available at retail stores throughout New York and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami FL, 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com HENKEL US: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Simmons Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES SIMMONS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-02358-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 17, 2021) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as a "class action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked as a chemical operator as Henkel's Cleveland Ohio plant. Other similarly situated employees were employed as manufacturing employees. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked at Defendant's various locations in Ohio. The Defendant allegedly classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees an hourly wage. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees frequently worked over 40 hours per week. They worked on average between 40 and 60 hours per week. The Defendant manufactures adhesives, sealants, laundry detergents, laundry additives and other home care items. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a manufacturing employee since 1998.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Synergy Over Anticompetitive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYNERGY HOTELS, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC, SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. (SCH) d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (IHG) and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Case No. 1:21-cv-05164-MHC (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 17, 2021) seeks to put an end to IHG/HHF's alleged unlawful, abusive, fraudulent, anticompetitive and unconscionable practices designed solely to benefit and to enrich IHG/HHF's shareholders and to do so at the expense and to the detriment of Plaintiff and the class members, namely, similarly situated HHF franchisees. SCH is the world's largest hotel company by room count, and does business under the name InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG). IHG operates approximately some 5,600 hotels across more than 15 brands. IHG takes an asset-light approach, owning, franchising and/or managing hotels for third parties, with Holiday Inn as its mainstay chain, under such brands as Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express and Holiday Inn Resorts (the "Holiday Inn Brands"), each bearing the identification as "an IHG Hotel." IHG also owns, manages and/or franchises other hotel brands such as Crowne Plaza, InterContinental, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hotel Indigo, Regent and Kimpton. IHG owns Defendant Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (HHF). The Plaintiff is a franchisee that owns and operates a hotel located at 4870 Old Rathmell Court in Orbetz, Ohio 43207, that bears a HHF brand mark pursuant to a License Agreement. Many HHF Franchisees are individuals, single member limited liability companies or closely held corporations who are either immigrants or second-generation Americans of Indian or other South Asian origin. Plaintiff is one such HHF franchisee. At the heart of IHG/HHF's unlawful scheme is its requirement that its franchisees use certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain and to run a hotel, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (866) 827-6537 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com - and - Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq. Mark Fishbein, Esq. Justin M. Klein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (312) 206-5162 Facsimile: (732) 219-0625 E-mail: andrew@marksklein.com mark@ marksklein.com justin@marksklein.com - and - Justin E. Proper, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Telephone: (215) 864-7165 E-mail: properj@whiteandwilliams.com HOLLYWOOD CHAIRS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollywood Chairs. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hollywood Chairs, Case No. 1:21-cv-07075-KAM-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hollywood Chairs is located in San Marcos, CA, United States and is part of the Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawfirm.net I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Chaquita Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-02125-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I.C. System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Chaquita Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-02113 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I.C. System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. INDIVIOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Suboxone Drug ------------------------------------------------------------- Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding the price paid for Suboxone. The case name is In Re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, and the civil action number is 2:13-md-02445-MSG. This lawsuit asserts that Defendants violated certain state antitrust laws in the United States, harming competition and causing class members to overpay for Suboxone. Defendants deny that they violated any laws. Certain Defendants have been dismissed from the suit for jurisdictional reasons. The sole Defendant at this time is Indivior, Inc. ("Indivior"). PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a recall, safety, or other similar notice. This lawsuit is not asserting that Suboxone is unsafe or ineffective. This notice is only for purposes of advising you of certain rights in litigation. This is only a summary. The Court has not decided whether Indivior did anything wrong. There is no money available now, and no guarantee there will be. For additional details, please read the Long-Form Notice available to download at www.SuboxAntitrust.com. [GN] INFOPAY INC: Bensen Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against InfoPay, Inc. The case is styled as Loretta Bensen, Sherry Gaul, Shontonna Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InfoPay, Inc., Intermedia Ventures LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-12061-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 16, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Infopay -- https://www.infopay.com/ -- is a premier data technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 470 Atlantic Ave., 4th Flr. Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 307-6100 Fax: (617) 307-6101 Email: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com JAMES BELFORD: Ct. Tosses Plummer Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTRELL PLUMMER v. JAMES BELFORD, JOHN R. BALDWIN, STAZAK, HESLEY, SCOTT THOMPSON, MAC SHANE FRANK, JOHN/JANE DOES, and TOMSHACK, Case No. 3:20-cv-01247-SPM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. McGlynn entered an order denying Plummer's bid for class certification: -- Plummer requests the Court to grant class action status to this case in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Because Plummer is proceeding pro se, he cannot represent a class of plaintiffs. The Court said, "The Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant to Section 1915A. Counts 1 and 2 shall proceed against Belford, Stazak, Frank, and Tomshack. Count 3 is dismissed with prejudice. Plummer has failed to state a claim against the John Doe Defendants, Baldwin, Helsey, and Thompson, and the claims against them are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate them as defendants. the clerk of court is further directed to add the Warden of Pinckneyville, David Mitchell, as a defendant in his official capacity only for the purpose of implementing any injunctive relief that may be ordered. Finally, Plummer is advised that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pAlK8P at no extra charge.[CC] JANKMAN LLC: Chimienti Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC CHIMIENTI, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. JANKMAN LLC, d/b/a JACK'S WIFE FREDA, DEAN JANKELOWITZ and MAYA JANKELOWITZ, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-10853 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021) alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the minimum wage, failing to provide an accurate wage statement with every wage payment, and unlawfully retaining gratuities. The Plaintiff, on his behalf, alleges that Defendants retaliated against him, by taking away his promotion and raise, for engaging in protected activity of requesting pay for time spent in mandatory manager meetings, violating the Labor Law. Mr. Chimienti worked for the Defendants as a server and bartender at the West Village location of their chain of South African-Mediterranean restaurants from February 2015 to March 15, 2020. As a server, the Plaintiff was responsible for taking customers' orders and serving them food and beverages. As a bartender, Plaintiff was responsible for preparing beverages and serving them to Defendants' customers. The Defendants operate and manage four South African-Mediterranean restaurants in New York, including the West Village location at 50 Carmine Street, New York, New York. Defendants Dean Jankelowitz and Maya Jankelowitz own, operate and control Jack's Wife Freda's day-to-day operations and management and jointly employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at all relevant times.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com JUPITER WELLNESS: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jupiter Wellness, Inc. (NASDAQCM: JUPW) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger of JUPW and Next Frontier Pharmaceuticals, Inc. If you are an investor, and would like information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] KINGS COUNTY NURSERIES: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kings County Nurseries Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Kings County Nurseries Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10850 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kings County Nurseries -- https://kingscountynurseries.com/ -- is a garden center in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal KNIFECENTER INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KnifeCenter, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KnifeCenter, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10736-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KnifeCenter -- https://www.knifecenter.com/ -- is the original and largest online knife and cutlery catalog offering pocket knives and every pocketknife from Benchmade Knives and Spyderco Knives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Foster Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Harris, John Bramblett, Paula Schellenberger, Patrick Moriarty, Robin Polite, Donna Martin, Matthew De Lamater, Tom John, Joseph Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No2:21-cv-01822-JFC (W.D. Pa., Dec. 15, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: ekilpela@lcllp.com LAMPSUSA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LampsUSA, LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LampsUSA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10813 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LampsUSA -- https://www.lampsusa.com/ -- offers light fixtures and lamps plus modern home lighting and room lights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LARKSTONE ACQUISITIONS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larkstone Acquisitions. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Larkstone Acquisitions, Case No. 1:21-cv-10851 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal LISA CHARMEL USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lise Charmel USA Corp. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lise Charmel USA Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-10722-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lise Charmel -- https://www.lisecharmel.com/ -- is a women's clothing brand that manufactures and distributes lingerie products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal LOCKS GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Locks Gallery. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Locks Gallery, Case No. 1:21-cv-10749 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Locks Gallery -- https://www.locksgallery.com/ -- represents an international group of critically respected contemporary artists working in a wide variety of disciplines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com LYNN & LAUREN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lynn & Lauren, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Lynn & Lauren, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10852 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LYNN & LAUREN, LLC is a USA domiciled entity or foreign entity operating in the USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal MAJOR ENERGY: Glikin Suit Transferred to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Glikin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Major Energy Electric Services LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00356, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 23, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-DLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Major Energy Services LLC -- https://majorenergy.com/ -- distributes energy products. The Company supplies natural gas and electricity.[BN] MAKEY MAKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Makey Makey, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Makey Makey, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10986-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Makey Makey -- https://makeymakey.com/ -- is a fun-for-all educational STEM kit that brings engineering and coding concepts to life in exciting new ways.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Phone: (917) 957-0978 Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com MALONE'S SERVICE: Long Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LONG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MALONE'S SERVICE AND PERFORMANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05212-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 21, 2021) seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Long brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who worked for Malone's and were paid a straight hourly wage but no overtime from three years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint through the final disposition of this matter. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those current and former Porters who worked for Malone's, anywhere in the United States, at any time from December 20, 2018 through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid a straight hourly wage for all hours worked but did not receive overtime for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. Malone's allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as independent contractors. Malone's also misclassified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as overtime exempt employees. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Malone's operates as a vehicle service provider in Marietta, Georgia. As part of their services, Malone's employed (and continues to employ) numerous Porters in the last three years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200, Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Facsimile: (470) 639-6866 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com MANHATTAN MIDTOWN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Midtown Dental, P.C. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Manhattan Midtown Dental, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-11051 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Midtown Manhattan Dental -- https://www.midtownmanhattandental.com/ -- provide a comfortable state-of-the-art facility fashioned for the highest quality dental care available.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Schlatre Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAD SCHLATRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a MARATHON PATENT GROUP, INC., MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, FREDERICK G. THIEL, and SIMEON SALZMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-02209-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Dec. 17, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Marathon securities between October 13, 2020 and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. In October 2020, Marathon announced the formation of a new joint venture with Beowulf Energy LLC purportedly focused on delivering low-cost power to Marathon's Bitcoin mining operations (the "Beowulf Joint Venture"). In connection with that joint venture, Marathon entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana (the "Hardin Facility"), issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the parties of those agreements. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations. On November 15, 2021, Marathon disclosed that "the Company and certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center facility," and advised that "the SEC may be investigating whether or not there may have been any violations of the federal securities law." On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $20.52 per share, or 27.03%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff acquired Marathon securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Marathon is a digital asset technology company that mines cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known as "Marathon Patent Group, Inc." and changed its name to "Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc." on March 1, 2021." The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104 Las Vegas, NE 89117 Telephone: (702) 330-4505 Facsimile: (702) 825.0141 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com MARATHON DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 24 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc.) ("Marathon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MARA) in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of Marathon between October 13, 2020 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the shares of Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. you may, no later than February 15, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. According to the filed Complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- multiple parties to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana, implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations; -- as a result, the Beowulf Joint Venture subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's business and commercial prospects; and -- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Files RICO Suit in D. Maine --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company Inc., et al. The case is styled as Regional School Unit 34 Board of Education, Regional School Unit 68 Board of Education, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00366-NT (D. Maine, Dec. 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act. McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a global management consulting firm that serves leading businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations, and not-for-profits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. DRUMMOND WOODSUM & MACMAHON 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 Portland, ME 04101 Phone: (207) 772-1941 Email: mhewey@dwmlaw.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Southwestern Central Files RICO Suit -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company Inc., et al. The case is styled as Southwestern Central School District Board of Education, Rochester City School District Board of Education, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-01286-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act. McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a global management consulting firm that serves leading businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations, and not-for-profits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Freedman, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Building 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100 Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 856-4000 Fax: (716) 849-0349 Email: afreedma@hodgsonruss.com - and - Karl W. Kristoff 235 Belvoir Road Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone: (716) 634-1343 Email: kwk278@aol.com MCMC LLC: Mauthe Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCMC, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of persons with claims against Defendant, MCMC, LLC alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); 2. appointing Dr. Mauthe as the class representative; and 3. appointing Dr. Mauthe's attorneys, Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC and Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, as class counsel Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of approximately 3,927 persons who were successfully sent four fax advertisements from Defendant a total of 9,162 times. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: "All persons to whom faxes from MCMC were successfully sent in December 2016, April 2017, July 2017, or December 2017 soliciting paid attendance at IAIME events, except those persons faxed at a telephone number appearing in the IAIME database or on MCMC’s list of facsimile numbers to which persons invited MCMC to send facsimiles about meetings offering continuing medical education credits." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EA7fWz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 - and - Richard E. Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com MDL 1917: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to modify class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Class certification Jan. 14, 2022 Jan. 21, 2022 opposition and any accompanying expert reports due: -- Class certification Jan. 28, 2022 Feb. 4, 2022 expert discovery cut-off: -- Class Certification Feb. 25, 2022 March 4, 2022 reply due: -- Class Certification March 24, 2022 March 31, 2022 Motion Hearing: A copy of the Parties motion dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JoHiwO at no extra charge.[CC] The Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are: R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 The Attorneys for Defendants Irico Group Corp. and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., are: John M. Taladay, Esq. Evan J. Werbel, Esq. Thomas E. Carter, Esq. Andrew L. Lucarelli, Esq. Jonathan Shapiro, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 700 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-7700 Facsimile: (202) 639-7890 E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com evan.werbel@bakerbotts.com tom.carter@bakerbotts.com drew.lucarelli@bakerbotts.com Jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com MID-STATES CONCRETE: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER HAYNES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. MID-STATES CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-50475 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 21, 2021) alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages based on the correct regular rate of pay to Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible hourly employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly employee subject to Defendant's Bonus Policy. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant paid bonuses to hourly employees, calculated pursuant to a formula set by company policy ("Defendant's Bonus Policy"). The Defendant is a South Beloit, Illinois based company that provides cement and concrete products and services, including processing and manufacturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 E-mail: james@bswages.com MIMECAST LIMITED: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mimecast Limited (NASDAQGS: MIME) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of MIME to Permira for $80.00 in cash per share of MIME owned. If you are an investor, and would like information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Sandro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRIGUEZ SANDRO v. MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL CARBON FIBER AND COMPOSITES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01711-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be completed by February 16, 2023. Discovery motions must be filed and heard prior to this date. 2. The parties shall have until April 17, 2023 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings. 3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, June 19, 2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is required. 4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 08:30 AM. 5. The parties are referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedure No. 3 -- Private Mediation. The parties shall have until March 2, 2023 to conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of their settlement efforts and status. 6. Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2022 to file and have heard any class certification motion. Mitsubishi Chemical is doing business in carbon fiber manufacturing. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jp0Ilc at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Licensed Products, Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Wheeler Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., National Football, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09908 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendants have engaged in an overarching anticompetitive conspiracy to monopolize the online retail market for NFL Licensed Products. This alleged conspiracy consists of at least three related components: First, Defendants colluded to boycott competing retailers who sold NFL Licensed Products through third-party online marketplaces like the Amazon Marketplace. This boycott eliminated Defendants' competitors who would have charged lower prices for NFL Licensed Products sold online. In so doing, the boycott removed the downward pressure on prices and margins that, absent the conspiracy, would have otherwise flowed directly from enhanced competition. Second, having greatly reduced the number of retailers in online marketplaces, Defendants conspired to fill the void by entering into exclusive dealing arrangements that denied their competitors access to manufacturers and suppliers. Third, having solidified their dominant position in the online retail market for NFL Licensed Products, Defendants, rather than compete with one another, entered into anticompetitive licensing agreements that have allowed Defendants to charge supracompetitive monopoly prices and share the profits among themselves, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is a representative of a proposed class of direct purchasers of NFL-licensed merchandise such as t-shirts, hats, jerseys, drinkware, and other sports-team-themed consumer goods ("NFL Licensed Products"). The Defendants are professional football teams, the NFL and affiliated entities, and Fanatics, Inc. ("Fanatics"), an online retailer of NFL Licensed Products. Collectively, Defendants dominate the online marketplace for NFL Licensed Products. The Defendants include League Properties, Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC, Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buccaneers Team LLC, Buffalo Bills LLC, Carolina Panthers, LLC, The Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Chargers Football Company, LLC, Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., Detroit Lions Inc., Football Northwest LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings, L.P., Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Las Vegas Raiders Football LLC, Miami Dolphins Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football LLC, New England Patriots LLC, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants Inc., New York Jets Football Club, Inc. PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos Football Club, The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers Sports Inc., The Rams Football Company LLC, San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC, Tennessee Football, Inc., Washington Football, Inc., and Fanatics, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. ANDREW M. PURDY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 15615 Alton Parkway, Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 570-5500 Facsimile: (949) 298-7234 E-mail: amp@purdylegal.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Spencer Cox, Esq. Warren T. Burns, Esq. Patrick Murphree, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 577-3977 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com scox@burnscharest.com wburns@burnscharest.com pmurphree@burnscharest.com NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TRAVIS McEWEN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and INFOCISION, INC., d/b/a INFOCISION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-LEW (D. Maine), Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine: -- grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; -- grants in part the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Lift Stay; and -- denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument. Plaintiff Travis McEwen has brought this suit against Defendants the National Rifle Association of America ("NRA") and InfoCision, Inc., alleging that the Defendants violated certain provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff is a former member of the NRA, who alleges that he received numerous unwanted calls from InfoCision on behalf of the NRA. According to the Plaintiff, he never consented to such calls, and in fact took active steps to avoid receiving them by placing himself on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003 and by asking InfoCision to place him on their "internal do-not-call list" in about 2014 or 2015 (First Amended Complaint ("FAC")). The Plaintiff states that he allowed his NRA membership to lapse in 2018. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff alleges, he received as many as sixty-six calls from InfoCision between 2017 and 2020, which he claims were placed on behalf of other unspecified entities in addition to the NRA. The NRA is a membership-based organization that solicits and collects membership fees to further its work in firearms advocacy, training, and education. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "the NRA" is a distinct entity from "the NRA Foundation," a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization. He also points to a recent investigation by the New York Attorney General's office that has brought to light severe mismanagement and self-dealing on the part of NRA leadership, which calls into question the organization's status as a nonprofit organization. InfoCision is a telemarketing company that places marketing and fundraising calls on behalf of clients, including the NRA. The Plaintiff alleges that InfoCision uses an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to make autodialed calls to consumers. According to him, InfoCision obtains numbers for its call lists from various sources, including the NRA's membership records and third-party vendors. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the NRA and InfoCision, initially raising four counts but ultimately amending his complaint to bring a total of six counts. In Counts A and B, he alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling consumers' telephones without their consent using an ATDS, and that they did so willfully and knowingly. In Counts C and D, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling consumers, who had placed their names on the National Do-Not Call Registry, and that they did so willfully and knowingly. In Counts E and F, he alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling consumers, who had asked the Defendants to place them on internal do-not-call lists, and that they did so willfully and knowingly. On InfoCision's motion, Judge Walker dismissed Counts C through F as to InfoCision, the proceedings having been stayed as to the NRA due to its suggestion of bankruptcy. Judge Walker determined that the Plaintiff's factual allegations, if true, would suggest that the NRA is not a "nonprofit organization" exempt from the TCPA, and so declined to dismiss on that ground. Nevertheless, Judge Walker concluded that the Plaintiff's allegations did not state or support the reasonable inference that InfoCision engaged in "telephone solicitation" with him because he alleged no facts to suggest that InfoCision ever sought to sell him any goods or services. Moreover, Judge Walker found that the Plaintiff's allegation that InfoCision had called him on behalf of other entities in addition to the NRA lacked any factual basis and so was implausible. Accordingly, Judge Walker dismissed Counts C through F as to InfoCision. The Plaintiff then requested limited discovery on the issue of whether InfoCision's dialer system qualified as an ATDS in light of the Supreme Court's recently issued opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021). At the same time, he proposed filing a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that would better conform to the standard articulated in Facebook. The Plaintiff made clear that he did not intend to file an amended complaint until after the court had resolved his request for limited discovery. He requested a 90-day discovery period and proposed that the court set a deadline for the filing of an amended complaint at 30 days following the completion of the discovery period. The magistrate judge denied the Plaintiff's request for discovery on July 4, 2021, and made no mention of any deadline for him to file an amended complaint. In July 2021, the Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Defendants argued that the remaining counts (A and B) did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that InfoCision called consumers using an ATDS as defined by Facebook. In addition, the NRA requested that the court lift the stay occasioned by its bankruptcy filing and moved to dismiss Counts C through F, which Judge Walker previously dismissed as to InfoCision. In September 2021, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file the SAC. He also requested oral argument on the issues raised by the motion to amend the complaint and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Discussion I. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To File Seconded Amended Complaint Judge Walker notes that the court should freely give leave for a party to amend its pleadings when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Judge Walker, thus, will grant a request to amend a pleading unless "appropriate circumstances" counsel against doing so, citing Klunder v. Brown Univ., 778 F.3d 24, 34 (1st Cir. 2015). Circumstances that counsel against granting a request to amend include undue delay, futility, a lack of due diligence or good faith on the part of the movant, or where the opposing party otherwise would be prejudiced by the amendment. So long as judgment has not been entered, a court may grant leave to amend a pleading even if some or all of a complaint has been dismissed. 1. Counts C through F The Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint is futile with respect to Counts C through F, Judge Walker holds. Where, as here, a party seeks leave to amend before discovery is complete and neither party has moved for summary judgment, an amendment's futility turns on whether the proposed amended complaint sets forth a general scenario which, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief against the defendant on some cognizable theory, Judge Walker explains, citing Hatch v. Dep't for Child., Youth & Their Fams., 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). Judge Walker previously determined that Counts C through F failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and nothing in the SAC changes that calculus. In the Order granting InfoCision's motion to dismiss, Judge Walker found that the Plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to reasonably support the allegation that InfoCision had called him while engaged in "telephone solicitation." The Plaintiff merely alleged that InfoCision was soliciting donations and membership in the NRA, which, Judge Walker determined, are neither a good nor a service. The Plaintiff's only additional allegations on that score are a few cursory references to the Defendants selling goods and services and a more detailed description of the benefits available to dues-paying NRA members. But the former does nothing to substantiate the Plaintiff's claims, and the latter fails to rebut the conclusion that membership benefits--no matter how valuable--simply are not purchased goods or services for the purpose of the TCPA, Judge Walker holds. The Plaintiff also adds allegations casting further doubt on whether the NRA operates as a nonprofit, Judge Walker notes. But these additional allegations do not address Judge Walker's reason for dismissing Counts C through F in the FAC and are merely cumulative of the Plaintiff's existing allegations regarding the NRA's nonprofit status. In his previous order, Judge Walker granted InfoCision's motion to dismiss because he found that the Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that InfoCision contacted the Plaintiff while engaged in "telemarketing." At the same time, Judge Walker found that the factual allegations in the FAC would, if true, permit a finding that the NRA does not operate as a nonprofit. Thus, the additional allegations, like the Plaintiff's other allegations intended to strengthen Counts C through F, are futile. 2. Counts A and B As it concerns Counts A and B, the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint is neither futile nor unduly delayed; accordingly, Judge Walker grants the Plaintiff's motion with respect to these counts. Judge Walker explains that the SAC is not futile insofar as it alleges facts that, taken as true, permit the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable under the TCPA. Judge Walker adds that in the SAC, the Plaintiff plausibly alleges that InfoCision called him using an ATDS. Judge Walker also finds that the SAC is not unduly delayed. Judge Walker opines that the mere fact that a plaintiff delayed a request to amend a complaint is an inadequate basis for a court to deny the amendment. Judge Walker holds, among other things, that permitting the Plaintiff to file the SAC would not prejudice the Defendants. II. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Because Judge Walker grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as moot. III. NRA's Motion to Lift Stay and Dismiss For the reasons discussed in the Order granting InfoCision's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief against the NRA as to Counts C through F, Judge Walker holds. Accordingly, and as the NRA is no longer undergoing bankruptcy, Judge Walker lifts the stay as to the NRA and dismiss those counts. IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument Because he is able to resolve these motions on the basis of the parties' submissions, Judge Walker sees no need to hold oral argument, and so denies the Plaintiff's request. Conclusion The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is granted as it relates to Counts A and B and denied as it relates to Counts C through F. The Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Lift the Stay is granted with regard to lifting the stay, denied as it relates to Counts A and B, and granted as it relates to Counts C through F. The Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uz3bph9 from Leagle.com. NAVIENT CORP: $35MM Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LORD ABBETT AFFILIATED FUND, INC., et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 16-112-MN Judge Maryellen Noreika SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES This notice is for: (1) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Navient Corporation's ("Navient") common stock or Navient call options, or sold Navient put options, from April 17, 2014 through September 29, 2015 (the "Exchange Act Class"). For the avoidance of doubt, the Exchange Act Class includes all persons and entities who received shares as part of Navient's formation through a spin-off from Sallie Mae—and who were damaged thereby; and (2) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Navient's 5.000% Senior Notes due 2020 (CUSIP 63938CAA6), 5.875% Senior Notes due 2024 (CUSIP 63938CAB4), and 5.875% Senior Notes due 2021 (CUSIP 63938CAC2) from November 6, 2014 through December 28, 2015, inclusive—and who were damaged thereby (the "Securities Act Class," and together with the Exchange Act Class, the "Classes"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Classes by definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full definition of the Classes including a complete description of who is excluded from the Classes is set forth in the full Settlement Notice referred to below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that lead plaintiffs and class representatives Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Lord Abbett Equity Trust–Lord Abbett Calibrated Mid Cap Value Fund, Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Fund, Inc., and Lord Abbett Investment Trust–Lord Abbett High Yield Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Classes in the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Navient, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul, John Kane, William M. Diefenderfer, III, Ann Torre Bates, Diane Suitt Gilleland, Linda Mills, Barry A. Munitz, Steven L. Shapiro, Jane J. Thompson, Barry L. Williams, Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (n/k/a Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC), J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (n/k/a BofA Securities, Inc.), RBC Capital Markets, LLC, RBS Securities Inc. (n/k/a NatWest Markets Securities Inc.), and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") for $35,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on March 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Maryellen Noreika either in person at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, Courtroom 4A, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801-3555, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court) to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 16, 2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Classes, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in this Notice) should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses (including an award to Lead Plaintiffs) should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. If you are a member of one or both of the Classes, your rights will be affected by the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Navient Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91402, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-833-358-1847, info@NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for the Action, www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website, www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than April 13, 2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than February 24, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Navient, any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Navient Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91402 Seattle, WA 98111 1-833-358-1847 info@NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court District of Delaware NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: 2d Cir. Tosses George Lehman Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2021, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed a securities class action lawsuit led by George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. (which was the name of the Company prior to the completion of the merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019, as amended, pursuant to which (i) Ohr Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Ohr, merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (renamed as "NeuBase Corporation") continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was renamed as "NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc." and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. "We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously," according to NeuBase. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties' positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second Circuit's decision. After letter briefing on this issue and plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file a second amended complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied plaintiffs' request to amend and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims. On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order denying plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 16, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision and order of the district court denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, thereby dismissing the appeal and action in its entirety. Pittsburgh, Pa.-based NeuBase Therapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on significantly reducing the burden of untreatable morbidity and mortality across the globe caused by rare and common diseases. On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation, completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019. NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit over Merger Deal Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend against the case, Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., which challenges the Company's merger deal with Ohr, NeuBase disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2021. On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp., captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the "Wheby Action"). The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action. "Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock," according to NeuBase. Pittsburgh, Pa.-based NeuBase Therapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on significantly reducing the burden of untreatable morbidity and mortality across the globe caused by rare and common diseases. On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation, completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019. NEW BALANCE: Faces New "Made in the USA" Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a class of plaintiffs led by Matthew Cristostomo have filed a class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletics, Inc. Why: Plaintiffs claim New Balance sells sneakers that are prominently marked as "Made in the USA" when they actually outsource up to 30% of their components. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal court. Sneakers in New Balance Athletics "Made in the USA" line are not actually entirely made in the United States, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiffs, led by Matthew Cristostomo, claim New Balance sells certain sneakers that have up to 30% of their components made outside the United States, despite being prominently marketed as "Made in the USA." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires companies who claim its products are made in the United States be either "all" or "virtually all" made in the country, according to the class action lawsuit. "The Sneakers do not satisfy the FTC's requirements for a ‘Made in the USA' product," the class action lawsuit states. "Specifically, imported parts and/or foreign labor make up at least 30 percent of any one of the Sneakers." Meanwhile, Cristostomo claims himself and other plaintiffs would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the sneakers had they known they were not actually made in the United States. "Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were accordingly injured by the price premium they paid for the Sneakers due to Defendant's misrepresentation that the Sneakers were made in the United States when they were not," the class action lawsuit states. CEO Admitted Sneaker Soles Not Made Domestically, Class Action Alleges Cristostomo claims a number of New Balance sneakers have either an American flag or the words "Made in USA" embroidered onto their tongues while others are in a category on the company's web shop named "Footwear Made in the USA." This, despite New Balance's CEO even previously admitting that the soles of its sneakers are not made domestically, the class action lawsuit alleges. New Balance does include a "small print disclaimer" on its website and the underside of its packaging acknowledging the sneakers with the "Made in USA" claims only "contain a domestic value of 70% or greater," according to the class action lawsuit; however, Cristostomo argues this is not enough to undo its alleged false and misleading advertising. "No reasonable consumer would expect that small print language on the underside of a packaging or hid in assorted places on a website contain language inconsistent with the representations that the Sneakers were ‘Made in the USA,'" the class action lawsuit states. Cristostomo claims New Balance is guilty of, among other things, fraud and unjust enrichment, and in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law, among other individual state acts. Cristostomo wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased New Balance footwear that was not entirely made in the United States. Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief along with compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. New Balance faced a similar class action lawsuit back in 2017 after consumers claimed the company falsely marketed its sneakers as "Made in the USA." Have you purchased New Balance sneakers prominently marked as "Made in the USA"? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by James J. Reardon, Jr. of Reardon Scanlon LLP and L. Timothy Fisher, Sean L. Litteral, Max S. Roberts, Matthew A. Girardi and Julian C. Diamond of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The Class Action Lawsuit is Cristostomo, et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-12095, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Cert Hearing Reset for March 30, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black, et al., v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00243 (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal entered an order vacating class certification hearing on March 29 at 1:30 p.m. and resetting for March 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Antitrust. Occidental Petroleum is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and Colombia as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United States, Canada, and Chile.[CC] ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Organogenesis Holdings, Inc. ("Organogenesis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ORGO) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Organogenesis securities between March 17, 2021 and October 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 8, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On October 12, 2021, Value Investors Club issued a report alleging issues at Organogenesis Holdings, Inc., indicating that the wound care medical company has been improperly billing the federal government for $250 million annually. The Company also set the price for its new wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high," which Medicare reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for doctors to use through large rebates. On this news, shares of Organogenesis fell over 18% in intraday trading on October 12, 2021. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Organogenesis shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] PAYSAFE LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp. II. The action charges Paysafe with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Paysafe's materially misleading statements to the public, Paysafe investors have suffered significant losses. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com PAYSAFE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Paysafe, headquartered in the United Kingdom, provides digital commerce solutions to online businesses, merchants, and consumers through its Paysafe Network worldwide which, among other things, enable users to upload, store, withdraw, and pay funds and from virtual accounts. On March 30, 2021, Paysafe became a public entity via business combination with FTAC. Then, on November 11, 2021, before the market opened, Paysafe announced that it was revising its revenue guidance for the full year 2021 downward. Paysafe attributed the revision to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key European markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital Wallet segment" and "[t]he modified scope and timing of new eCommerce customer agreements relative to the Company's original expectations for these agreements." On this news, the Paysafe's share price fell $3.03 per share, or more than 40%, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021. WHAT CAN I DO? Paysafe investors may, no later than February 8, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Paysafe investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com URL: http://ktmc.com[GN] PEOPLEASE LLC: Court Denies Bids for Arbitration in Espinoza Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an omnibus order denying motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled DEMIS ESPINOZA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLEASE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-22684-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D. Fla.). The cause is before the Court upon Defendant Managed Labor Solutions, LLC's ("MLS") Motion to Stay Case and Compel Arbitration or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint ("MLS Motion"), and Defendant Peoplease LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or, Alternatively, to Stay Proceedings ("Peoplease Motion"). Background On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against Defendants MLS and Peoplease, arising from their purported violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. According to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff was previously employed by MLS through Peoplease between Sept. 18, 2019, and Nov. 13, 2019. MLS and Peoplease terminated the Plaintiff's employment on Nov. 13, 2019. Thereafter, in October 2020, the Plaintiff again applied for employment with MLS. On Oct. 19, 2020, as a condition of hire, the Plaintiff authorized MLS to obtain his consumer report. On Oct. 20, 2020, MLS and Peoplease ordered the Plaintiff's consumer report from Crimcheck, a consumer reporting agency. On Oct. 23, 2020, Crimcheck provided MLS and Peoplease with the Plaintiff's consumer report, which scored the Plaintiff as "questionable" based upon his then-pending criminal charges. Crimcheck communicated to MLS and/or Peoplease that Plaintiff was ineligible to hire, causing MLS to reject the Plaintiff's employment application and MLS and/or Peoplease to confirm his ineligibility in their computer system. The Plaintiff was rejected for employment on Oct. 23, 2020. He then contacted MLS's corporate office to inquire into the status of his application and was informed that his application for employment was rejected due to his background check. He did not receive notice or a copy of his background check from MLS prior to his rejection. Nor did he authorize Peoplease to procure his consumer report. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts three claims for relief under the FCRA: Failure to Make Proper Disclosure in Violation 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), against Peoplease (Count I); Failure to Obtain Authorization in Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii), against Peoplease (Count II); and Failure to Provide Adverse Action Notice in Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A), against MLS (Count III). The Defendants now seek to stay these proceedings and compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint on an individual, non-class basis. Specifically, the Defendants contend that when the Plaintiff was hired by MLS through Peoplease on Sept. 18, 2019, he signed a Notice and Agreement of Co-Employment, which includes a Dispute Resolution and Arbitration clause governing the instant action. The Plaintiff takes the opposing position, arguing that there is no plausible basis to compel him to arbitrate his FRCA claims against the Defendants. Legal Standard The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate "evidencing a transaction involving commerce" are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. Section 2. The FAA reflects "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011). Discussion Judge Bloom notes that under both federal and Florida law, there are three factors for the court to consider in determining a party's right to arbitrate: (1) a written agreement exists between the parties containing an arbitration clause; (2) an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) the right to arbitration has not been waived, citing Sims v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 336 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (citing Marine Envtl. Partners, Inc. v. Johnson, 863 So.2d 423, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) and Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1999)). The crux of the parties' dispute is whether the Plaintiff's FCRA claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Clause, and therefore, whether an arbitrable issue exists. The Defendants argue that the Arbitration Clause expressly provides that the parties agree to utilize binding arbitration as the sole and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that may arise between the Plaintiff, MLS, and/or PLC, including disputes regarding termination of employment and compensation. The Plaintiff responds that his FCRA claims are non-arbitrable for several reasons. Among other reasons, the Plaintiff contends that his FCRA claims are not a foreseeable or immediate consequence of his prior co-employment relationship, i.e., 'contractual duties' with Peoplease and MLS. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties' briefings, the Court is not persuaded that the Plaintiff's FCRA claims are arbitrable. While the Arbitration Clause includes broad language of arbitrability and expressly includes disputes based upon federal law, such as the one at issue here, the Court cannot conclude that the Plaintiff's Employment Agreement with the Defendants compels him to arbitrate the FCRA claims asserted in this action. Indeed, the most ordinary and sensible interpretation of the Employment Agreement is that it contemplates a co-employment relationship between the parties, Judge Bloom finds. For example, the Employment Agreement, in which both MLS and Peoplease agreed to be responsible for various aspects of the Plaintiff's employment. Judge Bloom finds that the Plaintiff's FCRA claims do not relate to his prior employment with the Defendants and transpired almost one year later when he was re-applying for employment with MLS. While the Plaintiff's Employment Agreement may be operable regarding claims related to his first employment period, the parties' co-employment relationship had ended. Here, in order to find the Plaintiff's claims to be arbitrable, they must be a foreseeable consequence of his prior co-employment relationship with the Defendants, Judge Bloom holds, citing Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car, LLC, 5 F.4th 1204, 1213 (11th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate his FCRA claims with the Defendants by virtue of the subject Employment Agreement. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the motions are denied. Defendant MLS will file an Answer to the Amended Complaint no later than Jan. 3, 2022. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3xe8hrey from Leagle.com. PHARMACIELO LTD: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on December 8, 2021, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed, with prejudice, a suit against a Canadian cannabis manufacturer (the "Company"), alleging that the Company failed to disclose material information about its facilities in Colombia and its transactions with other companies in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 20-2182-PSG (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs -- whose complaint was once dismissed -- amended their complaint to bolster their allegations based on an assortment of Company statements regarding its facilities and expansion plans that plaintiffs alleged were designed to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. The Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to plead falsity or materiality and did so with prejudice because any amendments would be futile based on their "failed attempt to remedy" the deficiencies of the prior complaint. Plaintiffs' allegations were based on several Company statements between June 2019 and March 2020 related to: (i) the soil quality of the Company's property in Colombia (the "Property") that housed a cannabis cultivating facility, and the Company's characterization of that facility and plans for the facility; (ii) third-party transactions that ultimately did not materialize the way that the Company had announced them; and (iii) the Company's failed attempt to enter the cannabis market in Peru. The Court rejected the claims for failure to allege materiality or falsity, and further noted that plaintiffs failed to allege any new facts in the amended complaint and instead added largely irrelevant facts, relied on vague references, and repeated arguments that the Court already rejected when dismissing the prior complaint. Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding the Property: The Court rejected the claims based on the Company's statements regarding the Property. First, plaintiffs claimed that the Company's advertisement that the Property "produc[ed] some of the world's purest cannabis," "[w]ith fertile soil, perfect equatorial sunlight, and state-of-the-art science and technology" was false because the Property was "far from perfect," partially situated on a floodplain, and contaminated with mold. But, according to the Court, plaintiffs failed to allege how these issues impacted the Company's business in any way, particularly because the Company only manufactured cannabis extract oil, not raw cannabis crops (which could potentially be affected by the floodplain and contaminant issues), and plaintiffs offered no allegations suggesting that the issues with the Property impacted the Company's end product. Second, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statement that it was "successfully scaling up its Colombian operation and expanding capacity," premised in part on the construction of a new Research, Technology, and Processing Centre on the Property by late 2019 was false because the construction faced significant delays. The Court held that statements regarding anticipated construction dates were not actionable as a matter of law because they were forward-looking statements of corporate optimism. Third, plaintiffs claimed that the Company's statement that the facility on the Property was its "main" facility was materially misleading because that facility was in fact the "only" one in use. The Court disagreed, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege that the distinction between "main" and "only" was material and that it would have changed a reasonable investor's opinion of the Company's value. Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding Third-Party Transactions: The Court also dismissed the claims based on the Company's statements related to two third-party agreements. First, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's failure to disclose that an agreement with a third-party multi-state distributor was a related party transaction was per se a material omission. The Court rejected the argument because plaintiffs failed to cite authority that nondisclosure of a related party transaction was per se actionable and noted also that plaintiffs failed to allege that the transaction was a related party transaction under Canadian law that governed the Company's disclosure obligations. Second, plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled investors to think that an agreement with a third-party distributor was a "significant opportunity" to enter the German market when that third party was "nearly insolvent and led by a CEO with a history of running companies into the ground," and the agreement ultimately did not result in the benefits advertised by the Company of bringing the Company's products into Germany. In dismissing the claims based on both third-party agreements at issue, the Court held that allegations that an agreement did not go as planned were insufficient to demonstrate a material misstatement or omission. Alleged Omissions Regarding Entry to the Peruvian Market: Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statement that it had "laid the groundwork" and was "looking forward to expand its presence throughout Latin America" was false because the Company had failed to comply with the bidding process to supply medical cannabis into Peru and knew that it would lose its bid. The Court dismissed this argument because plaintiffs failed to allege how the "loss of one bid in Peru rendered misleading [the Company's] optimistic statements about then-current or future expansion in Latin America." Because the Court believed that any amendment would be futile based on the substance and nature of plaintiffs' amended allegations, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. The case is In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec. Litig. [GN] PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Doe Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES, a California Corporation, Case No. 21STCV46178 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 20, 2021) is a data breach class action brought on behalf of individuals whose private, sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and private medical information (PMI), including patient names, dates of birth, addresses, insurance identification numbers, and clinical data, such as diagnosis, treatment, 6 prescription information, was exposed because of the failure of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles ("PPLA") to safeguard its healthcare consumers' privacy. As a result of PPLA's alleged failure to maintain adequate data security, between approximately October 9, 2021 and October 17, 2021, a data breach occurred in which an unauthorized party or parties accessed PPLA's computer network, installed ransomware, and exfiltrated patient files. The PII and PMI of over 400,000 patients was compromised in the attack. Moreover, despite learning of the data breach on or about October 17, 2021, PPLA did not begin to notify affected individuals until November 30, 2021. The PII and PMI remains in the possession of the unauthorized party or parties. PPLA's failure to adequately safeguard the PII and PMI of its patients and failure to timely notify them of the data breach placed those healthcare consumers at considerable risk of identity theft and fraud, causing the affected individuals to expend time, money, and resources addressing their damaged security interests and even their reputations. Plaintiffs and class members, as defined below, now face a significant risk of medical-related identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud presently and into the indefinite future, says the suit. This is particularly the case for the sensitive patient information kept by PPLA, which provides not only abortion and other family planning procedures, but also such health services as testing for sexually transmitted diseases, emergency contraception, and cancer screenings. Because PPLA provides these highly private services, and because PPLA is a lightning rod for public debate about abortion restrictions, the exfiltrated information is of the utmost sensitivity and subject to potential exploitation. The Plaintiffs have resided in Los Angeles, California, and have obtained healthcare services from, has transacted business with, and has provided PII and PMI to PPLA. PPLA operates approximately 20 healthcare facilities in and around Los Angeles, at which PPLA provides a panoply of health-related services, and particularly in the area of reproductive healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 11780 W Sample Rd., Suite 103 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Playtika Holding Corp. ("Playtika" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLTK) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Playtika securities: (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the January 15, 2021 IPO; or (ii) between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") . Investors have until January 24, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On or about January 15, 2021, Playtika conducted its IPO, selling approximately 18.5 million shares of common stock priced at $27.00 per share. Then, on May 11, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2021. While the Company's revenue beat expectations by $57.97 million, its GAAP earnings per share ("EPS") of $0.09 missed consensus estimates by $0.04. On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or 3.47%, to close at $25.89 per share on May 11, 2021. Then, on November 3, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2021. Among other items, Playtika reported revenue of $635.9 million, missing consensus estimates by $26.07 million, and GAAP EPS of $0.20, missing consensus estimates by $0.05. On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $6.80, or 23%, to close at $22.72 per share on November 3, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's year-over-year total costs and costs related to sales & marketing and research & development were on track to rise significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii) the success of the Company's game portfolio was less sustainable than the Company had represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were likely to negatively impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Playtika shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] REDWIRE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Redwire Corporation ("Redwire" or the "Company") (NYSE: RDW) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire securities between August 11, 2021 and November 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 15, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On November 10, 2021, Redwire announced that it would postpone the release of its third quarter earnings results. The Company "was notified by an employee of potential accounting issues at a business subunit," and the Audit Committee was investigating the allegations. On this news, Redwire's stock price fell $1.92, or 16%, to close at $9.99 per share on November 10, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on November 15, 2021, Redwire stated that it could not timely file its quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2021. Due to the pending investigation into the accounting issues at a business subunit, "the Company has not been able to finalize its financial statements or its assessment of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures and any impact" on the report. On this news, Redwire's stock price fell $0.93, or 8.3%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $10.32 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) that there were accounting issues at one of Redwire's subunits; (2) that, as a result, there were additional material weaknesses in Redwire's internal control over financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. [GN] REHABILITATION CENTER: Court Issues Final Judgment in Valentine --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit entitled TERRY VALENTINE, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly-situated employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, Plaintiff v. REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA HOLDING COMPANY GP, LLC; REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA OPERATING COMPANY, LP; MARINER HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.; MARINER HEALTH CENTRAL, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01300-JAK-JC (C.D. Cal.). The Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as represented in the Settlement Agreement that was filed. Following a final approval hearing, which was conducted pursuant to the previous order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Order"), the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees, and Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Payment was granted (the "Final Approval Order"). Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Settlement Class, and the Defendants. As a result of this Judgment, the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are barred from prosecuting any claims against the Defendants and the Released Parties covered by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement. This Judgment is the Final Judgment as to the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class and the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The claims of the Plaintiff and of the Settlement Class are dismissed with prejudice. Without affecting the finality of this Order for purposes of appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purposes of enforcing the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8e4xdd from Leagle.com. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinhood Markets, Inc. ("Robinhood"). (NASDAQ: HOOD). The action charges Robinhood with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Robinhoods's materially misleading statements to the public, Robinhood investors have suffered significant losses. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 15, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: July 30, 2021 through December 17, 2021 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com ROBINHOOD'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Robinhood, headquartered Menlo Park, California, is a financial services company that operates a mobile app which offers commission-free trading of stocks and allows users to invest in stocks, exchange-traded funds, and cryptocurrencies. On July 30, 2021, Robinhood conducted its initial public offering ("IPO") and issued 55 million shares at $38 per share, anticipating proceeds of over $2 billion. Then, on October 26, 2021, Robinhood announced its 2021 third-quarter financial results. The report revealed that Robinhood's third-quarter total net revenue fell short of Wall Street estimates by nearly $73 million, as crypto transaction revenue totaled $51 million, a 78% plunge compared to the preceding quarter. Robinhood also reported declines in its monthly active users ("MAUs"), funded accounts, assets under custody, and average revenue per user. Following this news, Robinhood's stock fell $4.13 per share, or 10.44%, to close at $35.44 per share on October 27, 2021. Then, on November 8, 2021, Robinhood disclosed that it had suffered a "data security incident" on November 3, 2021, admitting that an "unauthorized third party" had obtained email addresses for approximately five million users and the full names of a different group of about two million users, indicating that the attack potentially affected nearly 40% of Robinhood's MAUs. Following this news, Robinhood's stock declined over 3% on November 9, 2021 to close at $36.70 per share, before then falling another 6% to close at $34.49 the very next day. As of the date the initial complaint was filed, Robinhood's stock had traded as low as $17.08 per share, or over 55% below the $38 IPO price. WHAT CAN I DO? Robinhood investors may, no later than February 15, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Robinhood investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] SEQUITUR ENERGY: Delaughter Seeks Drilling Consultants' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE DELAUGHTER Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SEQUITUR ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00242 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2021) seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938("FLSA"). Sequitur was formerly the employer of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff worked as a Drilling Consultant for Sequitur from December of 2016 until May of 2021. While employed by Sequitur, the Plaintiff was allegedly misclassified as an independent contractor, despite the fact that he worked full time for Sequitur, and virtually every aspect of his job was controlled by Sequitur. Sequitur misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor to avoid paying employment taxes, benefits and overtime. During his time with Sequitur, Plaintiff typically worked 100 hours per week. The Plaintiff received a day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked in a given day or week, and never received overtime pay, the lawsuit says. Because Plaintiff and other Class Members are paid a day rate, and because their schedules are set by Sequitur, the Class Members are not given any opportunity to share in the profit and/or loss of their services. They are not allowed the freedom to take or reject assignments -- instead they must report to Sequitur's rigs as ordered to do by Sequitur, the suit adds. Sequitur is an oil and gas production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Issues $295K Final Judgment in Arreola Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit titled STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04123-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Steven A. Arreola's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs were heard on Aug. 30, 2021. Following the hearing, the Plaintiff's Motions were granted. Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Court having entered an order granting Final Approval of this Settlement enters final judgment in favor of Plaintiff Steven A. Arreola and the Class Members in the amount of $295,000. The Parties will bear their own costs and attorney's fees, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order. The Plaintiff and each Class Member has released the Released Claims against the Defendant and all the Released Parties as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. District Judge John A. Kronstadt notes that this document will constitute a Final Judgment for the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. This Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action in its entirety. Judgment is entered approving the terms of the Settlement. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications with respect to the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p85x364 from Leagle.com. SLEEP NUMBER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 24 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR) between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Sleep Number securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sleep Number class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2225.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sleep Number had suffered a severe disruption in its supply chain for foam as a result of Winter Storm Uri; (2) Sleep Number did not have in place the supply chain flexibility, redundancies, and fail-safes, as had been represented to investors, sufficient to offset the foam supply disruption caused by Winter Storm Uri; (3) because foam was a necessary component for Sleep Number's production of its primary mattress products, Sleep Number's ability to timely fulfill customer orders had been materially impaired; (4) thus, Sleep Number was unable to meet surging customer demand for Sleep Number's products; and (5) as a result, Sleep Number had been forced to delay mattress shipments to end consumers, pushing millions of dollars' worth of sales into subsequent quarters and negatively impacting Sleep Number's financial results. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Sleep Number class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2225.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SLEEP NUMBER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 14 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has filed against Sleep Number Corporation ("Sleep Number" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNBR) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sleep Number securities between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the shares of Sleep Number Corporation and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in Sleep Number Corporation, you may, no later than February 14, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Sleep Number Corporation. On April 21, 2021, Sleep Number released its first quarter 2021 financial results, missing consensus sales estimates as a result of supply chain disruptions due to Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. Specifically, "more than $50 million of deliveries (two weeks) shifted out of the quarter due to temporary foam supply constraints," representing nearly 9% of the Company's entire sales for the quarter. On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.80, or 12%, to close at $110.13 per share on April 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Then, on July 20, 2021, Sleep Number released its second quarter 2021 financial results. Once again, the results missed consensus estimates, which the Company blamed on supply constraints and component shortages. On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.46, or 12.88%, to close at $97.78 per share on July 21, 2021. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN] SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND: Claims in Cabrera Suit vs AgReserves Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVARO LOPEZ CABRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company; AGRESERVES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00748-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: 1. AgReserves's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. The Plaintiff's First through Eighth Causes of Action are dismissed as to both Defendants; and b. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's class claims; 2. To the extent AgReserves intended to bring a motion to strike Plaintiff's class allegations under Rule 12(f), the motion to strike is denied; 3. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended pleading not later than 21 days after the date of electronic service of this order; 4. The Defendants will have 21 days from the date of electronic service of an amended pleading to answer or otherwise respond to the amended pleading; and 5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within 21 days from the date of electronic service of this order, this action will be dismissed, in its entirety, without further notice to the parties. The Court said, "AgReserves's motion to dismiss will be granted as to all eight causes of action. Given the nature of the analysis underlying this order, the causes of action will be dismissed as to both AgReserves and South Valley. The Court will grant leave to amend as it appears the pleading could be cured through the allegation of additional facts. The motion to dismiss will be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of class claims, and AgReserves's Rule 12(f) motion will be denied, to the extent AgReserves's intended to bring one." The Plaintiff Alvaro Lopez Cabrera filed this putative class action against South Valley Almond Company, LLC and AgReserves (together with South Valley, in Kern County Superior Court on April 1, 2021. As alleged in the Complaint, South Valley is a "client employer" that "procures workers" from AgReserves and AgReserves is a "labor contractor" that provides workers to South Valley. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt employee approximately from July 2012 through April 2020. His duties "included, but were not limited to, harvesting, piling, and cleaning almonds as well as tractor driving, irrigating, machine maintenance, and general labor." The Complaint recites claims "on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt California employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants," for failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods or payment in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or payment in lieu thereof; waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay all wages earned and due upon discontinuation of employment; failure to issue accurate wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for business expenses; and unfair competition in violation of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. South Valley produces almonds. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jk6BjP at no extra charge.[CC] SUTTELL & HAMMER: DeAngelis Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH DEANGELIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., NICHOLAS K. WASSON, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-12083-PBS (D. Mass., Dec. 17, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other Massachusetts residents who were subjected to alleged unlawful consumer debt collection activities by the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Ms. DeAngelis is an individual who resides in Walpole, Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Suttell & Hammer is a law firm that at relevant times regularly collected or attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another by Massachusetts residents. The Defendant Nicholas K. Wasson is an attorney employed by the Suttell & Hammer law firm with an office address of 3000 Northup Way, Bellevue, Washington. Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is a federally chartered banking institution with a principal place of business at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. On December 23, 2020, Suttell Defendants filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff in the Boston Municipal Court on behalf of the Bank. The complaint prepared and filed by the Suttell Defendants sought monetary damages allegedly owed to the Bank on a credit card agreement allegedly entered into by Plaintiff in 2016. The alleged credit card agreement was entered into primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The alleged debt pursuant to the alleged credit card agreement was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, otherwise known as a "consumer debt," the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Brine, Esq. BRINE CONSUMER LAW 100 Grove Street, Suite 116 Worcester MA 01605 Telephone: (508) 556-1899 E-mail: cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Winkler Suit Transferred From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WINKLER AND CORY BARTON individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons and on behalf of the general public v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-00322, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on Dec. 21, 2021. The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00885-BCW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes. The suit alleges that Defendant failed to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted personally identifiable information (PII) has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiffs and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is already being sold on the dark web. This risk constitutes a concrete injury suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class, as they no longer have control over their PII, which PII is now in the hands of third-party cybercriminals, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Cornelius Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 588-3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces Maybaum Class Suit Over Free Gift Cards ---------------------------------------------------------- LAURA MAYBAUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV46229 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 20, 2021) is a consumer protection class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the Target products related to the advertising and marketing of Target's purportedly "free" gift cards, which Plaintiff contends violates the law, including the Unfair Competition, the False Advertising Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that over the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing to the present, Target has had an unfair and unlawful practice regarding its advertising, sale of, redemption, and return of retail items purchased with Target gift cards and gift card related promotions. The Plaintiff alleges that (a) gift cards advertised as "free" were not in fact free, and (b) when retail items are purchased from Target in connection with a "free" gift card offer, and when those purchased item(s) are returned, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are refunded less than what they are owed. Plaintiff alleges that this policy and practice of Target with these promotions violated California law prohibiting retailers from charging for purportedly "free" items and giving less than full cash credit refunds unless they have a more restrictive refund policy and post it or otherwise provide notice. Target was and is in the business of selling a broad range of household goods, food and pet supplies, apparel and accessories, electronics, toys, decor, and other items under national brands as well as owned and exclusive brands to the consumer public at large, including consumers in California. During the class period, Target has allegedly marketed, advertised and offered and continues to market, advertise and offers "FREE" gift cards with purchase of products. The advertisement upon which Plaintiff relied stated that a consumer could obtain a "FREE $10 Target GiftCard" with the purchase of toys or kids' books totaling $40 or more (excluding specifically identified toys).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad B. Wootton, Esq. Amy T. Wootton, Esq. WOOTTON LAW GROUP, LLP 5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: 323.460.2100 E-mail: chadwootton@woottonlawgroup.com amywootton@woottonlawgroup.com TENET FINTECH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenet Fintech Group Inc. ("Tenet" or the "Company") (Other OTC: PKKFF) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet securities between September 2, 2021 and October 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 18, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Tenet Fintech did not own 51% of Asia Synergy Financial Capital Ltd. ("ASFC") through Wuxi Aorong; (2) Tenet Fintech did not disclose its actual ownership structure of ASFC, an undisclosed and potentially problematic nominee shareholder agreement; (3) Huayan did not own the Heartbeat platform; (4) the Heartbeat platform did not exist prior to the alleged acquisition; (5) Tenet Fintech faced imminent delisting from NASDAQ due to non-compliance with known regulations; (6) the "recent disclosure guidance" was in fact published on November 23, 2020, nearly a full nine months prior to Tenet Fintech's uplisting; (7) as such, Tenet Fintech knew or should have known that its 40-F submission was deficient; (8) Cubeler historically failed to make even minimum loan repayments to Tenet Fintech; (9) Tenet Fintech, instead of exercising its right on the assets, decided to purchase Cubeler; (10) in light of the foregoing, and in consideration of the fact that Cubeler is owned by several Tenet Fintech insiders, the Company's acquisition of Cubeler is not based on legitimate business interests; (11) there is no evidence Huayan ever owned the Heartbeat platform or that it transferred the asset to Huike; (12) the largest ASFC shareholder had his shares frozen due to court sanctions; and (13) the creation of ASFC itself was likely a related-party transaction. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Continues After Death of Newborn --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Isaacs, writing for IOL, reports that three years after the death of her newborn baby as a result of listeriosis, Thenjiwe Dodo of Bloemfontein said the trauma for her and her family continued as the class action suit against Tiger Brands, involving more than 900 claimants, drags on. At eight months pregnant in 2018, Dodo was preparing for the final stretch of her pregnancy -- a miracle one, as she and her husband had tried for eight years to start a family. She said eating polony was a way to make sure she and her unborn child were nourished. "Everything was well, the baby would play every morning, then one morning I could feel the baby wasn't playing like he used to. "I first went to a private doctor, and he told me everything was okay. I went back home but the following day it was the same thing, then I decided to go to hospital." When Dodo got to the hospital, she was in pain and doctors informed her she was having labour pains. She gave birth two days later on February 19, 2018, to baby Nkanyezi. "Immediately after giving birth, the baby was not crying. They took him away and he was in the ICU and I was in the labour ward. I remember 12 hours after giving birth, that was when I could see my baby." At three days old, doctors told Dodo that Nkanyezi had listeriosis and could not breathe on his own. "Honestly I had no idea what it (listeriosis) was," she said. "They (doctors) told me that he was going to be fine, I don't think I wanted to know more. They said they have antibiotics that will help him. But then they told me that should he be okay, the listeriosis has already affected his brain. He is not going to be like other kids, he will have special needs." By day 11, Nkanyezi's condition deteriorated and he was on life support. At 16 days old, Nkanyezi passed away. "It was a very traumatic thing to experience. I never held my son." Dodo said staff from the Health Department came to the hospital, asking what she had eaten and where she had been. "I ate polony. We trusted the brand. When you are pregnant, you have all these cravings and … I wanted something that is quality for my baby. I was infected with (listeriosis) but my immune system was much stronger." Dodo said she responded to calls on the news for victims to come forward after the Gauteng High Court in December granted an order permitting a class action lawsuit to be brought against Tiger Brands by Richard Spoor Inc Attorneys and LHL Attorneys Inc, as joint legal representatives of the class with US Law firm Marler Clark LLP. In the latest development in the case, on November 5, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) heard appeals regarding subpoenas that Tiger Brands issued to the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS), two laboratories and various meat vendors across the country. These subpoenas sought to obtain information relating to the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in facilities and products over the outbreak period from October 2016 to September 2018. Tiger Brands submitted that the key issue at the heart of the subpoenas was whether it could challenge the findings of the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) that Tiger Brands was the sole source of the outbreak. Judgment is expected to be handed down early next year. Lead attorney on the case, Catherine Marcus, said: "We believe that this is a fishing expedition - the findings of the NICD that Tiger Brands' Enterprise facility in Polokwane was the sole source of the outbreak are clear. However, the High Court held that the defendants are entitled to pursue the subpoenas. "This has caused significant delays to the matter as a whole, delays caused by the defendants, with expansive resources, which primarily affect the victims of the class action - regular consumers, many of whom are vulnerable and depend on compensation from the defendants for the significant harms caused by their consumption of the Enterprise product. The longer the matter is drawn out, the longer these victims are unable to access the necessary resources to rebuild their lives." The NICD reported over 1000 victims of the outbreak, and Marcus said with over 900 claimants, they continued to be approached by more. Tiger Brands said they were not in a position to comment on the matter while it is before the courts but reiterated that they remained committed to abiding by the court legal processes and to ensuring that a resolution of the matter is reached in the shortest possible time. "In 2018, we partnered with Stellenbosch University to launch the first Centre for Food Safety in the country. Through this partnership, we have access to the latest research, trends and training to ensure we consistently lead the way in the areas of food quality and safety. "We hold ourselves, and our suppliers and third-party manufacturing partners, to the same stringent standards. All our manufacturing sites conduct self-assessments against the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) tool, as well as internal quality and food safety standards. All our food factories are audited and certified by an independent international auditing body against the internationally recognised Food Safety System Certification (FSSC22000), a GFSI-recognised scheme," Tiger Brands said in a statement. In 2019, Tiger Brands joined the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group to advance the hygiene standards across manufacturing facilities. Dodo said the slow progress of the class action was further traumatising. "I don't think they can understand the trauma that listeriosis has caused for us. They were supposed to be protecting us and giving us the best quality, but we lost our loved ones." [GN] TIKTOK INC: Faces Suit From Content Moderators Over Child Abuse --------------------------------------------------------------- livemint.com reports that TikTok's 10,000 content moderators are exposed to a regular diet of child pornography, rapes, beheadings and animal mutilation, according to a lawsuit filed against the video-sharing platform and its parent, ByteDance Inc. It gets worse. Content moderator Candie Frazier says in her proposed class-action lawsuit that she has screened videos involving freakish cannibalism, crushed heads, school shootings, suicides, and even a fatal fall from a building, complete with audio. And there's no escaping it, Frazier claims. TikTok requires moderators to work at a frantic pace, watching hundreds of videos per 12-hour shift with only an hour off for lunch and two 15-minute breaks, according to the complaint in federal court in Los Angeles. "Due to the sheer volume of content, content moderators are permitted no more than 25 seconds per video, and simultaneously view three to ten videos at the same time," her lawyers said in the complaint. TikTok said it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation, but strives "to promote a caring working environment for our employees and contractors." "Our safety team partners with third party firms on the critical work of helping to protect the TikTok platform and community, and we continue to expand on a range of wellness services so that moderators feel supported mentally and emotionally," a company spokesperson said in a statement. TikTok was a member of a group of social media companies including Facebook and YouTube that developed guidelines for helping moderators cope with the images of child abuse that their jobs required them to view, according to the complaint. [GN] TIKTOK INC: Moderator Files Class Action Over Emotional Distress ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Jean, writing for iTechPost, reports that a TikTok moderator has filed a lawsuit against the social media giant, citing emotional distress. According to a complaint filed against TikTok and its parent compang, ByteDance Inc., the video-sharing platform's 10,000 content moderators are often exposed to child pornography, rapes, beheadings, and animal cruelty. TikTok Lawsuit Candie Frazier, a content moderator, claimed that it gets so much worse than that. In her proposed class-action TikTok lawsuit, she stated that she has watched films containing audio of weird cannibalism, smashed heads, school shootings, suicides, and even a tragic fall from a building. Furthermore, TikTok apparently asks moderators to perform 12-hour shifts with only a one-hour lunch and two 15-minute breaks, contributing to the problem. According to the complaint via Bloomberg, due to the overwhelming volume of content, content moderators are only limited to 25 seconds per video, and with that, moderators must actively view three to ten films. The Problem With TikTok Content moderators bear the weight of gruesome and horrific images that some people post on social media, ensuring that consumers are spared the anguish. In a consent form, one company that provides content moderators for huge tech companies even stated that the employment can trigger post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Social media businesses, on the other hand, have been questioned by its moderators and others for not paying enough attention to the psychological risks and for not providing adequate mental health care to their employees, specifically to its moderators. In congruent to that, in 2018, a similar case was brought against Facebook. TikTok Causing Mental Trauma TikTok produced standards to help moderators deal with child abuse and other horrific pictures, in collaboration with other social media firms, such as Facebook and YouTube. Companies should limit moderator duties to four hours and give psychological assistance, according to the recommendations. According to the lawsuit, TikTok, on the other hand, allegedly failed to follow such restrictions. As stated in the class-action lawsuit, TikTok failed to follow the rules, which include providing psychological assistance and restricting shifts to four hours. The complainant claimed she now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of having to view so many distressing content. According to Yahoo Finance, Frazier, who is attempting to represent other TikTok content screeners, is seeking monetary damages or psychological impairments as well as a court order compelling the corporation to establish a medical fund for moderators. TikTok As a Company This isn't the only time TikTok is facing a class-action lawsuit. Since the West raised worries about TikTok's ties to the Chinese government, ByteDance has been separating TikTok from the rest of its Chinese enterprises. Furthermore, TikTok claimes that all of its data is stored in the United States, with backup servers in Singapore, rather than Beijing, where its parent firm is based. These actions are insufficient to assuage the concerns of US regulators, as reported by TechCrunch. TikTok received stiff questions in its first-ever congressional hearing in the United States, and was frequently pushed to clarify its semantics. ByteDance has long been dubbed as an "app factory" for its proven approach of churning out apps and selling them through a comprehensive back end of shared resources, ranging from engineering to marketing support. As a result, a number of popular apps have emerged, including Douyin and Toutiao in China, and TikTok to the rest of the world. With the TikTok lawsuit from its own employees, TikTok haven't yet commented on this matter. [GN] VIZIV TECHNOLOGIES: Family Trust Balks at Beach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE TERRY AND ROSE KNUTSON 2000 FAMILY TRUST, DONAL P. BARRY DECLARATION OF TRUST, SURFACE ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, and TERRA POWER LLC, for themselves and others similarly situated v. JAMES F. CORUM, KENNETH L. CORUM, DAVID R. GRIFFITH, AND BASIL F. PINZONE, JR., Case No. DC-21-17974 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., Dec. 17, 2021) arises from the alleged egregious fraudulent conduct and breaches of ﬁduciary duties by the Defendants, who were controlling members and managers of Viziv Technologies, LLC, which is the debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. The claims asserted are direct claims against the Defendants and do not encompass derivative claims that existed prior to the bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs are the proposed representatives of a class of unit holders who, collectively, invested approximately $80 million in capital investments in the Company. The Plaintiffs and those they represent are referred as the A-3 Unit Holders. According to the complaint, the Defendants committed acts of fraud, including fraud by nondisclosure, and breached their ﬁduciary duties of obedience, loyalty, and due care owed to Plaintiffs and the other A-3 Unit Holders under Texas law. The Plaintiffs seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. Each of the Plaintiffs is a unit holder of Viziv and are class representatives of the other A-3 Unit Holders. The Defendants are referred collectively as the "Founders." The Founders are owners of Class A-l and Class A-2 units in Viziv, which they hold through their respective entities; namely, Spikenard Trust, Arduous Trust, The Indian Shore Trust, Pinzone Family Irrevocable Trust, The Pierian Trust, The Facile Trust, The South Indian Shore Trust, The Windjammer Trust, and Sarah‘s Daughter's Trust.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Cass Weiland, Esq. Robert A. Hawkins, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 758-1500 Facsimile: (214) 758—1550 E-mail: Cass.weiland@squirepbcom Robert.hawkins@squirepb.com VW CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Boehm Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANDREW BOEHM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VW CREDIT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and VW CREDIT LEASING LTD., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:21CV406 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff Andrew Boehm, a Nebraska resident, entered into a closed end motor vehicle lease with Baxter VW of Omaha. The Lease was assigned to VW Credit Leasing Inc., which thereafter assigned its rights under the Lease to VCI Account Services, LLC. VW Credit, Inc., maintains and services the Plaintiff's account associated with the Lease on behalf of VW Credit Leasing, Ltd., and then VCI Account Services, and is, thus, the agent of VW Credit Leasing, Ltd. and VCI Account Services, LLC. Bringing this action on behalf of himself and the putative class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff's first claim alleges Defendants violated the Consumer Leasing Act ("CLA") by not disclosing material terms of the Lease. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the CLA by failing to properly disclose the purchase option and the method of calculation of termination fees, which would be charged against the Plaintiff when he tried to sell the leased vehicle to a third party. The Plaintiff alleges a claim for false advertising (Claim Two) and a claim for fraudulent omission (Claim Three). The Plaintiff alleges that the sales agents informed him of a purchase option he could exercise at the end of the lease but did not tell him the Defendants would not cooperate with the sale of the purchase option to a third party. He alleges the Defendants hid that their true intent was to violate the contract and entirely refuse cooperation if the Plaintiff desired to sell his purchase option to a third party. Claim Four alleges violations of the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"). The Plaintiff also alleges claims for breach of contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Claim Five), and intentional interference with a business relationship (Claim Six). The Defendants seek to enforce the arbitration provision contained in the Lease between the Plaintiff and Baxter VW of Omaha, which was subsequently assigned and serviced by the Defendants. As of the date of this order, the Plaintiff has not responded to the Defendants' motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The Plaintiff has not requested leave to respond out of time. The motion is deemed fully submitted. Analysis Arbitration is favored and this court's role is to engage in a limited inquiry to "determine whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and whether the specific dispute at issue falls within the substantive scope of that agreement," Larry's United Super, Inc. v. Werries, 253 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir. 2001). If the court so finds, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires a stay of proceedings subject to an arbitration agreement, and Section 4 empowers the court to compel the parties to proceed with arbitration. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a written arbitration agreement "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract," 9 U.S.C. Section 2; Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d 549, 553 (8th Cir. 2009). Section 2 gives States a method for protecting customers against unfair pressure to agree to a contract with an unwanted arbitration provision," if the contract violates state law, citing Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 at 281 (1995). I. Validity and Enforceability a. Arbitration Clause Judge Zwart notes that the initial question is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and whether the claims raised in the Plaintiff's complaint fall within the scope of that agreement. In support of their motion, the Defendants submitted the affidavit of Matthew Birmingham, a Customer Service Operations Manager at VW Credit Inc. Birmingham attested to the contents of the Lease Agreement ("Lease"). The Defendants also submitted the Lease, signed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, but the Complaint alleges and acknowledges that the Plaintiff signed a closed end auto lease with the Defendants. Judge Zwart notes that it is undisputed that the Lease between Baxter and VW of Omaha was assigned and/or serviced by the Defendants. The arbitration provision allows customers to "opt out" by sending written notice of opt out to VW Credit Leasing Ltd. within 15 days of the date of the lease. Birmingham's affidavit states the Defendants did not receive notice from the Plaintiff rejecting the arbitration clause within 15 days of the execution of the Lease. The Plaintiff had the opportunity to read and review the arbitration provision and opt out, and still be allowed to enter into the Lease with Defendants. The arbitration agreement at issue is valid and enforceable, Judge Zwart holds. b. Class Action Waiver The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated. However, the arbitration provision includes a class action waiver. The "Arbitration Provision" provides that if a dispute is arbitrated, the customer will give up the right to participate as a class representative or class member on any class claim against the company, including any right to class arbitration or any consolidation of individual arbitrations. Judge Zwart finds that the class action waiver is unequivocal, and the agreement provides that the parties retain the right to seek remedies in small claims court for disputes or claims within the court's jurisdiction unless the action is transferred, removed, or appealed to a different court. The terms of the agreement apply equally to the parties and the Plaintiff had the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision but did not elect to do so. Therefore, only the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are eligible for arbitration. II. Scope Having found that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, the Court must consider whether the Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. In resolving this issue, the first question is "whether the arbitration clause is broad or narrow," Judge Zwart states, citing Parm v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 898 F.3d 869, 874 (8th Cir. 2018). Arbitration clauses covering claims "arising out of" or "relating to" an agreement are considered broad, Judge Zwart notes, citing Zetor N. Am., Inc. v. Rozeboom, 861 F.3d 807, 810 (8th Cir. 2017). And since the Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate solely to the terms and enforcement of the "Closed End Motor Vehicle Lease" the Plaintiff allegedly signed, the claims are undoubtedly included in the scope of the broadly worded arbitration agreement. The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of demonstrating the motion to compel arbitration should be denied, and there has been no resistance to the instant motion, Judge Zwart holds. The Court will stay this action in the federal court and compel arbitration under the terms of the Lease Agreement and associated Arbitration Provision. Accordingly, it is ordered: 1) The Defendants' unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted; 2) The Plaintiff's claims will be promptly submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause quoted and discussed in this opinion; 3) The Plaintiff's claims are stayed pending arbitration. Every 90 days from the date of this order, counsel will file a joint status report with the Court regarding the progress of the arbitration proceedings; and 4) The clerk will administratively close the case and set a March 21, 2022 case management deadline. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jt7bfyz from Leagle.com. WEST MONROE: Faces Daky ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW DALY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.; THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.; ARGENT TRUST COMPANY; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:21-cv-06805 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2021) is a class complaint brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Plan and a Class of its participants and beneficiaries against the Plan's fiduciaries For breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against West Monroe's Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duties under Delaware law. The Plan's fiduciaries include West Monroe, the Board of Directors and Benefits Committee of West Monroe and their members, as well as the Plan's trustee, Argent Trust Company. Accordingly, the Participants trusted Defendants to perform their duties with the care and loyalty ERISA requires. The Defendants breached that trust. In April 2021, Defendants appraised the fair value of the Company at approximately $515.18 million (or $515.18 per share x 1 million shares) as of year-end 2020. As the facts below make clear, Defendants' April 2021 valuation was neither careful, skillful, prudent, nor diligent, and it grossly undervalued the Company stock held in the Plan, the suit says. Nonetheless, in September 2021, Defendants used that April valuation to repurchase almost 28,000 shares of Company stock from the Plan -- from the accounts of Plaintiff and Class members -- at the discounted price of $515.18 per share. As a result, Defendants cashed Plaintiff and Class members out of the Plan for well below the fair value of their shares. Within weeks, the Company would reveal that its stock's true fair value was almost five times higher than the price the Class received, the suit added. The Plan's bargain sale of Company stock back to West Monroe, for less than a quarter on the dollar, was not just imprudent and disloyal; it was also a prohibited transaction under ERISA § 406. That provision prohibits direct or indirect transactions between the Plan and a party-in-interest as well as self-dealing by fiduciaries for less than adequate consideration. Moreover, Defendants allegedly violated ERISA Section 404 by failing to disclose the higher valuation and impending sale to Class members before they elected distributions. Had Class members known these facts, they could (and likely would) have chosen to retain balances in their Plan accounts, which would have entitled each Class member to a portion of the proceeds from the sale to MSD Partners -- an allocation substantially higher than the distributions they received in September 2021. Matthew Daly was a consultant and employee of West Monroe from June 15, 2015 to November 9, 2020. He had a vested balance of approximately 313 shares of Company stock in the Plan until around September 22, 2021, when he received a cash distribution in the amount of $515.18 per share. Mr. Daly suffered significant losses due to Defendants' imprudent conduct, including their undervaluation of and failure to provide adequate consideration for the stock in his Plan account. Like other West Monroe employees, the Plaintiff had accrued Company stock in his account in the Plan as part of his compensation for years of service to the Company. Like other departing employees, Plaintiff remained invested in the Plan until September 2021, when West Monroe bought back his stock and cashed him out of the Plan. West Monroe Partners, Inc. is a self-described "digital consulting firm" incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. At all relevant times, West Monroe was the Plan's sponsor as well as the "administrator" of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Singer, Esq. MATT SINGER LAW, LLC 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 248-9123 E-mail: matt@mattsingerlaw.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. Russell Kornblith, Esq. Sean Ouellette, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 577-4242 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 cfield@sanfordheisler.com E-mail:rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com souellette@sanfordheisler.com WILBUR-ELLIS CO: Billing Rates Order Issued in Blue Buffalo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, overrules the objection and adopts the Special Master's order granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel billing rates in the lawsuit captioned as BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff v. WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC and DIVERSIFIED INGREDIENTS, INC., Defendants, AND RELATED ACTIONS, Case No. 4:14 CV 859 RWS (E.D. Mo.). The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Blue Buffalo's objection to Special Master Bradley A. Winters's Omnibus Order No. 12. Defendants Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified Ingredients have filed responses. In Omnibus Order No. 12, the Special Master granted Blue Buffalo's motion to compel the billing rates for the Defendants' four most expensive outside counsel from the Nestle Purina and class action lawsuits and the government's related criminal investigation (the "collateral proceedings"). He did not, however, order production of information about fees expended and work performed by all defense counsel in the collateral proceedings. Blue Buffalo objects to this determination, arguing that "it is entitled to explain to a jury that the Defendants used their own employees to cover-up their illegal scheme and hide the truth. The Defendants' lawyers are no different. Blue Buffalo is entitled to tell the jury that Defendants used their lawyers to carry out their strategy of deny and delay." To make this showing, Blue Buffalo contends that it must be able to discuss the fees that the Defendants' lawyers were paid, including information or summary information from the collateral proceedings that consists of counsels' hourly rates; the total amount of fees each defendant spent; and information about the work that counsel performed. In their responses to the objection, Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified argue that this issue was previously resolved in Omnibus Order No. 6 and is squarely governed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in Burks v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 215 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2000). Analysis Omnibus Order Nos. 6 and 12 In Omnibus Order No. 6, the Special Master addressed Blue Buffalo's request for discovery of Wilbur-Ellis's and Diversified's fee records to support the reasonableness of Blue Buffalo's claimed damages. He concluded that Burks is the "controlling authority for this issue" and further explained that the fees as damages sought by Blue Buffalo differ in significant ways from the traditional prevailing party contractual and statutory fee awards, which are properly the subject of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) posttrial motions. Blue Buffalo filed an objection to this order. After reviewing Omnibus Order No. 6 and the parties' briefs, Judge Sippel issued an order overruling the objection and adopting the Special Master's conclusions about the discoverability of Wilbur-Ellis's attorneys' fees related to this litigation. However, Judge Sippel allowed the parties to submit additional briefs concerning the discoverability of fee information from the collateral proceedings. This led to the issuance of Omnibus Order No. 12, in which the Special Master concluded that Blue Buffalo's jump from 'litigation tactics are discoverable' to 'therefore, Defendants' legal bills and billing records must be turned over to Blue Buffalo,' is a syllogistic leap too far. The Special Master, therefore, ordered that Blue Buffalo's motion for information regarding the Defendants' attorney fee invoices is denied without prejudice except that the Defendants will each provide Blue Buffalo with the names and hourly billing rates of their four (4) outside counsel in this litigation with the highest hourly rates between May 1, 2014, and May 31, 2015. Governing standard for theory of relevance Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified agree with the Special Master's conclusion that the Eighth Circuit's analysis in Burks governs this issue. Blue Buffalo disagrees, citing three Eighth Circuit cases, in addition to one district court case, in support of its argument that courts may permit discovery of an opponent's attorneys' fees to prove the reasonableness of a party's requested fees (see Tussey v. ABB, Inc., 746 F.3d 327, 340-41 (8th Cir. 2014), et al.). In Burks, the plaintiff appealed the district court's reduction of his counsel's requested attorneys' fees, arguing that the district court should have compared the fees requested to the fees that defense counsel charged. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that such an apples-to-oranges comparison is not required by law and would not be advisable. Judge Sippel opines that Burks does not forbid courts from ever considering one party's attorneys' fees when determining the reasonableness of another's fees. However, the case is clear that even if a court can make this comparison, it generally should not. Judge Sippel says his review of subsequent case law further supports this reading of Burks. Several district courts in this circuit have cited Burks when declining to compare attorneys' fees. Even if Blue Buffalo's reading of Burks was correct--namely, that the most the case stands for is that permitting the discovery of a defendant's attorney's fees is within the broad discretion of the district court--Judge Sippel does not believe that comparing attorneys' fees would be appropriate in this case because he agrees with the Special Master's finding that the parties were not engaged in the same kind of work in the collateral proceedings. Judge Sippel holds that this conclusion is supported by the helpful list supplied by Diversified's counsel, which sets forth differences between Diversified's conduct and that of Blue Buffalo throughout the course of the collateral proceedings (noting, for example, that during this time period, Blue Buffalo defended against Purina's claims of false advertising and violations of the Lanham Act, while Diversified did not; and Diversified brought cross claims and third-party claims against Wilbur-Ellis and Custom AG Commodities, LLC, and engaged in discovery disputes in other courts, while Blue Buffalo did not). Judge Sippel finds that it makes sense to compare fees, or even allow discovery into the issue, when parties are litigating against one another in the same case. But here, such a comparison would not speak to the reasonableness of Blue Buffalo's requested attorneys' fees, as the parties were not engaged in the same work in the collateral proceedings, Judge Sippel points out. The Special Master ordered the production of "certain very limited" fee information from defense counsel "to assure that the parties and the Court have benchmark 'reasonableness' information available to them." Judge Sippel believes that was appropriate. Requiring the production of any further fee information from the collateral proceedings, particularly time entries detailing the work that defense counsel performed, is not required by law and would not be advisable. As a result, Judge Sippel will overrule Blue Buffalo's objection and adopt the Special Master's Omnibus Order No. 12 in its entirety. Accordingly, it is ordered that Blue Buffalo's objection to Omnibus Order No. 12, is overruled. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysxf3kpb from Leagle.com. YOUNG LIVING: Court Junks MacNaughten Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI MACNAUGHTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00071-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order: -- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss; -- dismissing without prejudice the First Amended Complaint; -- directing the Plaintiff to file a letter motion seeking permission to amend by January 17, 2022; and -- directing the Clerk to close this case if no letter motion to amend is filed by January 17, 2022. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once, in response to Defendant's first motion to dismiss, and has not sought leave to amend. The Court is not aware of any facts that would support a viable claim. However, since the parties' briefing did not address the impact of a ruling against Plaintiff on the issue of puffery, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file a letter motion seeking permission to amend. Any such motion must be filed with a proposed second amended complaint, and comply with N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 15(a), and must be filed by January 17, 2021. The Defendant may respond in a letter brief by January 24, 2021." Ms. MacNaughten brings this proposed class action against Defendant Young Living Essential Oils, LC for Defendant's allegedly "unlawful and deceptive conduct" in the "marketing, sale and delivery" of its line of essential oil products. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who purchased Young Living essential oil products, alleging: violation of the State Consumer Fraud Acts of the states in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class (Count I); violation of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") section 349 in the alternative to Count I and on behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Sub-Class (Count II); violation of NYGBL section 350 in the alternative to Count I and on behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Sub-Class (Count III); violation of NYGBL section 350-A(1) on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class and/or New York Sub-Class (Count IV); breach of express warranty on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class (Count V); breach of implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class (Count VI); breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class (Count VII); and unjust enrichment in the alternative on behalf of the National Class and the New York Sub-Class (Count VIII). The Plaintiff, a citizen of New York residing in Syracuse, purchased Young Living products online sometime "in the last four years, and specifically on or around February 2020." She purchased essential oils "includ[ing], but not limited to," frankincense, lavender, peppermint, eucalyptus, cinnamon, and orange. Young Living manufactures and sells essential oils and blends. The company markets its products "through its website and other e-commerce channels," selling the products throughout the United States and on consumer retail websites, but also by recruiting "thousands of independent distributors" who sell the products to customers through a multi-level marketing model. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HzI60r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Ave., 17 th Fl. New York, NY 10166 The Defendant is represented by: Olivia Arden Adendorff, Esq. Jeremy A Fielding, Esq. Rachael A. Rezabek, Esq. Alexia Renee Brancato, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1601 Elm St. Dallas, TX 75201 ZYMERGEN INC: Biao Wang Named as Lead Plaintiff in Shankar Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California appoints Biao Wang as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit styled HARIRAM SHANKAR, Plaintiff v. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06028-JD (N.D. Cal.). The case is a securities class action against Zymergen Inc. and other defendants. The action was filed on behalf of persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen common stock issued in connection with the Company's April 2021 initial public offering. Before the Court are competing motions for lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment. I. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff The Court has discussed in other orders the three-step process for appointing a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The first step is for the plaintiff in the first-filed action to publicize the pendency of the action, the claims made and the purported class period in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)). The notice must also state that any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff. There is no dispute that this step was adequately completed by Plaintiff Hariram Shankar. In the next two steps, the Court considers potential lead plaintiffs one at a time, starting with the one who has the greatest financial interest, and continuing in descending order if and only if the presumptive lead plaintiff is found inadequate or atypical. In step two, the Court determines presumptive lead plaintiff status relying on the presumptive lead plaintiff's complaint and sworn certification. In step three, the other Plaintiffs have an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing by presenting evidence that disputes the lead plaintiff's prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. District Judge James Donato notes that the process started with six lead plaintiff applications. But at this point, it is not disputed that Plaintiff Biao Wang possesses the largest financial interest in this litigation. Nor has any other Plaintiff presented evidence disputing Wang's prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. The Court appoints Biao Wang as the lead plaintiff in this action. II. Appointment of Lead Counsel Under the PSLRA, the Court must also appoint lead counsel. Wang has selected the firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The Court sees no reason to disagree with Wang's selection. Robbins Geller is appointed lead counsel for the putative class in this shareholder class action. III. Case Schedule and Next Steps The parties are directed to file by Jan. 14, 2022, a proposed schedule for filing an amended complaint or designating the original complaint as the operative complaint, and for the Defendants' response. The Defendants' obligation to respond to the original complaint remains suspended. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8sn3sz from Leagle.com. ********* 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 2022. 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 ***