/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 5
Headlines
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Enters Final Judgment in Conti Class Suit
APPLE INC: Averts Class Action Over Illegal Loot Boxes' Scheme
APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses Taylor Suit Without Leave to Amend
ATHLETIC MEDIA: Leak Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Says Financial Aid Class Action Has No Merit
BUMBLE INC: Chien Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
C.R. BARD: North Brevard Seeks to Certify Direct Purchaser Class
CANADA: Indian Day Scholars Class Action Claims Process Begins
CAREMEL INC: Loses Bid to Get Insurance Coverage for BIPA Suit
CEDAR MGMT: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Fleming Class Suit
CHAIM'S GROCERY: Funez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bakery Clerks
CINTAS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Uniforms' Health Problems
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: School of General Studies Criticized in Suit
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Case Progression Order Issued in Mahoney Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Gomez Sues Over DGAZ ETN's Delisting and Suspension
CRST INT'L: Seeks to Extend Briefing Deadlines in Cervantes Suit
DELTA AIR: Toledo Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
DENTALPLANS.COM: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Responses
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Seeks Partial Reconsideration of Dec. 23 Order
EXICURE INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 11 Deadline
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
FIJI: Former FRCS Employees File Labor Class Action Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Fuel Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set on March 11
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Admissions Cartel Suit
GRANDE COSMETICS: Illegally Sells Serums as Cosmetics, Mandel Says
GUAM: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss Double Pay Class Action
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Employees Sue Over Vaccine Mandate
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: RICO Class Suit May Have Reached Settlement
J. ALEXANDER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Fox Suit Alleges
JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Sought
JAMES LEBLANC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Tellis
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Volusia Cty. Hopes to Control Settlement Funds
JUUL LABS: Southern Academy Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL: Cooper Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of January 18 Deadline
MARATHON DIGITAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of February 15 Deadline
MASSACHUSETTS: Lab Bungles Another Key Disclosure in Class Action
MDL 2744: Bid to Decertify Class in Electronic Gearshift Suit Nixed
MRS. GOOCH'S: Faces Gonzalez PAGA Class Suit in California
MULLOOLY JEFFERSON: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW WEST: Allied Not Estopped From Asserting Claim Limit in Rolan
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Capobianco Seeks Provisional Status of Class
NOR-CAL BEVERAGE: Ocampo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Suit
OAKLAND, CA: Class Certification Sought in Anti Police-Terror Suit
OHIO SECURITY: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
ORR MOTORS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Joseph Claims
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Howard G. Smith Reminds of February 8 Deadline
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Lee Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
POTPOURRI GROUP: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hernandez Files Suit in D. South Carolina
PURE SEASONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Summary Judgment on Claims Left in Mueller Denied
QUAIL LODGE: Faces Perez PAGA Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Action Suit
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Nagar Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SHAMROCK SALOON: Final Approval Order in George Suit Due Jan. 14
SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Leave in Securities Class Action
SIMPLY FRAMED: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Navarro Suit Removed to N.D. California
SOPHISTIPLATE LLC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TALIS BIOMEDICAl: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TALKSPACE INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TNUVA FOOD: Judge Dismisses Two Excessive Pricing Class Actions
TRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Bales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TUDOR GAMES: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UINTA BREWING: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNILODGE: Class Action in Australia Over Alleged Wage Theft Mulled
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Class Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in Dekker Seek Class Cert. Briefing Sched
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Proposed Stryker Acquisition Investigated
VROOM AUTOMOTIVE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Aug. 31
YALE UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Class Action Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Hillier Sues Over Losses From Stock Price Decline
[*] 16 U.S. Elite Private Universities Face Antitrust Class Action
[*] P.E.I. Proposed Bill May Lead Class Action Cert. Process Harder
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paddock Ent. Has $610MM Bankruptcy Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay on J&J Talc Lawsuits Extended to Jan. 28
*********
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Enters Final Judgment in Conti Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California entered Final Judgment in the case, LESLEY
CONTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. CV
19-02160-CJC (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.).
On Jan. 4, 2022, the Court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
After considering the briefing and argument presented, and good
cause appearing, Judge Carney granted the Plaintiffs' Motion and
ordered that Judgment be entered by the clerk.
Judge Carney approved the terms of the parties' settlement
memorialized in the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release.
Judge Carney certified the following Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure: (1) All current owners and lessees of the 1) 2018
and 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles Elite, EX, EX-L, EX-LNR and Touring
trim levels; 2) 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles with 2EX-LNR, 2TRG, 2TRG
7P, 4Elite, 4EX, 4EX-L, 4EX-LNR, 4TRG and 4TRG 7P trim levels; and
3) 2019 Honda Passport with 2EX-L, 2TRG, 4Elite, 4EX-L, and 4TRG
trim levels (each a `Settlement Class Vehicle'), who reside in, and
who purchased or leased their vehicles (other than for purposes of
resale or distribution) in the United States, Puerto Rico, and all
United States territories, as well as former owners and lessees of
Settlement Class Vehicles who submit a Claim. The Settlement Class
also includes all United States military personnel who purchased a
Settlement Class Vehicle during military duty, subject to the
exclusions set forth in paragraph 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Carney confirmed the appointment, for settlement purposes
only, of:
A. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP and Goldenberg Schneider,
LPA as the Class Counsel;
B. Lesley Conti, Tom Conti, Brandi Bishop, Brigid Hirth,
Michael Hirth, Mark Ankrom, Heidi Phan, Peter Phan, Anthony
Rossomando, Laura Mohr, Larry Simkin, Harmeet Gill, Yazeed Issa,
Ashley Pfeifer, William D. Lampton, Jacob Szajowitz, Michaela
Hetzler, Michelle Beckwith, Ross Conley, Stephanie Conley, Emily
Darr, Pamela Turberville, Smruti Patel, Ann Morgan, and Julie
Pereira, as the Named Plaintiffs; and
C. AHM as the Claims Administrator.
Judge Carney awarded Service Awards as follows: Lesley Conti and
Tom Conti, $10,000 total; Brandi Bishop, $2,000; Brigid Hirth and
Michael Hirth, $2,000 total; Mark Ankrom, $2,000; Heidi Phan and
Peter Phan, $2,000; Anthony Rossomando, $2,000; Laura Mohr, $2,000;
Larry Simkin, $2,000; Harmeet Gill, $2,000; Yazeed Issa, $2,000;
Ashley Pfeifer, $2,000; William D. Lampton, $2,000; Jacob
Szajowitz, $2,000; Michaela Hetzler, $2,000; Michelle Beckwith,
$2,000; Ross Conley and Stephanie Conley, $2,000 total; Emily Darr,
$2,000; Pamela Turberville, $2,000; Smruti Patel, $2,000; Ann
Morgan, $2,000, and Julie Pereira, $2,000.
Judge Carney approved the Class Counsel's unopposed request for
attorney's fees in the amount of $637,659.55 and $28,845.45 in
costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4v3m7rdf from Leagle.com.
APPLE INC: Averts Class Action Over Illegal Loot Boxes' Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Pearson, writing for Bounding Into Comics, reports that Apple
have won a class-action complaint, absolving them of perpetrating a
"predatory monetization scheme" by selling video games with loot
boxes.
MediaPost reports that last year, a woman named Rebecca Taylor
filed a class-action complaint against the tech giant on behalf of
her son after he allegedly downloaded the free-to-play title Brawl
Stars, then spent $25 on in-game loot boxes.
Drawing comparisons between loot boxes and slot machines, Taylor
described the mechanic as providing "randomized chances within the
game to obtain important or better weapons, costumes or player
appearance (called 'skins'), or some other in-game item or feature
that is designed to enhance game-play."
She also claimed that loot boxes were gambling, alleging "buying a
loot box is a gamble, because the player does not know what the
loot box actually contains until it is opened."
Taylor claimed that Apple's sale of games containing loot boxes
violated California's unfair business practices law, while Apple
countered that the case should be dismissed.
In their motion to dismiss, the company put forth that Brawl Star's
virtual currency "is for gameplay only and can never be refunded or
exchanged for real money within the game or through Apple," further
stating that since "the virtual items acquired in the game cannot
be used or sold outside of the game," no one involved in the
lawsuit had suffered any "economic injury".
Taylor's lawyers in turn stated that since Apple was getting a
share of revenue from the sales of loot boxes, they would still be
involved in a "predatory monetization scheme that violates
established public policies and constitutes immoral, unethical, or
unscrupulous conduct."
In support of her case, Taylor pointed to how gambling concerns
over loot boxes have led other countries, such as Belgium, to ban
their sale completely.
Nonetheless, on January 4th, U.S. Northern District of California
Court Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that Taylor had failed to show
how Apple had inflicted any injury upon gamers, economic or
otherwise. The judge also reiterated that loot boxes were not
illegal in California.
"Existing statutory law does not plainly prohibit 'loot boxes,'"
Judge Seeborg stated. "If plaintiffs' allegations regarding the
harmful affects of loot boxes are accurate, the public interest
likely lies in seeking legislative remedies."
However, should she choose to do so, any attempt by Taylor to
appeal to lawmakers may come with its own issues.
During the Epic Games' legal battle with the $3 trillion market cap
Apple over the existence of third-party payment processors on the
App Store, Epic Games hired lobbyists in certain US states to argue
in their favor.
Thanks to their efforts, a judge finally ordered to allow apps with
external payment options into their app store. Would Joe Public
have the same chance appealing for legal change over loot boxes?
In 2016, Valve was sued for allowing third-party "skin gambling"
websites utilizing Counter Strike: Global Offensive to act
unopposed.
After the massive backlash against the loot boxes in EA's Star Wars
Battlefront II, multiple politicians and government bodies began to
call for loot boxes to be classified as gambling.
Belgium's ban on loot boxes saw multiple mobile games end their
operations in the region, including Kingdom Hearts Union X [Cross],
Dissidia Final Fantasy Opera Omina, Mobius Final Fantasy, Fire
Emblem Heroes, and Animal Crossing Pocket Camp.
When speaking to a UK parliamentary body discussing loot boxes, EA
representatives put forth the baffling defense that loot boxes were
not gambling, but rather "surprise mechanics." Epic Games
representatives claimed they disagreed that they made money from
people playing their games.
An academic paper from two doctors of UK Universities Plymouth and
Wolverhampton concluded that 5% of those who buy loot boxes
generate 50% of the revenue for their games. These kinds of players
are sometimes dubbed 'whales' in the world of mobile game design.
The paper also stated a third of those players could be classified
as "problem gamblers."
Should mandating loot boxes be the job of the government? Should
there be a blanket ban, or be categorized as gambling and treated
as such? Let us know on social media and in the comments below.
[GN]
APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses Taylor Suit Without Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03906-RS (N.C. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint without further leave to amend.
Introduction
The Plaintiffs in the putative class action seek to hold Apple
liable for distributing certain game apps through the Apple App
Store that they allege include features legally equivalent to slot
machines, as defined and prohibited by California law. The initial
complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.
Background
The Named Plaintiffs are Rebecca Taylor and her minor son, C.T. As
set out in greater detail in the prior dismissal order, C.T. has
owned and played Brawl Stars, a game developed, owned, and sold by
Supercell, which is not a party. C.T. downloaded Brawl Stars from
the App Store onto both iPad and iPhone devices. In the course of
playing Brawl Stars, C.T. allegedly has been "induced" to spend
money to make "in-game" purchases of so-called "loot boxes." Loot
boxes are simply randomized chances within the game to obtain
important or better weapons, costumes, or player appearance (called
"skins"), or other in-game items or features that are designed to
enhance gameplay. Buying a loot box is a gamble in the sense that
the player does not know what it contains until it is opened. The
opportunity to find and open loot boxes typically also can be
earned through game play itself, without any purchases.
Players do not purchase loot boxes directly. Rather, they buy a
form of "virtual currency" specific to each game that can be used
to acquire virtual items within the game -- including, but not
necessarily limited to, loot boxes.
The original and amended complaints allege in extensive detail how
various visual and sound features of loot boxes in the game are
purportedly designed to "exploit and manipulate the addictive
nature of human psychology" just as slot machines and other forms
of gambling do. The Plaintiffs cite various reports specifically
identifying loot boxes as potentially harmful, especially to
children.
The original complaint advanced three claims for relief: Violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sections 17200, et seq.; violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and a purported stand-alone claim under common law for "unjust
enrichment." The amended complaint breaks out the UCL claim into
two separately-numbered claims for relief -- one for purported
violations of the "unlawful" prong of the UCL, and another for the
"unfair" prong.
Discussion
A. Standing
The prior dismissal order concluded the Plaintiffs lack standing
because they alleged no cognizable economic injury resulting from
Apple's conduct. California law is clear that UCL standing requires
the plaintiff suffer economic injury. All C.T. purchased from Apple
was virtual currency. He obtained exactly what he paid for --
virtual currency that he was free to use as he wished in the game.
C.T. had the opportunity to use it to purchase virtual items within
the game other than loot boxes. He also had the choice to use it to
purchase loot boxes, for whatever benefits he perceived that
provided him.
Judge Seeborg finds that the amended complaint offers no additional
substantive factual allegations to support cognizable economic
injury. Rather, the Plaintiffs rely on the conclusory assertions
that the Plaintiff and her son lost money and property by
purchasing loot boxes and suffered injury in fact. They lost money
when C.T. purchased virtual coins to buy chances on loot boxes and
lost property in the form of the virtual coins when he used them to
buy chances on loot boxes. Therefore, the Plaintiff and C.T. lost
money and property as a result of Apple's unfair business practices
alleged.
The Plaintiffs go on to argue the prior order was "incorrectly
decided" on this point and they ask that it be reconsidered. They
have failed to show a basis for reconsideration. For the reasons
set forth in more detail in the prior dismissal order, the
Plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable injury resulting from the
conduct of Apple.
B. The Merits
The amended complaint breaks out the Plaintiffs' claims under the
UCL to one count for "unlawful" practices and a second count for
"unfair" practices. Neither states a viable claim and both must be
dismissed. Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs' claim that loot
boxes are "unlawful" remains tethered to the argument that they
violate California statutory regulations of gambling devices. The
Plaintiffs have refined and expanded their arguments on that point,
but have not offered any new substantive facts to distinguish the
amended complaint, or to support reconsideration of the prior
dismissal.
Moreover, Judge Seeborg holds that the Plaintiffs contend their
allegations of the harmful effects of loot boxes are sufficient to
support claims under the "unfair" prong of the UCL and under the
CLRA and common law unjust enrichment, even without any clear
violation of existing statute. The Plaintiffs' own allegations that
legislative bodies have been addressing, and are continuing to
consider, policy issues allegedly presented by loot boxes, however,
undermines their argument that courts should step in.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' contentions, existing statutory law
does not plainly prohibit "loot boxes." If their allegations
regarding the harmful effects of loot boxes are accurate, the
public interest likely lies in seeking legislative remedies. Their
attempt to stretch the "unfair" prong of the UCL to reach the
alleged conduct is unavailing.
C. Section 230
The prior dismissal order rejected Apple's contention that the
Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 230. Section
230, bars the Plaintiffs' claim in its entirety. In its current
motion to dismiss, Apple renews that argument. Again, were the
claim otherwise viable, Judge Seeborg states that Apple's liability
would be premised on its participation in marketing and
distributing an illegal gambling device. For the reasons explained
in the prior order, such a claim would not be insulated by Section
230. The issue is moot, however, given the Plaintiffs' failure to
advance a viable claim.
Conclusion
Judge Seeborg granted the motion to dismiss. Although the
Plaintiffs have requested leave to amend, they have not suggested
how any further refinements to the allegations of fact would change
the analysis. Accordingly, a separate judgment will be entered, and
the Clerk is directed to close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3cnt8vbb from Leagle.com.
ATHLETIC MEDIA: Leak Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LEAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ATHLETIC MEDIA COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00084 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violation of
Sections 75-41 of North Carolina General Statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
automatic renewal scheme with respect to The Athletic, a
subscription-based sports website that provides national and local
coverage in 47 North American cities as well as the United Kingdom.
When consumers subscribe to The Athletic, the Defendant actually
enrolls them in a program that automatically renews their
subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in
monthly or annual charges to their credit card, debit card, or
third-party payment account. In doing so, however, the Defendant
fails to provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations
required to be made to consumers under North Carolina General
Statutes. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members sustained damages.
The Athletic Media Company is a media company with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and –
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Says Financial Aid Class Action Has No Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fitzsimons, writing for NBC News, reports that sixteen Ivy
League and elite U.S. universities were sued in federal court for
allegedly illegally conspiring to eliminate competitive financial
aid offers to students in a price fixing scheme.
The suit alleges the conspiracy artificially inflated the cost of
attendance for all students receiving financial aid and resulted in
the overcharging of "over 170,000 financial-aid recipients by at
least hundreds of millions of dollars."
The demand for a class action jury trial, filed on Sunday in an
Illinois federal court by five former Vanderbilt, Northwestern and
Duke University students, seeks to compensate people who received
financial aid packages that did not fully cover the cost of
tuition, room and board from one of the 16 self-described
"need-blind" universities since 2003.
The crux of the suit hinges on part of a 1994 federal education law
called "Section 568," an exemption from antitrust laws for colleges
and universities that ostensibly don't consider an applicant's
financial status while deciding admission, known as need-blind
admission. This exemption allows need-blind colleges and
universities to ignore century-old antitrust laws and collaborate
with their competitors.
The lawsuit names Brown University, California Institute of
Technology, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell
University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University,
Georgetown University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, University of
Pennsylvania, Rice University, Vanderbilt University and Yale
University as defendants.
Spokespeople for Dartmouth College, and the Universities of
Pennsylvania, Chicago, Cornell, Notre Dame, Emory, Northwestern,
Duke and Rice declined to comment on pending litigation.
Columbia, Georgetown, MIT and Vanderbilt did not immediately
respond to NBC News requests for comment.
In an email, Yale University spokesperson Karen N. Peart wrote,
"Yale's financial aid policy is 100% compliant with all applicable
laws."
CalTech spokesperson Kathy A. Svitil declined to comment on pending
litigation but said, "[w]e have confidence, however, in our
financial aid practices."
Brown University spokesperson Brian E. Clark wrote, "If we are
served with the complaint, we will conduct a full review and
respond as appropriate through the legal process."
"Based on a preliminary review, the complaint against Brown has no
merit and Brown is prepared to mount a strong effort to make this
clear," Clark wrote.
The lawsuit alleges that a framework called the "consensus
methodology," used in admissions by a consortium of universities
called "568 Presidents Group," is "explicitly aimed to reduce or
eliminate price competition among its members" and says such an
elimination of competition is "simply a means of coalescing around
a uniform and lower level of aid to all prospective students."
The 568 Presidents Group did not immediately respond to a request
for comment. John J. DeGioia, Georgetown's President and president
of the 568 Presidents Group's steering committee, also did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
"The Consensus Approach," or consensus methodology, the group says
on its website, "consists of a set of common standards for
determining the family's ability to pay for college" whose goal is
"to reduce much of the variance in need analysis results that has
been experienced in recent years."
They specify further that the methodology "deals exclusively with
the family's ability to pay for college."
The suit alleges "the purpose of the 568 Cartel is to reduce or
eliminate competition between Cartel members over offers of
financial aid to prospective students."
Further, the suit says that "antitrust principles" dictate that
"Competitors would not reach such agreement, because they would be
incentivized to increase aid and reduce net prices of attendance to
attract students."
"Absent collusion, Defendants would compete on price for the
students that they have decided to admit because these are the
students that the admissions department has decided would satisfy
the goals of the admissions process," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also alleges that many of these colleges and
universities are not fully need-blind, and thus, do not qualify for
the antitrust exemption.
The suit alleges the 16 institutions consider the financial means
of many of the students and families who apply in three main ways:
by prioritizing the admission of the children of wealthy past "or
potential future" donors, through a practice known as "enrollment
management," and by routinely and widely considering the financial
means of the students admitted off of waitlists.
The suit says the 568 exemption from antitrust laws, which
otherwise prohibit conspiracies among competitors, only applies at
colleges and universities where "all students admitted are admitted
on a need-blind basis," which is to say, "without regard to the
financial circumstances of the student involved or the student's
family."
"The result of the 568 Cartel is thus not only to reduce the amount
of total aid offered by each school, but also to reduce the total
amount of aid offered to each prospective student at each Defendant
school," the suit alleges. [GN]
BUMBLE INC: Chien Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN CHIEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BUMBLE INC. and BUZZ HOLDINGS LP, Case
No. 34-2021-00049769-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on January 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00020-GPC-NLS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and
intentional collection and use of the personally identifiable
information (PII) of Bumble app users without their consent and the
exposure of their PII following a data breach.
Bumble Inc. is a developer of application software, headquartered
in Austin, Texas.
Buzz Holdings LP is a Delaware limited partnership, headquartered
in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com
- and –
Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
Telephone: (213) 892-5200
Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
E-mail: PPatel@mofo.com
C.R. BARD: North Brevard Seeks to Certify Direct Purchaser Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH BREVARD COUNTY
HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER, v. C.R. BARD, INC.
and BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00363-TJM-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3):
"U.S. direct purchasers from Bard of its peripherally
inserted central catheters ("PICCs") on or after March 31,
2016. Purchasers include in part hospitals, hospital
systems, and clinics;"
2. certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2):
"U.S. direct purchasers from Bard of its peripherally
inserted central catheters ("PICCs") on or after March 31,
2016. Purchasers include in part hospitals, hospital
systems, and clinics’"
3. appointing Plaintiff North Brevard County Hospital
District d/b/a Parrish Medical Center as representative of
the classes;
4. appointing as co-lead class counsel Christopher v. Fenlon
of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, R. Stephen Berry of Berry
Law PLLC, and Edward Normand of Roche Freedman LLP; and
5. granting such other and further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qk3Kjo
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher V. Fenlon, Esq.
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, Suite 901
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 396-3100
Facsimile: (518) 396-3101
E-mail: cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com
- and -
R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
BERRY LAW PLLC
1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 645
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 296-1212
E-mail: sberry@berrylawp llc.com
- and -
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (646) 350-0527
Facsimile: (646) 392-8842
E-mail: vel@rcfllp.com
tnormand @rcfllp.com
CANADA: Indian Day Scholars Class Action Claims Process Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sudbury.com reports that the claims process has begun for those
known as 'day scholars' at residential schools in Canada after a
class action suit was settled with the federal government in
September. The day scholars are eligible to apply for a
compensation payment of $10,000.
The Indian Residential Schools Day Scholars Class Action was
brought on behalf of day scholars -- students who attended Indian
Residential Schools during the day only but did not sleep there
overnight, as well as the scholars' children. The lawsuit stated
that these schools destroyed the scholars' language and culture,
violated their cultural and linguistic rights, and caused
psychological harm. The class action and settlement are not related
to any physical or sexual abuse endured by students at the
schools.
There are eight of these eligible schools in Northern Ontario, with
the now infamous St. Anne's in Fort Albany on the list, as well as
those closer to Sudbury. The Spanish Boys School, open from 1920 to
1958, and the Spanish Girls School, which opened at the same time
but ran until 1962, both had day schools.
A list of the residential schools that were known or believed to
have run day schools can be found at:
https://www.justicefordayscholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Schedule-E-Schools-Lists-EN.pdf?utm_source=sudbury.com&utm_campaign=sudbury.com%3A%20outbound&utm_medium=referral
There is also eligibility for the descendants of day scholars who
died on or after May 30, 2005. A claim can be submitted on behalf
of the scholar by the estate management, or if there is no estate,
the "highest priority" living heir.
Survivors and descendants in the class action are also eligible to
apply for funding from the Day Scholars Revitalization Fund,
included in the settlement includes a $50 million Day Scholars
Revitalization Fund, to be used to support healing, wellness,
education, language, culture and heritage. The funds will be
administered by a non-profit society that is independent of Canada
and Class Counsel. Canada or Class Counsel are not involved in
making decisions on who receives funding through the Day Scholars
Revitalization Fund.
You can apply online or contact the claims administrator (Deloitte)
at dayscholarsclaims@deloitte.ca or 1-877-877-5786. The deadline to
submit a claim is Oct. 4, 2023. [GN]
CAREMEL INC: Loses Bid to Get Insurance Coverage for BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the operator
of several McDonald's restaurants lost its bid to get insurance
coverage for a proposed biometric privacy class action it's facing
after an Illinois federal judge found the policy contained
employment exclusions.
The American Family Mutual Insurance Company S.I. policy excludes
coverage for employer-related alleged Biometric Information Privacy
Act violations, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber wrote in an opinion
filed Jan. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
Caremel Inc. faces a biometric privacy class action lawsuit in
state court. [GN]
CEDAR MGMT: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Fleming Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH FLEMING and REBECCA GARLAND, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CEDAR
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. COA21-213 (N.C. App.),
the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the trial court's
order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
I. Background
On Feb. 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs sold their home in the Oak Run
subdivision in Charlotte, North Carolina. Prior to the sale of the
home, the Oak Run homeowners' association ("HOA") sent the
Plaintiffs a statement certifying that Plaintiffs were current on
their HOA dues and notifying Plaintiffs that a $395 certification
fee was "due and payable directly" to the Defendant, the company
that provides property-management services to the HOA and its
members.
On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint
against the Defendant, asserting claims for (1) declaratory
judgment and (2) negligent misrepresentation, as well as violations
of (3) Chapter 39A of our General Statutes, which prohibits
transfer fee covenants, (4) the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), and (5) the North Carolina Debt
Collection Act ("NCDCA").
On Aug. 3, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure, along with a supporting brief. In response, the
Plaintiffs submitted a brief opposing the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
On Aug. 31, 2020, the Defendant's motion to dismiss came on for
hearing before the Honorable Lisa C. Bell in Mecklenburg County
Superior Court. On Sept. 9, 2020, the trial court informed the
parties via email that the Defendant's motion would be granted, and
requested that defense counsel prepare an order to that effect. The
defense counsel shared its proposed order with the Plaintiffs'
counsel, but the parties could not agree whether the Plaintiffs'
complaint should be dismissed with or without prejudice.
Accordingly, on Sept. 11, 2020, both parties, through counsel,
submitted proposed orders for the trial court's consideration. The
Plaintiffs submitted a proposed order dismissing their complaint
without prejudice and allowing them leave to amend their complaint
pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure, while Defendant submitted a proposed order dismissing
the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
On Dec. 16, 2020, the trial court adopted and entered the
Defendant's proposed order granting the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. On Jan. 11, 2021,
the Plaintiffs filed timely notice of appeal.
II. Discussion
On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by
granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. They also argue that
the trial court erred by denying their request that the dismissal
be without prejudice, thus denying their request for leave to amend
their complaint. The Court of Appeals disagrees.
A. Motion to Dismiss
The Plaintiffs first argue that they sufficiently pleaded each of
their five claims, and that therefore the trial court erred in
granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).
1. Chapter 39A Claim
The Plaintiffs primarily argue that they sufficiently alleged their
claim of violation of North Carolina's prohibition of transfer fee
covenants, as set forth in Chapter 39A of General Statutes. They
assert that the plain language of Chapter 39A prohibits both
transfer fees and transfer fee covenants, and that because they
adequately alleged in their complaint that the Fee was an
unreasonable transfer fee, the trial court erred by dismissing
their Chapter 39A claim.
However, the Court of Appeals disagrees with the Plaintiffs that
the Fee in the case was a transfer fee. Accordingly, even under
their interpretation of Chapter 39A, the Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Specifically excluded from Chapter 39A's definition of a "transfer
fee" is "any reasonable fee charged for the preparation of
statements of unpaid assessments." The allegations establish that a
statement of unpaid assessments, for which the Fee was assessed, is
often a prerequisite to obtaining title insurance or financing the
purchase of real estate, neither of which constitutes the transfer
of an interest in real property. Thus, even construed liberally,
these allegations do not establish that the Fee was "payable upon
the transfer of an interest in real property or payable for the
right to make or accept such transfer."
The Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to establish that
the Fee in the instant case was a "transfer fee" under Section
39A-2(2). Accordingly, they failed to sufficiently plead a
violation of Chapter 39A. This argument is overruled.
2. Remaining Claims
Having determined that the Fee was not a "transfer fee" under
Chapter 39A, the Court of Appeals' review of the trial court's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims becomes
straightforward, as each claim relies in some part on that
argument.
First, the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendant violated the UDTPA
relies heavily on Chapter 39A's declaration that transfer fee
covenants violate the public policy of North Carolina. However, as
the Court of Appeals has determined that the Fee was not a
"transfer fee" under Chapter 39A, the Plaintiffs' argument is
unavailing.
Nevertheless, public policy is not the only hook upon which
Plaintiffs hang their UDTPA claim. In the present case, the
Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendant violated the UDTPA by
charging a fee in excess of a range of fees that the Plaintiffs
would "find to be reasonable." Yet the Plaintiffs pleaded this
claim without, for example, alleging any facts regarding fees
charged by firms "performing similar services at the time.
Therefore, even when construed broadly, the Plaintiffs' complaint
reveals "the absence of facts sufficient to make a claim" under the
UDTPA.
The Plaintiffs' claim under the NCDCA similarly relies upon their
Chapter 39A argument, and similarly must fail.
The Plaintiffs also assert in their reply brief that their claim
for a declaratory judgment "is based on their claim for a violation
of Chapter 39A." As such, this claim must fail as well.
Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation
arises from the Defendant's assertion "that the 'certification fee'
or other similar fee charged for the preparation of statements of
unpaid assessments was lawfully owed." According to them, "when the
Defendant made these representations and/or caused these
representations to be made, the Defendant knew that the fees
charged were unreasonable or had a reckless disregard for whether
the fees were unreasonable." However, as the Plaintiffs acknowledge
in their reply brief, at its essence, this claim boils down to
their contention that Defendant misrepresented that the $395. Fee
was lawfully owed to the Defendant by Plaintiffs, when it was
actually an unlawful transfer fee. For the foregoing reasons, the
Court of Appeals concludes that this claim must also fail.
In sum, because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Fee was
a "transfer fee" under Chapter 39A, and because the remaining
claims rely in whole or in part on this argument, each of the
remaining claims must fail. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed
to state claims upon which relief may be granted, and the trial
court's dismissal of their complaint was proper.
B. Leave to Amend
The Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred by denying
their request for leave to amend their complaint pursuant to Rule
15 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. The court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend after granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Moreover, "a motion to amend a pleading is addressed to the
discretion of the trial judge; the ruling is not reviewable absent
a clear showing of abuse of discretion." In the case, the Court of
Appeals cannot conclude that the trial court's denial of the
Plaintiffs' request to amend was "so arbitrary that it could not
have been the result of a reasoned decision." The Plaintiffs'
argument is overruled.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals concludes that the Plaintiffs did not allege
facts sufficient to support a claim for which relief may be
granted, and thus, the trial court did not err in granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Nor did the trial court err in
denying the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint
after granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the
trial court's order is affirmed.
Judges Carpenter and Griffin concurred.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2rxr3hse from Leagle.com.
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, by Scott C. Harris
-- sharris@milberg.com -- Patrick M. Wallace --
pwallace@milberg.com -- and Jeremy R. Williams --
jwilliams@milberg.com -- for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Cranfill Sumner LLP, by Steven A. Bader -- sbader@cshlaw.com -- and
Richard T. Boyette -- rtb@cshlaw.com -- for the
Defendant-Appellee.
CHAIM'S GROCERY: Funez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bakery Clerks
------------------------------------------------------------------
GIESSY FUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHAIM'S GROCERY INC., WILLIAMSBURG BAGEL
CORP. (DBA WILLIAMSBURG BAGEL & BAKERY) and JOEL BOGEL, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00082 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated bakery clerks overtime pay for all
hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and their failure to
furnish accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bakery clerk in
Brooklyn, New York from November 2020 until December 2021.
Chaim's Grocery Inc. is a bakery owner and operator, with its
principal place of business located at 73 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York.
Williamsburg Bagel Corp., doing business as Williamsburg Bagel &
Bakery, is a bakery owner and operator, with its principal place of
business located at 73 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
CINTAS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Uniforms' Health Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that supplier
Cintas Corp. lost its bid to strike class allegations in a suit by
Southwest Airlines employees who link health problems to their
uniforms, after a federal court in Ohio said it would be premature
to rule they can't show common issues predominate.
Southwest and Cintas worked together to create the design of the
uniform collection, which included 75 separate pieces so employees
could mix and match their garments.
The employees allege the uniforms caused rashes, breathing
difficulties, and other health issues. [GN]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: School of General Studies Criticized in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Jaschik, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that a class
action suit was filed Sunday against 16 private colleges and
universities, charging them with running a "cartel" and violating
antitrust laws in the way they calculate aid awards, thus forcing
thousands of students to pay more than they should have to in order
to enroll.
The suit was filed by five recent graduates but seeks to be
certified as a class action on behalf of thousands of additional
students.
The targets of the suit are Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory,
Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Yale Universities;
the California Institute of Technology; Dartmouth College; the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and the Universities of
Chicago, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania.
The colleges are members of the 568 Group, which consists of 21
colleges and universities that claim a federal exemption from
antitrust laws in developing and using a common methodology to
award need-based aid. The exemption was created by Congress after
the Ivy League colleges and MIT were charged by the Justice
Department with price-fixing because they consulted one another on
the aid to be given to students admitted to more than one
institution.
In 1991, all eight members of the Ivy League and MIT were charged
with price-fixing. The way it worked was that representatives from
the colleges would meet to discuss their anticipated aid offers for
students who had been admitted to more than one college. This
practice limited price competition, prosecutors said. The colleges
said the approach allowed students to choose colleges based on fit
rather than on price. The issue was much debated, but the Ivy
League colleges and MIT eventually agreed to end the practice.
The new suit acknowledges that the colleges have received an
exemption from antitrust laws but says that nine of the colleges
are not in fact need blind.
"At least nine defendants for many years have favored wealthy
applicants in the admissions process. These nine defendants have
thus made admissions decisions with regard to the financial
circumstances of students and their families, thereby disfavoring
students who need financial aid," the suit says.
The nine are Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown, MIT,
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn and Vanderbilt. The suit charges
that they "have failed to conduct their admissions practices on a
need-blind basis because all of them made admissions decisions
taking into account the financial circumstances of applicants and
their families, through policies and practices that favored the
wealthy."
Columbia University is criticized because its School of General
Studies, which the suit says enrolls 2,500 undergraduates, doesn't
have need-blind admissions, according to the suit. "The burden of
supporting Columbia's preservation of prestige and financial
accumulation therefore falls on those who can least afford it," the
suit says.
"Dartmouth and Notre Dame engage in need-aware admissions through
'enrollment management,'" the suit charges. "This is 'the
systematic integration of the functions of admissions, the
relationship between tuition and fees (pricing) and financial aid,
and student retention, along with the use of research to inform
institutional policies and practices.' It is a 'managerial
paradigm' that brings together admissions and other institutional
functions 'into a comprehensive institutional approach designed to
enable college and university administrators to exert greater
influence over the factors that shape their enrollments.'"
The suit also charges that "many defendants consider applicants'
'financial circumstances' through admissions preferences given to
the children of wealthy past or potential donors, such that their
chances of admission increase significantly." If a college does
this, the suit charges, it should admit that it is not need blind.
At Northwestern, President Morton Schapiro has admitted that he
personally makes decisions on hundreds of applicants a year. The
applications on which he makes decisions include some children of
donors or alumni and also children of faculty and staff members at
Northwestern.
At Penn, the suit says, there are "'tags' to track applicants that
are 'a high priority for the institution.' Penn tags the
applications of 'children of donors or potential donors.'"
And what about the other seven defendants? Brown, Caltech, Chicago,
Cornell, Emory, Rice and Yale "have been members of the 568 Cartel
during at least parts of the last two decades. These seven
defendants may or may not have adhered to need-blind admissions
policies, but they nonetheless conspired with the other
defendants," the suit says.
"In critical respects, elite, private universities like [the]
defendants are gatekeepers to the American Dream," the suit says.
"Defendants' misconduct is therefore particularly egregious because
it has narrowed a critical pathway to upward mobility that
admission to their institutions represents. The burden of the 568
Cartel's overcharges falls in particular on low- and middle-income
families struggling to afford the cost of a university education
and to achieve success for their children. In addition, unlike
prior admissions scandals, such as Varsity Blues, the 568 Cartel's
systematic suppression of financial aid is the official policy of
its participants."
"Varsity Blues took on the side door of admissions," said Eric
Rosen, the former federal and state prosecutor who led the Varsity
Blues prosecution team and who is now a partner at Roche Freedman,
one of the law firms filing the suit. "This case takes on the back
door—alleging that, while conspiring together on a method for
awarding financial aid, which raises net tuition prices, defendants
also favor wealthy applicants in making admissions decisions. The
law does not allow them to do both."
None of the colleges that were sued released a detailed response,
and most did not respond to Inside Higher Ed's requests for
comment. Others said that they never comment on litigation against
the university.
Caltech said, "Caltech is currently reviewing the lawsuit and
cannot comment on the specific allegations. We have confidence,
however, in our financial aid practices."
Yale's director of media relations said, "Yale's financial aid
policy is 100 percent compliant with all applicable laws." [GN]
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Case Progression Order Issued in Mahoney Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson issued an Amended Case
Progression Order in the case, CHARLOTTE MAHONEY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 8:21CV23 (D. Neb.).
The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Agreed Motion to
Amend Case Progression Order. After review of the motion, and for
good cause shown, Judge Nelson granted the Agreed Motion to Amend
Case Progression Order, and amended the case progression order as
follows:
1) The deadline for identifying expert witnesses expected to
testify at the trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(C)), is July 1, 2022.
2) The deadlines for completing expert disclosures for all
experts expected to testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(C)), are: (i) For the Plaintiff/the Defendant: Aug. 1,
2022 and (ii) For rebuttal: Sept. 30, 2022.
3) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules
33, 34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is Oct.
31, 2022. Motions to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34,
36, and 45 must be filed by Nov. 15, 2022. Note: A motion to
compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order will not be
filed without first contacting the chambers of Judge Nelson on or
before the motion to compel deadline to set a conference to discuss
the parties' dispute, and after being granted leave to do so by the
Court.
4) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is Oct. 31,
2022.
5) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on
Daubert and related grounds is Oct. 31, 2022.
6) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this
time. A planning conference to discuss case progression,
dispositive motions, the parties' interest in settlement, and the
trial and pretrial conference settings will be held with Judge
Nelson on Oct. 31, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. by telephone. The counsel
will use the conferencing instructions assigned to the case to
participate in the conference.
7) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment is Dec. 16, 2022.
8) The deadline for the Defendant to move to decertify the
conditional collective class action is Dec. 16, 2022.
9) The parties will comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not
inconsistent with the Order.
10) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings
established will be directed to Judge Nelson. Such requests will
not be considered absent a showing of due diligence in the timely
progression of this case and the recent development of
circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion,
which require that additional time be allowed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Amended Case
Progression Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7n8sk7 from
Leagle.com.
CREDIT SUISSE: Gomez Sues Over DGAZ ETN's Delisting and Suspension
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADELINA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT SUISSE AG, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00115 (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The case arises from the Defendant's decision to delist and suspend
the issuance of its exchange traded note (ETN) product, DGAZ.
Beginning in February 2012, the Defendant issued DGAZ and listed it
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Arca Exchange. DGAZ's
objective was to provide daily leveraged inverse exposure to the
S&P's GSCI Natural Gas [ER] Index. The correlation of DGAZ's daily
price and its daily indicative value was 99 percent over the life
of the product prior to the delisting. The Defendant's actions
destroyed DGAZ, preventing it from achieving its sole objective of
tracking the Index. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated investors sold and purchased DGAZ
notes and suffered significant monetary losses.
Credit Suisse AG is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel Centner, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
dcentner@peifferwolf.com
- and –
Jason Kane, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
95 Allens Creek Bldg. 1, Suite 150
Rochester, NY 14619
Telephone: (585) 310-5140
E-mail: jkane@peifferwolf.com
- and –
Daren A. Luma, Esq.
DAREN A. LUMA, PLLC
75 South Broadway, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 304-4051
Facsimile: (914) 206-5353
E-mail: dluma@lumalegal.com
CRST INT'L: Seeks to Extend Briefing Deadlines in Cervantes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE
CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00075-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending briefing deadlines for Rule 23 motion for
class certification.
Defendants request a two-week extension to the deadlines for their
response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to
Fed. R Civ. P. 23.
Currently, Defendants' response is due on January 21, 2022, and
Plaintiffs' reply is due on February 4, 2022.
Defendants request new deadlines so that their response would be
due on February 4, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply would be due on
February 18, 2022. Good cause exists for extending these deadlines
because depositions of key declarants have been postponed.
For example, depositions of Roderick Fisher and Christopher Fink
were scheduled for January 5, 2022 and January 11, 2022,
respectively.
However, due to availability conflicts, Mr. Fisher's deposition
date was rescheduled for January 17, 2022 and Mr. Fink's deposition
remains unconfirmed.
Defendants' counsel conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs
concerning this motion, and Plaintiffs have no objection to the
request.
This is the second request for an extension to the class
certification briefing deadlines. The other existing court-imposed
deadlines in this case are:
-- Affirmative expert disclosures: April 8, 2022
-- Fact discovery completion: April 30, 2022
-- Dispositive motion deadline: May 6, 2022
-- Defendants' decertification May 27, 2022
motion deadline:
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures: June 8, 2022
-- Expert discovery completion: June 24, 2022
-- Defendants' decertification July 8, 2022
reply deadline:
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fhVB8y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
James H. Hanson, Esq.
James T. Spolyar, Esq.
Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
Emily A. Quillen, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 492-9205
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
jspolyar@scopelitis.com
asmedstad@scopelitis.com
equillien@scopelitis.com
- and -
Kevin J. Visser, Esq.
SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266
Telephone: (319) 366-7641
Facsimile: (319) 366-1917
E-mail: kvisser@spmblaw.com
DELTA AIR: Toledo Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARVIN TOLEDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-596940, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00081 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify,
failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to
timely pay all final wages, unfair competition, and civil
penalties.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is an airline company, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie S. Gonell, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
- and –
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and –
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
DENTALPLANS.COM: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Responses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH BRADLEY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
DENTALPLANS.COM, and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYY, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01094-CCB (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a thirty-day extension of time, until
February 10, 2022, to file their responses in opposition of
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On April 28, 2020, the Plaintiff sued Defendant DentalPlans.com,
alleging that DentalPlans.com sent her prerecorded voice messages
without her consent in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
On August 2, 2021, more than a year after filing her complaint,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Cigna as a
defendant.
Cigna moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) on
September 14, 2021.
The Plaintiff requested, and Cigna consented to, a lengthy
extension of more than six weeks for Plaintiff to oppose the
motion. The motion is now fully briefed.
On September 24, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
February 28, 2022, for the close of discovery. The order also set
July 25, 2022, as the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on December
28, 2021. The Defendants' opposition is currently due on January
11, 2022.
In light of the holiday last week and the need to conduct
additional discovery, including the deposition of Plaintiff and her
husband, Defendants require additional time to respond to
Plaintiff's motion.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HXpfwk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Frey, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
The Atlantic Building, 950 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 239-3300
Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
E-mail: brian.frey@alston.com
- and -
Derin B. Dickerson, Esq.
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com
- and -
Brian D. Frey, Esq.
Kelsey L. Kingsbery, Esq.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 862-2200
Facsimile: (919) 862-2260
E-mail: kelsey.kingsbery@alston.com
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Seeks Partial Reconsideration of Dec. 23 Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Hills, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. Essentia
Health, and Ciox Health, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00907-wmc (W.D.
Wisc.), the Defendant asks the Court to partially reconsider its
December 23, 2021 Opinion and Order.
Specifically, Essentia asks the Court to reconsider the portion of
its Opinion and Order, relying upon Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC,
2020 WI App 79, 395 Wis. 2d 229, 952 N.W.2d 831 ("Townsend I"), a
Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decision that the Wisconsin Supreme
Court has recently reversed. In light of Townsend I's reversal,
Essentia asks the Court to grant Essentia's motion to dismiss in
full rather than in part, and to direct the clerk of court to enter
judgment in favor of Essentia and close this case.
Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33ewAZF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew Splitek, Esq.
Brandon Gutschow, Esq.
Julia Wittman, Esq.
Adam Prinsen, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
33 East Main Street, Suite 900
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Telephone: (608) 251-5000
E-mail: matthew.splitek@quarles.com
brandon.gutschow@quarles.com
julia.wittman@quarles.com
adam.prinsen@quarles.com
EXICURE INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 11 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ:
XCUR), Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR), Marathon Digital
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA), and Redwire Corporation (NYSE: RDW).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCUR)
Class Period: March 11, 2021 - November 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 11, 2022
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 there had been certain improprieties in
Exicure's preclinical program for the treatment of Friedreich's
ataxia; (2) that, as a result, there was a material risk that data
from the preclinical program would not support continued clinical
development; 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.
For more information on the Exicure class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/XCUR
Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR)
Class Period: February 18, 2021 - July 20, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 14, 2022
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.
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.
For more information on the Sleep Number class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SNBR
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA)
Class Period: October 30, 2020 - November 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 15, 2022
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin Facility,
implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S.
securities law violations; (ii) as a result, the Beowulf Joint
Venture subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's business and commercial
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Marathon class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MARA
Redwire Corporation (NYSE: RDW)
Class Period: August 11, 2021 - November 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 15, 2022
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.
For more information on the Redwire class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RDW
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]
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS BONSANGUE, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated drivers, v. FERRELLGAS,
INC.; FERRELLGAS, L.P.; BLUE RHINO LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11169-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action
and PAGA settlement, including the amount of the
settlement; the amount and methodology pertaining to
distributions to the class; the procedure for giving
notice to class members; the procedure for allowing class
members to opt out of or object to the settlement; and the
amounts allocated to incentive payments, attorney fees and
costs, and administrative costs;
2. Granting Plaintiff leave to file and entering Plaintiff's
proposed First Amended Complaint to the Declaration of
Melissa A. Huether filed concurrently herewith;
3. Provisionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only;
4. Approving the form and content of the class notice and
directing the distribution of the class notice;
5. Appointing Joseph Lavi, Vincent Granberry, and Courtney
Miller from Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel and
named Plaintiff Chris Bonsangue as Class Representative;
6. Appointing Simpluris, Inc. as settlement administrator;
and
7. Setting a Final Approval Hearing and hearing on Class
Counsel's Attorney Fees and Cost award and Class
Representative's Enhancement Payment for a date and time
convenient to the Court approximately 120 days after
granting preliminary approval; and
8. Enjoining Class Members from filing or prosecuting any
claims, suits, or administrative proceedings regarding the
Released Claims unless and until such Class Members have
filed valid Requests for Exclusion with the Settlement
Administrator.
Ferrellgas Partners is an American supplier of propane founded 83
years ago in Atchison, Kansas by A.C. Ferrell.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class Defendant's
motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3GvFxMM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
mhuether@lelawfirm.com
cmiller@lelawfirm.com
FIJI: Former FRCS Employees File Labor Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Chute, writing for The Fiji Times, reports that a class-action
lawsuit was filed against the Fiji Revenue and Customs Service
(FRCS) by 43 former employees in the Employment Relations Court in
Suva last month.
Earlier last month, 89 of 102 FRCS staff members who were earmarked
for redundancy lost their jobs to the implementation of taxpayer
online services and the digitalisation of the tax functions of FRCS
that resulted in automated workflows and the drop in volume of work
required from the FRCS as a result of the pandemic.
Counsel for the applicants Damodaran Nair said the originating
summons was filed in the Employment Relations Court on Thursday.
They were seeking declarations that the decision of the FRCS of
December 17, 2021, to terminate the plaintiffs by imposing
compulsory redundancy was unlawful, unfair and unconstitutional.
The group also said the FRCS breached its duty of care towards them
by not engaging in good faith while negotiating the redundancy
package and not providing any valid reasons for their termination
and redundancy.
They also sought orders for the renegotiation between the defendant
and plaintiffs, in good faith, of the terms of the redundancy
package under sections 107 and 108 of the Employment Act 2007 and
the principles of Common Law. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Fuel Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set on March 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
To all persons: Who purchased or leased a new 2013 or 2014 model
year Ford vehicle in Canada ("Class Members").
Class Action Lawsuit
In January 2016, a class proceeding was filed against Ford Motor
Company, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, and Yonge-Steeles
Ford Lincoln Sales Limited (collectively "Ford") alleging that Ford
had made false, misleading, and deceptive representations to the
public which understated the fuel consumption of new 2013 and 2014
model year Ford vehicles in contravention of both the Competition
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 and provincial consumer protection
legislation. This class action seeks damages for individuals and/or
corporations who purchased or leased a new 2013 or 2014 model year
Ford vehicle in Canada. Robins Appleby LLP and McKenzie Lake
Lawyers LLP are working cooperatively as Class Counsel.
Certification
On December 20, 2018, the action was certified by the Honourable
Justice Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf
of all individuals and/or corporations who purchased or leased a
new 2013 or 2014 model year Ford vehicle in Canada.
The Court may determine a number of disputed issues common to the
Class including:
-- Whether Ford breached the Competition Act;
-- Whether Ford breached the provincial consumer protection
legislation; and
-- Whether Class Members are entitled to damages and punitive
damages under the Competition Act and/or the provincial consumer
protection legislation.
This notice does not mean that the Court has taken a position as to
the likelihood of recovery on the part of any class member, or as
to the merits of the claims or defences asserted by either side.
The claims must be proven in Court. Ford denies these claims.
Participation in Class Action
Class Members who want to participate in the class action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time. The
Class Proceedings Act provides that no Class Member, other than the
representative class member, will incur liability for legal costs
if the action is dismissed. Each Class Member who does not opt out
of the class action will be bound by the terms of any judgment or
settlement and will not be allowed to pursue or continue an
independent action with respect to these issues. If the class
action is successful, Class Members may be entitled to share in the
amount of any award or settlement recovered.
Opting Out
A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action. If you wish to pursue or continue to pursue an
individual action against Ford with respect to this issue, then you
must opt out of the class action. If you would like to opt out of
the class action, you must complete and return the opt-out form by
Friday, March 11, 2022.
A copy of the opt-out form can be obtained at www.robinsappleby.com
or www.mckenzielake.com or by contacting Class Counsel using the
telephone number or e-mail addresses listed below.
No person may opt out a minor (person under 18 years of age) or a
mentally incapable Class Member without permission of the Court
after notice to The Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian
and Trustee, as appropriate.
A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action. His or her right to pursue a claim in a separate
proceeding will not be affected.
Questions?
The court offices will be unable to answer any questions about the
matters in this Notice. If you have any questions regarding the
certification order or about the class action in general,
information is available on Class Counsel's
websites:www.robinsappleby.com OR http://www.mckenzielake.comor by
contacting Class Counsel directly, as follows:
Robins Appleby LLP
Toll Free Tel: 1-877-221-9131
Email: fordclassaction@robapp.com
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
Toll Free Tel: 1-844-672-5666
Email: edwards@mckenzielake.com
This Notice was approved by order of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.
www.robinsappleby.com and www.mckenzielake.com [GN]
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Admissions Cartel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beaujon, writing for Washingtonian, reports that Georgetown
University admits some students by considering their families'
likelihood to donate to the school—as well as their proximity to
political power. That allegation, sourced to a 2007 Washingtonian
article, helped land the DC school a spot in a lawsuit filed
against 16 elite private universities that accuses them of
participating "in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce
or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that in
fact has artificially inflated the net price of attendance for
students receiving financial aid."
The other universities named in the suit, which was filed in a
federal court in Illinois, are Brown University, the California
Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, Columbia
University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University,
Emory University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, the
University of Pennsylvania, Rice University, Vanderbilt University,
and Yale University. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the
lawsuit Monday.
The suit notes that the named institutions took part in a "568
Presidents Group," named for Section 568 of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994. That section of the law, the group's members
contend, provides an exemption under antitrust laws that allows
them to collaborate on standards for needs-blind admissions, so
admissions officers do not discriminate against students who need
more financial aid, for instance, in favor of students whose
families can pay more. In fact, the lawsuit argues, the exemption
has had the effect of favoring wealthy students.
The suit, which seeks class-action status, quotes an October 2007
Washingtonian interview with Georgetown Dean of Admissions Charles
Deacon, who told reporter Alvin P. Sanoff that the school maintains
"a small number of 'development potential' candidates":
If Bill Gates wants his kid to come to Georgetown, we'd be more
than happy to have him come and talk to us. But not all those
special cases end up being people who give a lot of money. We have
children of Supreme Court justices, senators, and so on apply. We
may give extra consideration to them because of the opportunities
that may bring.
The suit argues that Deacon, in essence, said the quiet part of
admissions favoritism out loud, and that the schools' collaboration
on financial standards amount to an "an agreement, understanding,
and concert of action among Defendants, the substantial terms of
which are to restrain price competition relating to their provision
of financial aid for students, and thereby to increase the net
price of attending these institutions." (None of Bill Gates's three
children appear to have taken Deacon up on his offer, by the way.)
Through a spokesperson, Georgetown declined to comment on the suit.
[GN]
GRANDE COSMETICS: Illegally Sells Serums as Cosmetics, Mandel Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA MANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00071-JSC (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the California's
Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and
the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively sells its
Enhancement Serums as cosmetics, or serums, with no identified
active drug ingredient, and no warning of serious side effects. The
Defendant's Enhancement Serums contain the active ingredient
isopropyl cloprostenate, which is in the same class of compounds as
the active ingredient found in prescription drugs. The Defendant
failed to seek regulatory approval for the products and sold them
straight to the market as cosmetics instead of prescription drugs.
The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact,
including the loss of money, as a result of Grande Cosmetics'
alleged unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive practices.
Grande Cosmetics, LLC is a manufacturer of beauty products,
headquartered in Valhalla, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Ste 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 438-5355
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
GUAM: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss Double Pay Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Connor, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that
plaintiffs to a class action lawsuit seeking pandemic-era double
pay from the government of Guam are opposing the government's
motion to dismiss their case. The plaintiffs filed the opposition
Friday.
The complaint was first filed in October 2020 but an amended
version was filed in September 2021, listing the government of Guam
and the governor as defendants. The suit is represented by 10
plaintiffs, members of the Guam Federation of Teachers union, but
it involves more than 500 employees allegedly denied double pay
during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Double pay for essential government workers is an issue that arose
during the early months of the pandemic when the government was
operating at a limited capacity and some agencies were closed.
It involves Rule 8.406 the Department of Administration personnel
rules and regulations, which guide compensation and leave matters
during natural disasters and other emergency conditions.
The attorney general stated in a May 2020 opinion that the
employee's facility must be closed to -- for the employee who still
must work -- to benefit from Rule 8.406, in addition to other
requirements.
GovGuam moved to dismiss the amended class-action lawsuit in
November 2021. Assistant Attorney General Jordan Lawrence Pauluhn
states in part that the plaintiffs still failed to allege the
necessary pre-conditions under Rule 8.406.
"Instead, they rely on false equivalencies. While DOA Rule 8.406
requires, among other things, agencies to be 'closed' and other
employees to be on 'excused leave with pay,' plaintiffs conflate
these terms with 'closed to the public,' and 'essentially . . . on
excused leave,'" Pauluhn wrote, adding that the court should
dismiss the case because the plaintiffs' own allegations are "fatal
to the case."
Pauluhn also added that based on the amended complaint, the court
lacks jurisdiction in the case and Guam's sovereign immunity is a
component for subject matter jurisdiction.
Attorneys Joshua Walsh and Joseph Razzano represent the plaintiffs.
They stated in their opposition that while sovereign immunity
normally shields GovGuam from certain claims, various legal
structures were established to allow government employees to seek
pay due to them.
They also stated that the view that an agency must be fully
shuttered and not just closed to the public was rejected by the
court in its review of a prior motion to dismiss, and the
government's insistence on that interpretation ignores the plain
language of the DOA rule, which states an appointing authority
shall determine whether the affected facility, or portions of the
facility, are to be closed.
"More, the government's insistence on a total agency closure as a
prerequisite to receiving emergency pay leads to an absurd
conclusion: that the rules and regulations were drafted in a manner
to never provide elevated pay to those government first responders
-- police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel
-- who work for agencies that . . . could never be closed in
total," the filing for the workers stated, adding that such an
interpretation cannot apply.
The class-action suit is not the only case to go through the
courts. The Supreme Court of Guam recently affirmed an earlier
decision from the lower court denying the double pay lawsuit filed
by police officer Steve Topasna.
But in that case, the Supreme Court simply concluded that the lower
court's analytical approach relying on facility closure was not an
error of law and was therefore not an abuse of discretion, the
opposition filing stated.
Whether the facilities were closed is a dispute ready for
litigation in the class action suit, the filing added. [GN]
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Employees Sue Over Vaccine Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------
HawaiiNewsNow reports that seven Hawaiian Airlines employees have a
filed a class-action lawsuit, seeking a federal court order to
block the company's vaccine mandate.
The suit claims Hawaiian Air is violating their religious rights
and disability protections by denying all requests for medical or
religious exemptions.
Hawaiian Air said in a statement that it has granted reasonable
exemptions.
"We know that our vaccine requirement has been a challenging topic,
but we have a responsibility to our fellow teammates, guests, and
communities to keep each other safe -- and vaccines are the most
effective protection against the virus," the company added.
The airline said out of nearly 7,000 employees, 270 workers have
taken unpaid leave or quit to avoid the shots. [GN]
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: RICO Class Suit May Have Reached Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
settlement appears to have been reached in federal court related to
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. and a potential $1 billion class-action
lawsuit filed in September 2017.
At least eight plaintiffs, comprised of Herbalife distributors,
made claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations law, or RICO, related to Herbalife live sales events.
The current complaint involves six plaintiffs.
Judge Marcia Cooke, with the U.S. Southern District of Florida,
granted a stay in the lawsuit involving Herbalife in Florida.
Cooke's ruling listed that the stay was requested by plaintiffs and
Herbalife "pending final approval" of the settlement of a related
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. Central District of California.
"The parties state they will shortly be moving for preliminary
approval" of the California settlement in the case of Lavigne
versus Herbalife, Cooke said in her ruling. The latest court filing
in that case was submitted Dec. 22.
Herbalife could not be immediately reached for comment on any
potential settlement. The company has more than 750 employees at
its East Coast production plant in eastern Winston-Salem.
In September, Cooke significantly reduced -- but didn't eliminate
-- the legal exposure facing Herbalife. She granted dismissals of
certain claims in the lawsuit, but gave plaintiffs 30 days to file
a second amended complaint.
Cooke ruled that the plaintiffs failed "to meet the higher pleading
standards required for civil RICO cases."
"Due to similar pleading deficiencies, most of plaintiffs' state
law claims also fail.," Cooke ruled.
"Finally, the court dismisses without prejudice the civil
conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims for failing to meet basic
pleading requirements."
The plaintiffs have sought damages from Herbalife and at least 43
individual defendants identified as "top distributors" in court
documents and considered as "the highest earners and collaborators"
with the company.
The focus of the complaint is the "Circle of Success" events that
the plaintiffs claim was not touched on by the Federal Trade
Commission in its $200 million settlement with Herbalife related to
the company's business practices.
The complaint says there could be thousands of potential
class-action plaintiffs who have spent thousands of dollars
attending the Circle of Success events and "have received no
benefit from doing so, despite defendants' constant barrage of
guarantees to the contrary."
In August 2018, a judge ruled to allow the shifting of four
plaintiffs from a Florida court to Herbalife's home state of
California.
That judge agreed that four of the plaintiffs are required to enter
arbitration with Herbalife since they signed a distributor
agreement with a valid arbitration clause.
Herbalife and the individual defendants said in their motions that
the plaintiffs overall have failed to state an actionable claim.
[GN]
J. ALEXANDER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Fox Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAYA FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. ALEXANDER'S, LLC; J. ALEXANDER'S
RESTAURANTS, LLC; J. ALEXANDER'S HOLDINGS, INC.; J. ALEXANDER'S
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and STONEY RIVER MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02007 (W.D. Tenn., January 6,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated restaurant workers
their earned minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a server at the
Stoney River location in Germantown, Tennessee from the fall of
2020 until the present.
J. Alexander's, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, with its
principal office located at 3401 West End Ave., Suite 260,
Nashville, Tennessee.
J. Alexander's Restaurants, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator,
with its principal office located at 3401 West End Ave., Suite 260,
Nashville, Tennessee.
J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator,
with its principal office located at 3401 West End Ave., Suite 260,
Nashville, Tennessee.
J. Alexander's Management Services, Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal office located at 3401 West End Ave.,
Suite 260, Nashville, Tennessee.
Stoney River Management Company, LLC is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal office located at 3401 West End Ave.,
Suite 260, Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. JAMES
LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order extending the current discovery
deadline pertaining to conditional class certification.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant
its request extend the discovery deadline from January 7, 2022 to
January 13, 2022 to complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of DOC.
On November 17, 2021, this Court issued an amended class
certification scheduling order. Fact discovery cutoff was extended
to allow for limited depositions related to class certification.
The sole purpose of this motion is to extend the discovery deadline
pertaining to the conditional class certification scheduled for
January 7, 2022. The parties request the deadline be extended to
January 13, 2022 in order to complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
of DOC. Of the six total Rule 30(b)(6) representatives, two will
need to be deposed on January 13, 2022. Extension of this deadline
will not upset any other deadlines.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3flrpJL at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Blanchfield, Esq.
C. Reynolds LeBlanc, Esq.
Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
Chelsea A. Payne, Esq.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
701 Main Street (70802)
Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com
rleblanc@keoghcox.com
cjones@keoghcox.com
cpayne@keoghcox.com
- and -
Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
Nishi Kumar, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org
- and -
Sarah Grady, Esq.
Stephen H. Weil, Esq.
John Hazinski, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
E-mail: sarah@loevy.com
- and -
William Most, Esq.
MOST & ASSOCIATES
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 114, No. 101
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Tellis
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL., v.
JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D.
La,), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth E. Foote entered an order denying
the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have met that standard. First,
Plaintiffs' complaint is not conclusory. Just like most complaints,
it contains general statements of the law followed by more specific
allegations that expound upon the more general statements.
Plaintiffs' complaint details the stories of several inmates with
an ADA-defined disability not being provided accommodations for
their mental disabilities and being excluded from programs such as
group counseling and therapy."
Additionally, the stories depict DWCC staff responding to behavior
linked to mental illness as a "disciplinary matter rather than a
mental health symptom." In sum, Plaintiffs' complaint has put
Defendants on notice as to the factual basis for their ADA and RA
claims, and accepting those facts as true, Plaintiffs' allegations
state a claim for relief. Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be
denied, the Court added.
This suit for injunctive relief was filed by several inmates at
David Wade Correctional Center ("DWCC") to challenge the conditions
of confinement for inmates on extended lockdown at DWCC and to
challenge the mental health care provided to inmates on extended
lockdown.
The Plaintiffs allege that DWCC's policies and practices are in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, First Amendment, Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA").
Previously, the Court certified a class of all prisoners who are or
will be subjected to extended lockdown at DWCC and a subclass
consisting of all individuals on extended lockdown at DWCC who have
or are perceived as having a qualifying disability related to
mental health, as defined within the ADA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zToSjo at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Volusia Cty. Hopes to Control Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarleene Almenas, writing for OrmondBeachObserver.com, reports that
Volusia County is hoping to control regional funds that will be
made available as part of settlement plan in a class-action suit
against Johnson and Johnson, also known as Janssen, for the
pharmaceutical company's role in contributing to the opioid
epidemic. Several cities, including Ormond Beach, entered into a
memorandum of understanding to join the state in regards to the
settlement back in July 2021.
On Monday, Jan. 10, the Roundtable of Volusia County Elected
Officials -- a meeting held at The Center at Deltona to allow for
social distancing in light of increasing COVID-19 cases -- were
given an update on the litigation's status by Paola Soria, senior
assistant county attorney, who stated that parties are currently
working on a proposed settlement agreement.
"If that settlement agreement is adopted by both sides, the
distributors will pay a maximum of $21 billion over 18 years
throughout the entire United States, while Jansen will pay a
maximum of $5 billion over nine years," Soria said.
A total of $22.8 billion could be payable to state and local
municipalities. Florida's portion of the settlement funds are
divided into three categories: A state fund, city/county funds, and
regional funds. The region that includes Volusia County is slated
to receive about 3.13% of the state's overall regional funds from
the settlement. Interlocal agreements with a majority of
municipalities will be needed as well for Volusia to be "qualified
county" and keep local control of the regional funds.
On Dec. 14, the Volusia County Council adopted an Opioid Settlement
Fund Abatement Plan to comply with the state's settlement
requirements. As a result of the interlocal agreement with the
cities, an Opioid Abatement Funding Advisory Board was created, and
each participating local government will appoint one person to the
board. On Thursday, Jan. 6, the County Council appointed District 3
Councilman Danny Robins for a two-year term.
The county's abatement plans states that Volusia County was one of
the hardest hit in the state based on data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that two-thirds of
the 70,900 people who died from drug overdoses in 2017 were linked
to opioids. In 2018, Volusia County had 119 overdose deaths, which
the plan states was higher than both the state and national
averages that year.
The plan, which Soria said is broad for now, addresses options for
supporting the treatment of opioid use disorder, efforts to prevent
the misuse of opioids and opportunities to support opioid abatement
research.
Soria said the payout of the settlement is expected sometime around
July 2022. According to an Ormond Beach city memo addressed to the
commission from July 20, 2021, the city's attorneys predicted funds
available directly to the city will be about $22,000 for the first
six years, $17,000 for the middle six years, and $12,000 for the
last six years.
The first meeting of the Opioid Abatement Funding Advisory Board is
aimed to take place in June, and the board will meet semi-annually.
"The first year or so of setting up the advisory board I imagine to
be a little bit more busy than subsequent years," Soria said. [GN]
JUUL LABS: Southern Academy Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN PREPARATORY ACADEMY, TALLAPOOSA COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00077 (N.D.
Cal., January 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Alabama Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Southern Preparatory Academy is a school campus located at 174 Ward
Circle, Camp Hill, Alabama.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL: Cooper Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43115, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00133 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business Professions Code
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, unpaid minimum wage, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expense, and unfair competition.
Kinkisharyo International, LLC is a provider of urban transit
solutions located in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
Lauren Ziegler, Esq.
Philip Shecter, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Telephone: (628) 218-3800
Facsimile: (628) 877-0107
E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com
lziegler@mwe.com
pshecter@mwe.com
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of January 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Lightspeed Commerce, Inc. (LSPD)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 11/3/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-lspd/
StoneCo Ltd. (STNE)
Class Period: 3/11/2021 - 11/16/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-stne/
Cloopen Group Holding Limited (RAAS)
Class Period: 2/9/2021 - 5/10/2021; American Depositary Shares
issued either in or after the February 2021 Initial Public
Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 8, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-raas/
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (RVNC)
Class Period: 11/25/2019 - 10/11/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 8, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-rvnc-1/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
MARATHON DIGITAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of February 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc.
(MARA)
Class Period: 10/13/2020 - 11/15/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 15, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-mara-1
Robinhood Markets Inc. (HOOD)
Class: Shares issued either in or after the July 2021 Initial
Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 15, 2022
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-hood/
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RETA)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 12/8/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-reta-1/
Chegg, Inc. (CHGG)
Class Period: 5/5/2020 - 11/1/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 22, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-chgg
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
MASSACHUSETTS: Lab Bungles Another Key Disclosure in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MASSLive reports that they're in, they're out. They're in, they're
out.
Breath tests commonly used in drunken driving arrests have
developed a storied history in Massachusetts, and the credibility
of the state-run Office of Alcohol Testing has taken a bit of a
beating over several years of litigation. And, according to a local
defense lawyer whose niche is OUI cases, the lab has bungled
another key disclosure as a court-ordered moratorium on introducing
the test results in criminal prosecutions is about to expire.
District Court Judge Robert Brennan on Nov. 15 ordered that breath
tests be barred as evidence against drivers charged with operating
under the influence of alcohol, pending a review of the accuracy of
the tests and the lab tasked with conducting them. [GN]
MDL 2744: Bid to Decertify Class in Electronic Gearshift Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT
LITIGATION. MDL No. 2744, Case No. 16-md-02744 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to
decertify class.
Introduction
On Dec. 9, 2019, the Court filed an order conditionally certifying
a common-issues class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
23(c)(4). On May 18, 2020, the new counsel for the Defendant filed
a motion styled as a motion to decertify the class. Although the
Court retains the authority to reconsider class certification
decisions as the litigation proceeds, a party seeking
decertification must submit some new information that justifies
revisiting the certification decision.
The Defendant has not done so. Instead, it submits an argument that
could have been raised during the original motion briefing (the
authority to address discrete matters for which venue is laid in
another district) and cites a court of appeals decision that does
not address class certification in multidistrict litigation or
otherwise. The motion, therefore, is more properly characterized as
a motion for reconsideration, and as such, it is untimely. And
because the motion also lacks merit, it will be denied. However,
Judge Lawson will clarify the certification decision so that the
trial will focus on the common issues raised in direct-filed
cases.
Background
In their Second Amended Consolidated Master Complaint (SACMC), the
Plaintiffs' steering committee has identified 39 named individuals
from 23 different states asserting several theories of liability
based on allegations of defective shifters in the Dodge Charger for
model years 2012 through 2014, the Chrysler 300 for model years
2012 through 2014, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee for model years 2014
through 2015 that the Defendant manufactured and sold. In its order
conditionally certifying the issue classes, the Court determined
that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their causes of
action set out in the SACMC were amenable to class treatment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or (3), but that there are
a number of discrete issues apparent from the record that are
suitable subjects for class-wide adjudication under Rule 23(c)(4).
Those issues are:
a. Whether the monostable gear shift has a design defect that
renders the class vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of
providing safe transportation.
b. Whether the defendant knew about the defect and concealed
its knowledge from buyers of the class vehicles.
c. Whether information about the defect that was concealed
would be material to a reasonable buyer.
Although many of the various claims arising in the several states
set out in the SACMC have different elements, they all require that
these common questions be addressed, and therefore they
"predominate within certain issues," and "class treatment of those
issues is the superior method of resolution."
The resolution of these issues by a jury for the Plaintiffs will
not result in a complete victory for them, although an unfavorable
outcome may be fatal to many of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Adjudicating these discrete issues through motion practice or
trial, therefore, will be a major step moving the litigation
forward.
The Defendant argues that the Sixth Circuit's decision in In re
National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 956 F.3d 838 (6th Cir.
2020), requires that the issues class be decertified. It reasons
that proceeding with an issue trial on the three certified
questions would invade the trial rights of the defendant in the
four transferred cases, citing Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), and trying these issues
separately from the entire causes of action for each of the
respective states may impair the defendant's rights under the
Seventh Amendment.
The four cases in question have been identified by the Defendant as
Central District of California Case No. 16-13681 (Goldsmith and
Nathan), Eastern District of New York Case No. 16-13678 (Mack),
Northern District of New York Case No. 16-13913 (Lynd), and Western
District of Missouri Case No. 16-13677 (Brooks).
Discussion
Judge Lawson opines that it is undisputed that, because those cases
were transferred in the Court from other districts, the venue for
trial in those matters in the first instance does not lie in this
district. Equally obvious, however, is the fact that the Court has
full authority to carry through to trial all of the direct-filed
matters, which consist of the claims of the Plaintiffs and the
absent class members in 16 other class jurisdictions.
Contrary to the Defendant's position, the Opiate Litigation
decision says nothing about the propriety of class certification in
an MDL proceeding. Instead, the issue presented and addressed by
the panel was whether the district court erred when granting a
grossly untimely motion to amend class complaints that was
unsupported by any showing of good cause, where it was undisputed
that the Plaintiffs had no good reason for omitting the claims from
earlier pleadings.
Judge Lawson opines that the problem with the Defendant's motion is
that the issue it raised and the remedy it seeks simply have no
logical relationship, and it has failed to advance any good grounds
to question the certification of issues classes previously granted.
The Defendant bases its motion entirely on Opiate Litigation, which
did not concern class certification at all, and it has not cited
any authority for the novel proposition that class certification is
not appropriately within the power of the MDL court to address.
Moreover, the Defendant has not addressed any of the factors
germane to the Rule 23 commonality analysis, and its motion barely
mentions the Sixth Circuit's binding decision in Martin v. Behr
Dayton Thermal Prod. LLC, 896 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2018), which
endorsed the procedure outlined by the Court in its issue class
certification order.
Finally, any lurking concerns about any supposed invasion of the
Defendant's trial rights in the four transferred matters, on the
basis that a trial in common even of discrete issues could comprise
an implied self-assignment of those matters to the Court that would
be prohibited by Lexecon, may be addressed after the summary
judgment motions are decided. Any such concerns may be foreclosed
by a separate and modest remedy that does not impair the class
certification, such as limiting the trial agenda to jury decisions
on the three certified questions only as they pertain to the claims
of the Plaintiffs and absent class members in those cases that were
direct-filed.
Thereafter, the Court can determine whether the Plaintiffs in the
transferred cases also might constitute absent the class members in
the direct-filed cases, and the parties would be free to seek
remedies based on the extent that the other Plaintiffs or absent
the class members would be bound by the decisions on those
certified issues.
Conclusion
The Defendant's motion to decertify the class is more properly
characterized as a motion for reconsideration of the class
certification order. As such, it is untimely. It also lacks merit.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to decertify the class is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86z4se from Leagle.com.
MRS. GOOCH'S: Faces Gonzalez PAGA Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS GONZALEZ and GERRY SIEMON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL
FOOD MARKETS, INC., WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV00610 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 6, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorney General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; failure to include
nondiscretionary bonuses in regular rate of pay to calculate
overtime; failure to provide place of employment that is safe and
healthful; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide
timely, uninterrupted meal breaks; failure to provide required
seating; failure to reimburse for required business expenses;
failure to timely pay all wages owed; and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and maintain accurate payroll
records.
Plaintiffs Gonzalez and Siemon worked for the Defendants as
non-exempt employees in California until July 9, 2021 and July 21,
2021, respectively.
Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc. is an owner and operator of
grocery stores in California.
Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is an owner and operator of
grocery stores in California. [BN]
The 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
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and –
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GRO
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com
MULLOOLY JEFFERSON: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jefferson,
Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The case is styled as Moses Singer, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Mullooly,
Jefferson, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Case No. 1:22-cv-00134 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Mulloony, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP is a debt collection law
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
NEW WEST: Allied Not Estopped From Asserting Claim Limit in Rolan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA ROLAN, on her own behalf and on behalf of the
class she represents, Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Appellees
v. NEW WEST HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant and Appellee, DARWIN SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY and DARWIN
NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Counter-Claimant, and
Appellant, Case No. DA 20-0279 (Mont.), Judge James Jeremiah Shea
of the Supreme Court of Montana issued an Opinion reversing in part
and affirming in part the Orders of the First Judicial District
Court, Lewis and Clark County:
(i) granting the Plaintiffs and New West's cross-motion for
partial summary judgment; and
(ii) denying Allied's motion for partial summary judgment on
indemnification.
Introduction
Defendant Allied, New West's insurer, appeals the Orders of the
First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting the
Plaintiffs and New West's cross-motion for partial summary judgment
finding Allied is equitably estopped from enforcing the "each
Claim" policy limit and denying Allied's motion for partial summary
judgment on indemnification.
The Supreme Court restates and addresses the following issues on
appeal:
1. Whether the District Court erred by holding that Allied
was estopped from enforcing the $1 million limit of liability under
the MCEO Policy.
2. Whether the District Court erred by holding that the
Policy's Loss provision does not exclude the class's damages from
Allied's indemnity obligation.
Background
On Nov. 16, 2007, Rolan sustained serious injuries from an
automobile accident resulting in $120,000 of immediate medical
expenses. Rolan had health insurance through New West. The
tortfeasor's liability insurance, Unitrin Services Group, paid
$100,000 of Rolan's medical expenses directly to her medical
providers under its liability policy. New West denied coverage to
Rolan because Unitrin had paid medical costs in advance.
On Jan. 26, 2010, Rolan filed a complaint against New West alleging
individual and class claims for breach of contract, violation of
made-whole rights, and unfair claims settlement practices under
Section 33-18-201, MCA. Rolan argued New West reduced her insurance
coverage by $100,000 in violation of its made-whole obligations.
She sought class certification based on New West's practice of
failing to conduct a made-whole analysis and denying claims that
were also covered by a liability insurer.
New West tendered the defense to Allied. Allied acknowledged a duty
to defend New West under the Managed Care Organization Errors and
Omissions Liability Policy ("MCEO Policy").
On May 7, 2012, the District Court certified the class and held New
West liable for monetary losses. On Aug. 6, 2013, the Supreme Court
upheld the class certification in Rolan v. New W. Health Servs.,
2013 MT 220, 371 Mont. 228, 307 P.3d 291 (Rolan I). This matter
came before the Supreme Court again in 2017, Rolan v. New W. Health
Servs., 2017 MT 270, 389 Mont. 228, 405 P.3d 65 (Rolan II), in
which the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's ruling
granting New West leave to amend.
On Sept. 30, 2013, after New West retained its own coverage
counsel, it confirmed in a letter to Allied's Senior Claims Analyst
that Allied's reservation of rights letter accurately set forth
coverages available for indemnification.
New West's coverage counsel and a New West representative followed
up the letter in a phone conversation with Allied's Senior Claims
Analyst that Allied would only contest coverage for "willful
misconduct or willful violation of state law."
Three years later, and six years into litigation, Allied clarified
in an Oct. 5, 2016 email that the $1 million "each Claim" limit
applied to the class action lawsuit, rather than the $3 million
aggregate-claim limit. Allied also asserted, for the first time,
that it had no indemnity obligation under the MCEO Policy. New
West's coverage counsel responded to Allied's change in position.
In 2016, New West announced it was going out of business. Rolan
moved for a preliminary injunction and show cause hearing to ensure
the Plaintiffs' interests were protected. On Oct. 20, 2016, New
West in its response brief opposing Rolan's motion assured the
District Court that adequate insurance coverage still existed to
cover Rolan's claim, as Rolan was still the only identified
plaintiff.
On March 27, 2017, New West's coverage counsel wrote to Allied to
request settlement of claims and gave consent to settlement. In
response, Allied offered $50,000. After an unsuccessful
court-ordered mediation, Allied did not respond to the Plaintiffs'
counsel's inquiry as to why coverage was now being limited. On
April 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs' counsel sought written confirmation
from Allied as to its basis for limiting coverage. Allied
responded, "Our position remains the same as that expressed at the
time of the mediation."
In Feb. 2018, the Plaintiffs amended the complaint to join Allied
to the lawsuit regarding the limit of liability issue. Allied moved
for partial summary judgment, alleging coverage was limited to the
$1 million "each Claim" limit instead of the $3 million
aggregate-claim limit because, it argued, the class action
constituted a single claim stemming from a single written notice,
and all class claims would constitute "Related Claims" under the
policy. New West and the Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment for estoppel regarding enforcement of the
"each Claim" limit of liability. On Oct. 25, 2018, the District
Court declined to address Allied's argument for partial summary
judgment regarding limited coverage for "each Claim," holding
instead that "Allied is estopped from asserting a limitation of
coverage to $1 million based on a single claim or related claims."
On Nov. 7, 2018, after almost nine years of litigation, the
Plaintiffs and New West filed a joint motion for approval of
proposed compromise settlement and notice to the class. The
proposed agreement settled claims against New West and assigned
Plaintiffs New West's claims against Allied. The proposed
settlement concluded that $3 million will be placed in a common
fund for the benefit of the class and that the court would issue a
judgment that "New West has acted illegally and/or in breach of
contract by reducing benefits without making a 'made-whole'
analysis." Plaintiffs then moved for entry of final judgment.
The District Court approved the proposed settlement agreement and
issued a revised Certification Order. The Order defined the Common
Fund of the class to include, in part, the $3 million aggregate
coverage limits "minus legitimate and reasonable deduction of
defense costs," and that the class is "eligible for consequential
and compensatory damages caused by New West's violation of
made-whole laws, either under a tort theory or a contract theory
for breach of contract." It further provided that the fairness
hearing for the settlement must await final determination of the
amount of the available insurance coverage and that if it was
determined that no insurance exists to compensate the class, the
class would be decertified, and class members would need to seek
individual recoveries.
On Jan. 9, 2019, Allied filed a response opposing the motion for
final judgment, arguing that the proposed settlement amount was not
covered by Allied under the MCEO Policy and that the terms of the
proposed settlement were unreasonable. It moved for partial summary
judgment alleging Allied had no indemnity obligation because the
settlement was excluded by the "Loss" provision as defined in the
MCEO Policy. Plaintiffs and New West again argued Allied was
estopped from raising a new policy defense. The District Court
found issues of fact and did not address the merits of equitable
estoppel, however, it found that as a matter of law, the "Loss"
provision did not preclude Allied's indemnity obligation.
On April 28, 2020, the District Court certified the limit of
liability and indemnification issues for interlocutory appeal and
approved the settlement between New West and the Plaintiffs.
Although Rolan remains the only named plaintiff, over 100,000 of
New West's insureds were identified and scheduled to receive
notices to potentially receive recoveries as a part of the class
action.
Discussion
1. Whether the District Court erred by holding that Allied was
estopped from enforcing the $1 million limit of liability under the
MCEO Policy.
Equitable estoppel is a common law doctrine based on the principle
that "a party cannot, through his intentional conduct, actions,
language, or silence, induce another to unknowingly or
detrimentally alter his position and then subsequently deny the
just and legal consequences of his intentional acts. To succeed on
a claim of equitable estoppel, the party must show by clear and
convincing evidence the following six elements: (1) the existence
of conduct, acts, language, or silence amounting to a
representation or a concealment of material facts; (2) these facts
must be known to the party estopped at the time of the party's
conduct, or at least the circumstances must be such that knowledge
is necessarily imputed to that party; (3) the truth concerning
these facts must be unknown to the other party claiming the benefit
of the estoppel at the time it was acted upon; (4) the conduct must
be done with the intention, or at least the expectation, that it
will be acted upon by the other party, or under circumstances both
natural and probable that it will be so acted upon; (5) the conduct
must be relied upon by the other party and lead that party to act;
and (6) the other party must in fact act upon it in such a manner
as to change its position for the worse.
While Allied argues that the District Court failed to find by clear
and convincing evidence any of the six elements of equitable
estoppel, it only substantively addresses two elements in its
appeal: (1) Whether Allied made any representations of material
fact, and (2) whether New West suffered any detrimental reliance.
Judge Shea, writing for the Supreme Court, concludes that the
District Court erred by finding clear and convincing evidence that
Allied made a material representation regarding the limits of
liability. Because all six elements of equitable estoppel must be
established, this error is dispositive.
Allied claims the District Court erred by finding Allied made
representations of material fact. It characterizes its reservation
of rights letter as alerting New West there was a liability limit
of $1 million for "each Claim," that being the class action. Allied
contends it accurately reported the Policy's "each Claim" and
aggregate limits to New West in 2010 but have consistently relied
on the "each Claim" limit. The Appellees argue Allied's reservation
of rights letter was inadequate to reserve its right to assert the
"each Claim" limit of liability and its attempt to assert it at
this point in the protracted litigation prejudiced New West.
Judge Shea concludes that the District Court erred in its
application of equitable estoppel. New West has not demonstrated by
clear and convincing evidence that Allied's "conduct, acts,
language, or silence" amounted to "a representation or concealment
of material facts." Because the District Court did not reach the
merits of the limit of liability issue and, on appeal, Rolan has
not briefed the merits, Judge Shea will reverse and remand for
consideration by the District Court as to whether the litigation
presents a single claim governed by the $1 million "each Claim"
limit or multiple claims governed by the $3 million aggregate
limit.
2. Whether the District Court erred by holding that the Policy's
"Loss" provision does not exclude the class's damages from Allied's
indemnity obligation.
Allied contends the proposed settlement agreement between the
Plaintiffs and New West contains only direct breach of contract
damages, and therefore Allied is not obligated to indemnify New
West because "benefits or coverage owed under any contract" are
excluded under the "Loss" provision. Allied argues the damages
agreed to in the proposed settlement do not stem from wrongful acts
committed by New West but arise entirely from New West's failure to
pay "benefits" owed under its plan. Thus, it asserts it is not
obligated to indemnify New West for payments that New West was
contractually obligated to pay. There are no cases interpreting
this type of "Loss" exclusion in Montana.
Judge Shea opines that this is an issue of first impression. He
finds that Allied's argument attempts to equate the class recovery
to the contractual expectancy damages excluded by the "Loss"
provision. The class settlement is not an amount due under a
contract, rather it covers the class's damages stemming from New
West's failure to fulfill its made-whole duty-under Montana law and
independent of the terms of the Policy. The class recovery at issue
stems not solely from New West's failure to pay amounts owed under
contract, but under the fundamental tenet in Montana law that an
"insurer has been paid for the assumption of the liability for the
claim, and that where the claimant has not been made whole, equity
concludes that it is the insurer which should stand the loss,
rather than the claimant." The class recovery thus does not amount
to expectancy damages from a mere breach of contract, but from New
West's violation of settled Montana law.
At the very least, Allied's attempt to fit the tortious losses of
the class into the "Loss" exclusion of "benefits owed under a
contract" is open to more than one construction. Therefore, the
construction most favorable to New West as the insured must
prevail. Judge Shea holds that the damages stemming from New West's
failure to conduct a made-whole analysis for the class members are
not precluded from indemnification by Allied.
Conclusion
Judge Shea reversed the District Court's holding that Allied is
estopped from asserting the $1 million "each Claim" limit of
liability under the MCEO Policy. He affirmed the District Court's
holding that Allied's "Loss" provision does not preclude its
indemnity obligation of the class' damages.
The matter is remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with the Opinion.
Mike McGrath, Beth Baker, Ingrid Gustafson and Dirk M. Sandefur
concurred. Jim Rice, Concurred. Justice Laurie Mckinnon,
dissented.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yfpj7kfh from Leagle.com.
Martha Sheehy -- msheehy@sheehylawfirm.com -- Sheehy Law Firm,
Billings, Montana Randall G. Nelson, Nelson Law Firm, in Billings,
Montana, For Appellees Dana Rolan and the class she represents:
Erik B. Thueson, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana, for Appellant
Allied World Assurance Company.
Robert Lukes -- rclukes@GARLINGTON.COM -- Garlington, Lohn &
Robinson, Missoula, Montana, Gary M. Zadick, Ugrin Alexander Zadick
P.C., in Great Falls, Montana, for Appellee New West Health
Services.
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Capobianco Seeks Provisional Status of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET CAPOBIANCO, et
al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06125-LDH-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure granting provisional certification of the proposed Class
comprised of:
"all present and future pre-arraignment detainees in the City
of New York's Central Booking facilities for the purposes of
preliminary injunctive relief, including, but not limited to,
that sought by the Plaintiffs in the December 30, 2021 motion
and stipulated by the Parties and So- Ordered by the
Court on January 6, 2022."
The Plaintiffs include Bridget Capobianco, Alex Leroy, Christian
Batista, Khalifa Fall, Maria Campaz, Moe Tahat, Francisco Diaz,
Charles Morris, Ryan Lewis, Anthony Cangemi, Michael Bosco, Gary
Abrams, Jisoo Sun, Clayton Tapp, Destiny Perez, Ona Kelsay, Joseph
Petillo, Justin Tagliavia, Arthur Dul, Nicholas Vitale, Johnny
Luzincourt, Margo Woodley, Glenda Shea MacDonald, Jessica Williams,
Ryan Porter, Destiny Moreno, Jayquan Johnson, Dylan Richardson,
Lionel Alvarez, Jurard St. Hillaire, Kevon Yard- Providence, Sidney
Louis, Troy Daniels, Ren Jeffrey, Pedersin Pelissier, Hensworth
Edwards, Gregory Maugeri, Paul Simpson, William Gorman, Rousz
DeLuca, and Jose Roman.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3noLrrh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Cardinale, Esq.
26 Court Street, Suite # 1507
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 624-9391
- and -
Stephen Bergstein, Esq.
BERGSTEIN & ULLRICH
5 Paradies Lane
New Paltz, NY 12561
Telephone: (845) 469-1277
- and -
Catherine E. Anderson
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
NOR-CAL BEVERAGE: Ocampo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICARDO ALEXANDER OCAMPO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOR-CAL BEVERAGE CO.,
INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01226173-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on January 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-00023 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages owed, failure to pay all
overtime wages owed, failure to provide meal periods or pay in lieu
thereof, failure to provide rest periods or pay in lieu thereof,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
timely pay all wages owed, failure to pay wages timely to separated
employees, failure to provide a day of rest, and unfair
competition.
Nor-Cal Beverage Co., Inc. is a beverage manufacturer based in West
Sacramento, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
Saniya Ahmed, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Telephone: (628) 218-3800
Facsimile: (628) 877-0107
E-mail: ebronchetti@mwe.com
sahmed@mwe.com
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jewell Hillery, writing for WGN9, reports that Northwestern and the
University of Chicago were named in a recent class-action lawsuit,
accused of being a part of a network of elite schools reducing
financial aid to middle and lower class families.
The prestigious local universities were named with the likes of
Yale and Vanderbilt -- alleging an illegal conspiracy by
overcharging financial aid recipients.
The lawsuit claims the defendants "by their own admission have
participated in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or
eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that fact
has artificially inflated the net price for students receiving
aid."
The lawsuit alleges the group of 16 universities conspired for
almost 20 years to overcharge 170,000 financial aid recipients by
at least "hundreds of millions of dollars."
Additionally, according to the lawsuit, at least nine of the
schools, including Northwestern, have favored wealthy applicants.
"As gatekeepers to the American dream, the schools have put the
burden of the overcharges on low- and middle-income families
struggling to afford the cost of a university education. We will
fight to recover those overcharges for students and their
families.," one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs said.
In response for comment, both Northwestern and the University of
Chicago said they do not comment on pending litigation. [GN]
OAKLAND, CA: Class Certification Sought in Anti Police-Terror Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTI POLICE-TERROR
PROJECT, COMMUNITY READY CORPS, AKIL RILEY, IAN McDONNELL, NICO
NADA, AZIZE NGO, and JENNIFER LI, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police
Chief SUSAN E. MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES, OPD
Officer MAXWELL D'ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Case No.
3:20-cv-03866-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the class defined as follows:
"All persons injured by tear gas deployed by the Oakland
Police Department or its mutual aid partners during the
George Floyd protests on May 29-31, and June 1, 2020,
while protesting peacefully in the City of Oakland, with
respect to their claims against the City of Oakland for
violations of their rights under the First Amendment,
Fourth Amendment (excessive force), and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and their
state law claims of assault and battery, negligence, and
violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1);"
2. appointing plaintiffs Akil Riley, Maria Gisella Ramirez,
Michael Cooper, Leila Mottley, Christine Stewart, Tayah
Stewart, Qiaochu Zhang, and Jonathan Farmer as class
representatives; and
3. appointing Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta, Walter Riley, and
James Burch as class counsel.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K4lLKn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
WALTER RILEY, SBN 95919
LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY
1407 Webster Street, Suite 206
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 451-1422
Facsimile: (510) 451-0406
E-mail: walterriley@rrrandw.com
- and -
Dan Siegel, Esq.
Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq.
jane brunner, Esq.
Sonya Z. Mehta, Esq.
Emilyrose Johns, Esq.
Andrew Chan Kim, Esq.
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com
abweills@gmail.com
janebrunner@hotmail.com
sonyamehta@siegelyee.com
emilyrose@siegelyee.com
chankim@siegelyee.com
- and -
James Douglas Burch, Esq.
National Lawyers Guild
558 Capp Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104
E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.
WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
601 Bayshore Blvd Ste 910
Tampa, FL 33606-2786
Telephone: 813-225-4000
Facsimile: 813-225-4010
E-mail: kevin@wagnerlaw.com
OHIO SECURITY: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATEASE GORDON v. OHIO
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a OSS INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01956-PAG
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Patrticia Ganghan entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the present Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective action and provide notice to the
putative class members of Plaintiff's FLSA claims, on
behalf of:
"The Stipulated Conditional Collective Class comprised of
former and current security employees, including security
officers, who were employed by Defendant at any time
during the period beginning January 1, 2019 through the
present;"
2. designating Plaintiff Latease Gordon as representative of
the Stipulated Conditional Class; and
3. appointing the law firm of the Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC as
interim class counsel.
Ohio Security was founded in 1967. The Company's line of business
includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rkYifw at no extra charge.[CC]
ORR MOTORS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Joseph Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIRE JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORR MOTORS OF WACO TWO, INC. d/b/a GREG MAY
HYUNDAI, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00017 (W.D. Tex., January 6,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent prerecorded messages
to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number in an attempt to
market its business without obtaining prior express written
consent. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.
Orr Motors of Waco Two, Inc., doing business as Greg May Hyundai,
is an operator of a car dealership, with its principal office
located in McLennan County, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Howard G. Smith Reminds of February 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 10 disclosed that investors
with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities
fraud class action lawsuit against Paysafe Limited ("Paysafe" or
the "Company") f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp. II ("FTAC")
(NYSE: PSFE, BFT).
Class Period: December 7, 2020 - November 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022
Shareholders with $200,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm.
Investors suffering losses on their Paysafe investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Paysafe was
being negatively impacted by gambling regulations in key European
markets; (2) that Paysafe was encountering performance challenges
in its Digital Wallet segment; (3) that new eCommerce customer
agreements were being pushed back; and (4) 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.
To be a member of the class action 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 action. If you wish to
learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Howard
G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Lee Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PetroQuest Energy
LLC. The case is styled as Philip Lee, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PetroQuest Energy LLC, Case No.
5:22-mc-00001-G (W.D. Okla., Jan. 10, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash and for Protective
Order.
PetroQuest Energy, Inc. -- https://www.petroquest.com/ -- is an
independent energy company engaged in the exploration, development,
acquisition and production of oil and natural gas reserves in Texas
and Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2770
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
POTPOURRI GROUP: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potpourri Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Potpourri Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00173 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Potpourri Group, Inc. -- https://www.potpourrigroup.com/ -- retails
various catalogs. The Company prints multi-title catalogs for home
decor gifts, jewelry, kitchenware, seasonal products, pet
accessories, and home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hernandez Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Angela Hernandez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00080-JMC (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Paul J Doolittle, Esq.
JEKEL DOOLITTLE
PO Box 2579
Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: (843) 654-7700
Fax: (843) 567-1129
Email: paul@j-dlaw.com
PURE SEASONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Seasons, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pure Seasons, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00130 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pure Seasons, Inc. is the parent company of PureCostumes.com --
https://www.purecostumes.com/ -- who sells Halloween costume for
adults, teens, children, and toddlers.[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
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Summary Judgment on Claims Left in Mueller Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PENELOPE MUELLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. PURITAN'S
PRIDE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied across the board Puritan's
Pride's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' remaining
claims in the class action.
Background
Puritan's Pride markets and sells vitamins and supplements to
consumers through catalogs, email, mail and a website. It sells
most of its products under buy-one-get-one (BOGO) promotions, which
the Plaintiffs challenge as deceptive. The Plaintiffs alleged that
these promotions were misleading because the price of the offered
"free" products were built into the price of the purchased non-free
product(s).
The Court has dismissed the claims under New York state law. It
granted Puritan's Pride summary judgment baring the recovery of
damages under the False Advertising Law (FAL) and restitution and
denied Puritan's Pride's motion for summary judgment on actual
damages under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
The Court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) for injunctive relief in connection with plaintiffs' CLRA
and California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims. Class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary relief was denied.
The present motion for summary judgment addresses the merits of the
Plaintiffs' deceptive practices claims under the UCL and CLRA.
Discussion
A. Consumer Deception
Puritan's Pride says summary judgment is warranted because the
Plaintiffs have not adduced evidence to establish that reasonable
consumers would be deceived by Puritan's Pride's BOGO promotions,
as required by the UCL and CLRA. Claims under the UCL and CLRA are
"governed by the 'reasonable consumer' test." Under that standard,
plaintiffs must "show that members of the public are likely to be
deceived."
The question of consumer deception is a factual one and the record
has enough disputed evidence for a trial. The evidence includes,
among other items: (1) the declarations and depositions of the
named Plaintiffs, which establish that they were misled by the BOGO
promotions; (2) Puritan's Pride's internal marketing research,
which shows that consumers responded favorably to the BOGO
promotions and returned to Puritan's Pride's website because of the
promotions; and (3) work by Brian Bergmark, an expert retained by
the Plaintiffs who analyzed sales data from Puritan's Pride to
opine that almost all of Puritan's Pride's sales were BOGO
purchases. Judge Donato holds that this evidence, along with
similar records, is subject to a genuine issue of material fact
that forestalls summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs additionally rely on the expert report of Dr. Larry
Compeau, as evidence of whether a reasonable consumer would be
deceived by Puritan's Pride's BOGO promotions. Puritan's Pride
previously requested to strike portions of Dr. Compeau's report.
The Court denied the request without prejudice and indicated that
the objections to Dr. Compeau's report would be revisited as
warranted. Judge Donato again declines to consider the request to
strike portions of Dr. Compeau's report and relies solely on the
unchallenged portions of the report.
The portions of the report that Puritan's Pride does not seek to
strike buttress the showing of triable issues of fact. For example,
Dr. Compeau opines that the advertised BOGO prices "are always
deceptive" and "likely to enhance consumers perceptions of value
and likelihood of purchases." Compeau also says that "the use of
external reference prices increase consumers' perceptions of the
value of the deal and decrease consumers' intentions to search for
a lower price." Dr. Compeau concludes that because Puritan's Pride
does not make a substantial number of sales at its reference
prices, the reference prices in the BOGO offers lack veracity.
These opinions according to Judge Donato add fuel to the trial
fire.
B. UCL Unlawful Prong
Puritan's Pride also seeks summary judgment on the grounds that
there is no predicate unlawful conduct to sustain a claim under the
UCL's "unlawful" prong. The UCL defines unfair competition as "any
unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice." he UCL's
unlawful prong "borrows violations of other laws and treats them as
unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes
independently actionable."
Puritan's Pride says that, because the Court concluded that the FAL
does not apply to the case, the only remaining predicate for the
UCL claim is the FTC Guide, which is not a law within the meaning
of the statute. Judge Donato need not decide that question because
he says, the Plaintiffs have ample grounds to maintain the UCL
claim on the basis of violations of the CLRA. Puritan's Pride tries
to sidestep this result by saying it should win the CLRA claim, but
that is part of the disputed issues of fact that need to be tried.
Conclusion
Summary judgment is denied across the board. A status conference
has been scheduled for Jan. 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The joint
status conference statement should include the parties' agreement
on dates for the pretrial conference and trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/23uehrhm from Leagle.com.
QUAIL LODGE: Faces Perez PAGA Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUAIL LODGE, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 22STCV00572 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorney General
Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, including
overtime hours worked; failure to provide timely meal breaks;
failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide place of
employment that is safe and healthful; failure to reimburse for
required business expenses; failure to pay accrued vacation upon
separation; failure to timely pay all wages owed; and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain accurate
payroll records.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in
California until July 13, 2021.
Quail Lodge, Inc. is an owner and operator of a resort and golf
club in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and –
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proactive reports that investors in Robinhood Markets Inc
(NASDAQ:HOOD) were hardly overwhelmed with positivity as the
trading-app maker asked a Miami court to dismiss a suit alleging
fraud and market manipulation related to temporary restrictions on
trading in so-called 'meme stocks' amid volatile markets in early
2021.
A class-action brought by a group of traders that could not buy
whilst some shares -- including GameStop and AMC Entertainment --
were subject to trading restrictions on the platform between
January 28 and February 4 2021.
Customers could not buy certain shares at times and there were also
restrictions on the number of shares that could be bought for those
in-demand securities during that period.
Reuters, in a report, noted that in its motion to dismiss the suit
Robinhood claimed that it did not stand to profit from lower share
prices caused by restrictions and said that the temporary limits
were publicly announced and were therefore not deceptive.[GN]
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Nagar Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman LLC.
The case is styled as Sharon Nagar, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Rubin & Rothman LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00131 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rubin & Rothman -- https://www.rubinrothman.com/ -- is a firm that
takes pride in working with people every day to start a path
forward to financial recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAULA MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01757, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on January 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-00037 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's breach of express warranties,
fraudulent concealment, and violations of the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and
the California's False Advertising Law by allegedly manufacturing
and selling defective black stainless steel kitchen appliances.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a consumer electronics
manufacturer, with its principal place of business at Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Azar, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Suite PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (213) 617-1200
E-mail: dazar@milberg.com
- and –
Jared H. Beck, Esq.
Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
8306 Mills Drive, #248
Miami, FL 33183
Telephone: (305) 234-2060
E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
elizabeth@beckandlee.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA DeSIMONE and DEBORAH R. SNOWDEN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-3837 (PKC)
(TAM) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading.
Introduction
Plaintiffs DeSimone and Snowden bring the putative class action
against the Defendant, the company that serviced their mortgage
loans on behalf of a non-party lender. The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f, by charging
transaction fees of $5 to $15 when the Plaintiffs sought to make
their mortgage payments by direct debit from their bank accounts
("EZ Pay fees"). The Plaintiffs also allege breach of contract and
other state law claims.
Background
Plaintiff DeSimone is a New York resident and Plaintiff Snowden is
a Maryland resident. The Defendant is a residential loan servicing
company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and "is licensed by
the State of New York as a Mortgage Servicer and Mortgage Servicer
Branch."
The Defendant "enters into service agreements with lenders, note
holders, and trustees pursuant to which it provides servicing and
agency activities for loan portfolios." It "acts as the agent to
the lenders, note holders, and trustees," and "exercises the rights
and responsibilities of those lenders and/or note holders pursuant
to their approval." The Defendant "generally services distressed
loans."
At least since 2017, the Defendant has serviced Plaintiffs'
mortgage loans on behalf of its lender principal, Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co. In 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the Defendant
charged Plaintiffs EZ Pay fees ranging from $5 to $15 "each time
they paid their mortgages by direct debit from their bank
accounts." On two occasions, the Defendant charged Plaintiff
DeSimone EZ Pay fees while "attempting to collect allegedly past
due debts," and it informed DeSimone both times that "this is an
attempt to collect a debt."
On Aug. 20, 2020, Plaintiff DeSimone and Gabriel Rogers sued the
Defendant in the case on behalf of a putative class alleging, among
other causes of action, violations of the FDCPA. On Nov. 9, 2020,
the Defendant moved for a pre-motion conference seeking to dismiss
the complaint.
On Feb. 5, 2021, Plaintiffs DeSimone and Snowden filed the Amended
Complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative class and
subclasses, alleging that the Defendant had (1) violated the FDCPA,
(2) breached certain contracts, (3) violated the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, (4) violated New York General Business Law
Section 349, (5) violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection
Act, and (6) violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
On Feb. 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a letter indicating its
intent to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court directed
the parties to brief the proposed motion to dismiss. On May 7,
2021, the motion was fully briefed.
Discussion
I. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated Sections 1692e
and 1692f of the FDCPA. The Defendant contends that "the FDCPA
cannot apply to Snowden, under any theory, because she does not
plausibly allege that her loan was in default at the time the
Defendant obtained servicing rights to her loan." Although the
Defendant limits this argument to Plaintiff Snowden, it appears to
apply to Plaintiff DeSimone also.
Judge Chen finds that the Amended Complaint fails to specify when
Defendant began servicing either the Plaintiff's loan, let alone
whether the Plaintiffs' loans were in default at those times.
Because the Amended Complaint "does not allege that the Defendant
acquired the Plaintiffs' debts after they were in default," it
"fails to plausibly allege that the Defendant qualifies as a debt
collector under FDCPA."
Because the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims fail to specify whether their
loans were in default when the Defendant obtained them, those
claims must be dismissed.
II. Plaintiffs' State Law Claims
The Plaintiffs' remaining claims all arise under state law. A
federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over specified
state-law claims, which it may (or may not) choose to exercise." "A
district court's decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction
after dismissing every claim over which it had original
jurisdiction is purely discretionary." Still, "if a plaintiff's
federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state law claims
should be dismissed as well."
Because she will dismiss the Plaintiffs' only federal claims (all
under the FDCPA), Judge Chen declines to exercise jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs' state law claims. The Plaintiffs' state law claims
will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
III. Leave to Amend
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), "leave to amend 'shall
be freely given when justice so requires.'" "It is the usual
practice upon granting a motion to dismiss to allow leave to
replead."
Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs' failure to allege the status
of their loans at the time Defendant began servicing those loans is
readily correctible. She will therefore grant the Plaintiffs leave
to amend their complaint to allege when the Defendant began
servicing their loans and the status of those loans when the
Defendant obtained them. However, it should be clear from the
foregoing discussion that if those loans were not in default when
Defendant began servicing them, any amendment would be futile and
the amended complaint would have to be dismissed.
Conclusion
The Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The
Plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint by Feb. 3, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yjdk7hu6 from Leagle.com.
SHAMROCK SALOON: Final Approval Order in George Suit Due Jan. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGHAN GEORGE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK SALOON II LLC, dba CALICO
JACK'S CANTINA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17 Civ. 6663
(RA) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the
parties to submit a Final Approval Order and Judgment for the
Court's review and endorsement.
The Court held a Telephone Fairness Hearing on Dec. 21, 2021, to
determine whether to grant final approval to the parties'
Settlement Agreement.
On Jan. 4, 2022, the parties consented to the Court's jurisdiction
over the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
the Motion for an Incentive Award and Attorneys' Fees & Costs, and
the Honorable Ronnie Abrams referred the Motions to Judge Cave in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c).
By close of business on Jan. 14, 2022, the parties must submit, for
the Court's review and endorsement, a Final Approval Order and
Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4upa9jca from Leagle.com.
SILVER WHEATON: Court Denies Leave in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Gelowitz, Esq., Craig Lockwood, Esq., and Lipi Mishra,
Esq., of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that on January 5, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice denied leave to commence a secondary market securities
class proceeding under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act in
Poirier v. Silver Wheaton Corp. et al., 2022 ONSC 80.[1] Justice
Akbarali's reasons address the high bar that the courts have
imposed at the leave stage and confirmed the courts' "important
gatekeeping role" in determining whether the proposed action can be
said to have a reasonable possibility of success. In this regard,
the decision reiterates the courts' obligation to undertake "a
reasoned consideration of the evidence to ensure that the action
has some merit."
Background
The plaintiff, a secondary market purchaser of securities, claimed
that Silver Wheaton Corp. (now Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.)
(Wheaton Canada or the Company) failed to properly disclose a tax
liability in its financial statements and public disclosures and,
in particular, misled the putative class about the likelihood that
the Company would be exposed to an eventual tax liability in
relation to an ongoing audit by the Canada Revenue Agency (the
CRA). While the Company at all times disclosed the risk of a
reassessment by the CRA and the potential for additional tax
liabilities, the plaintiff argued that management's assessment of
this risk was unduly "optimistic". The plaintiff alleged that it
was only after Wheaton Canada issued a press release announcing the
CRA's delivery of a proposal letter that the public was truly able
to appreciate the nature and extent of the risk, pointing to the
drop in share price following this public announcement as evidence
of this allegedly inadequate disclosure.
The CRA's eventual reassessment of Wheaton Canada, which became the
subject of a lengthy tax appeal, was ultimately resolved in the
Company's favour.[2] Accordingly, the Company's forward-looking
public statements, including its continued confidence in its
internal tax structures, were ultimately validated. Nevertheless,
the proposed representative plaintiff subsequently sought leave
pursuant to Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act to commence an
action against Wheaton Canada and two of its executives for alleged
misrepresentations in its public disclosure documents and financial
statements. The plaintiff also sought certification of a class
proceeding advancing Securities Act claims, and common law claims
in negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Justice Akbarali's reasons
In her reasons, Justice Akbarali sided entirely with the Company on
all issues and ultimately denied leave, finding that the plaintiff
failed to discharge her evidentiary burden to establish that there
was a reasonable possibility that the action would be resolved at
trial in her favour.
No credible evidentiary basis for the claim
In support of its application for leave, the plaintiff relied on
the evidence of a former employee of a subsidiary of Wheaton
Canada, as well as two expert reports filed in relation to various
tax and accounting issues. Given that both experts expressly relied
on one another, as well as the veracity of the former employee's
evidence, Justice Akbarali noted that the plaintiff's evidentiary
record was comprised of three witnesses whose evidence was "stacked
like a precarious Jenga tower". On the basis of her review of this
interwoven evidentiary record, the judge ultimately concluded that
the plaintiff's evidence was fundamentally flawed in a number of
material respects:
-- the plaintiff's fact evidence: While Justice Akbarali
ultimately found the former employee's evidence to be admissible,
she ascribed it no weight as it was "neither credible nor
reliable".
-- the expert evidence: Justice Akbarali found that both of the
plaintiff's expert reports were inadmissible on various grounds,
including a lack of relevant expertise and a demonstrated lack of
impartiality. Conversely, she accepted the Company's expert's
qualifications and opinion as to the Company's compliance with the
applicable accounting standards. Justice Akbarali concluded that
"there is no credible evidence that Wheaton Canada had a probable
tax liability that it was required to disclose on its financial
statements, or that the financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with applicable accounting standards."
No public correction
Having found that there was no credible evidence to support the
plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation, Justice Akbarali also
found that there was no "public correction" in this case. She noted
that the alleged corrective disclosure could not reasonably be
construed as "correcting" anything, but rather was entirely
consistent with the disclosure that had preceded it.
Justice Akbarali noted that this finding of an absence of a public
correction was not necessary to her conclusion that there was
otherwise no reasonable possibility that the action would resolve
in favour of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lack of an
identifiable public correction was supportive of her conclusion
that there was no credible evidence supporting the plaintiff's
evidentiary theory about the alleged misrepresentation. She further
found that the impugned statements were not capable of amounting to
a misrepresentation in this case.
On the basis of her analysis, Justice Akbarali offered the
following concluding remarks: "Finding liability for accurately
disclosing management's real and, as proven in hindsight,
reasonable, assessment of the potential tax liability would not
incentivize accurate and timely disclosure by public issuers. Such
a result would only confuse public issuers, leading to uncertainty
that would most likely degrade the quality of disclosure issuers
would provide to the market."
Certification
Having denied leave under the Securities Act, Justice Akbarali
reviewed the plaintiff's request to nonetheless certify the common
law claims. She dismissed this request on a number of grounds, most
notably on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable
procedure because of the multiplicity of individual issues.
On the basis of all of the foregoing, Justice Akbarali dismissed
the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed with her claim under s.
138.3(1) of the Securities Act and declined to certify the
plaintiff's remaining claims as a class proceeding on the basis
that:
-- a class action was not the preferable procedure to resolve
the common law claims
-- no proposed representative plaintiff had a claim against the
defendants that would allow a claim under s. 130 of the Securities
Act to also proceed
-- the common law claims and the s. 130 claim did not disclose a
reasonable cause of action as the plaintiff had not pleaded a
statement that was capable of being a misrepresentation
Key takeaways
This case is a helpful reminder that the leave requirement for
secondary market misrepresentation claims remains a meaningful
screening device and a robust gatekeeping tool. In addition, the
decision highlights the evidentiary burden imposed on plaintiffs
seeking to bring such proceedings, particularly in the context of
forward-looking statements by management about future risks. Among
other things, the case highlights the fact that a failure to
properly plead identifiable public misrepresentations, supported by
credible evidence, may be fatal to a proposed securities class
action. [GN]
SIMPLY FRAMED: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simply Framed, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Simply Framed, L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-00129 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Simply Framed -- https://simplyframed.com/ -- is the easiest way to
custom frame your art, photos, posters and certificates
online.[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
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Navarro Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arnold Navarro, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., SmileDirectClub, LLC,
Jeffrey Sulitzer, Case No. 21CV003537, was removed from the Alameda
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Jan. 6, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00095-JCS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
SmileDirectClub -- https://smiledirectclub.com/ -- is a
teledentistry company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Dominic Meuti, Esq.
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2300
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (650) 468-3160
Fax: (216) 363-4588
Email: mmeuti@beneschlaw.com
SOPHISTIPLATE LLC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sophistiplate, LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Sophistiplate, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00134 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sophistiplate & Simply Baked -- https://www.sophistiplate.com/ --
are devoted to the art of entertaining.[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
TALIS BIOMEDICAl: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 10 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California captioned Modrak v. Talis
Biomedical Corporation, et al., (Case No. 22-cv-105) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Talis
Biomedical Corporation ("Talis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLIS)
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's February 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until March 8, 2022 to
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
In February 2021, Talis completed its IPO, selling 15,870,000
shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share.
On March 8, 2021, Talis announced that it had withdrawn its EUA
application for the Talis One COVID-19 test. In a press release,
the Company revealed that "[i]n late February, the FDA informed the
company that it cannot ensure the comparator assay used in the
primary study has sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's EUA
application." As a result, Talis "intends to initiate its
previously planned clinical validation study in a point-of-care
environment" to submit its EUA application "early in the second
quarter of 2021." This study "was designed with a different
comparator study, which Talis believes will address the FDA's
concerns."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80, or 12%, to
close at $12.85 per share on March 8, 2021.
Then, on August 10, 2021, Talis revealed that its "development
timelines have been extended by delays in the launching of
[Talis's] COVID-19 test and manufacturing scale." As a result,
Talis "expect[s] to see [its] first meaningful revenue ramp in
2022."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.58, or 6%, to close
at $8.39 per share on August 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, Talis announced that
its Chief Executive Officer, Brian Coe, had "stepped down" as
President, CEO, and Director. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $1.00, or 11%, to close at $8.06 per share on August 31,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On November 15, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser was
appointed as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of
Talis effective December 1, 2021. However, a week after his
appointment, on December 8, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser
had stepped down from his positions. On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $0.55 per share, or more than 11%, to close at
$4.28 per share on December 8, 2021.
By the commencement of this action, Talis stock has traded as low
as $3.81 per share, a more than 76% decline from the $16 per share
IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the comparator assay in the primary
study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's EUA
application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result,
Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining
regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's commercialization timeline would be
significantly delayed; and (4) 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.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
If you purchased Talis common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 8, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Talis common stock, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 10 disclosed that
purchasers of Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS) common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Talis Biomedical's February 12, 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO") have until March 8, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in Modrak v. Talis Biomedical Corporation, No.
22-cv-00105 (N.D. Cal.). Commenced on January 7, 2022, the Talis
Biomedical class action lawsuit charges Talis Biomedical, certain
of its top executives and directors, as well as the underwriters of
Talis Biomedical's IPO with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit, please
provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact
attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit must be filed with the court
no later than March 8, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Talis Biomedical purportedly develops diagnostic
tests to enable accurate, reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular
testing for infectious diseases and other conditions at the
point-of-care. The Talis One tests are being developed for
respiratory infections, infections related to women's health, and
sexually transmitted infections. Through the IPO, Talis Biomedical
sold more than 15.8 million shares of common stock at a price of
$16.00 per share. Talis Biomedical received net proceeds of
approximately $232.6 million from the IPO.
The Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's
Registration Statement failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient
sensitivity to support Talis Biomedical's Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") application for the Talis One COVID-19 test;
(ii) as a result, Talis Biomedical was reasonably likely to
experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis
One COVID-19 test; (iii) thus, Talis Biomedical's commercialization
timeline would be significantly delayed; and (iv) consequently,
defendants' positive statements about Talis Biomedical's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On March 8, 2021, Talis Biomedical announced that it had withdrawn
its EUA application for the Talis One COVID-19 test. In a press
release, Talis Biomedical revealed that "[i]n late February, the
[U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")] informed the company
that it cannot ensure the comparator assay used in the primary
study has sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's EUA
application." As a result, Talis Biomedical "intends to initiate
its previously planned clinical validation study in a point-of-care
environment" to submit its EUA application "early in the second
quarter of 2021." This study "was designed with a different
comparator assay, which Talis believes will address the FDA's
concerns." On this news, Talis Biomedical's stock price fell
approximately 12%.
Then, on August 10, 2021, Talis Biomedical revealed that its
"development time lines have been extended by delays in the
launching of [Talis Biomedical's] COVID-19 test and manufacturing
scale." As a result, Talis Biomedical "expect[s] to see [its] first
meaningful revenue ramp in 2022." On this news, Talis Biomedical's
stock price fell an additional 6%.
Thereafter, on August 30, 2021, Talis Biomedical announced that its
Chief Executive Officer, defendant Brian Coe, had "stepped down" as
President, CEO, and Director. On this news, Talis Biomedical's
stock price fell another 11%.
Finally, on November 15, 2021, Talis Biomedical announced that
Brian Blaser was appointed as President, Chief Executive Officer,
and Director of Talis Biomedical effective December 1, 2021.
However, a week after his appointment, on December 8, 2021, Talis
Biomedical announced that Blaser had stepped down from his
positions. On this news, Talis Biomedical's stock price fell an
additional 11%, further damaging investors.
By the commencement of the Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit,
Talis Biomedical's shares traded as low as $3.81 per share, a more
than 76% decline from the $16.00 per share IPO price.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits purchasers of Talis Biomedical common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Talis Biomedical class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Talis Biomedical class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving
as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
TALKSPACE INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who held
Talkspace, Inc. ("Talkspace" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TALK,
TALKW) common stock as of the record date for the June 17, 2021
special meeting to consider approval of the merger between Hudson
Executive Investment Corporation ("HEIC") and Talkspace (the
"Merger") and entitled to vote on the Merger (the "Class").
Talkspace investors have until March 8, 2022 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Talkspace investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On May 28, 2021, Talkspace and HEIC issued a proxy statement
soliciting votes in favor of the Merger. Following stockholder
approval, the Merger was consummated on June 22, 2021.
On August 9, 2021, Talkspace announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, including "elevated customer acquisition cost,
due mainly to a material increase in the cost of digital
advertising." Then, on November 15, 2021, Talkspace announced third
quarter 2021 financial results that "came in below expectations
management shared with investors on [its] last earnings call." Also
on November 15, 2021, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Oren
Frank, and Head of Clinical Services, Roni Frank, resigned.
By December 30, 2021, the price of Talkspace common stock was
trading below $2 per share, 80% below the price shareholders would
have received if they had redeemed their shares instead of
approving the Merger less than one year earlier.
The complaint filed alleges that the proxy statement was materially
misleading because it failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
Talkspace was experiencing significantly increased online
advertising costs in its business-to-consumer ("B2C") channel since
the start of 2021; (2) Talkspace was experiencing lower conversion
rates in its online advertising in its B2C business; (3) Talkspace
was experiencing increased customer acquisition costs and more
tepid B2C demand than represented to investors; (4) Talkspace was
suffering from ballooning customer acquisition costs and worsening
growth and gross margin trends; (5) Talkspace had overvalued its
accounts receivables from certain of its health plan clients in its
business-to-business channel, which amounts required adjustment
downward; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Talkspace's 2021
financial guidance was not achievable and lacked any reasonable
basis in fact.
If you held Talkspace common stock as of the record date for the
June 17, 2021 special meeting, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
TNUVA FOOD: Judge Dismisses Two Excessive Pricing Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irit Brodsky, Esq., of Barnea Jaffa Lande & Co., in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in December 2021, the Jerusalem District
Court dismissed two motions to certify a class action against the
leading dairy manufacturer in Israel, Tnuva, for charging excessive
prices. Both the motion and the dismissal are part of an intense
dispute for years. The dispute revolves around whether the
prohibition of a monopolist charging an "unfair" price applies to
charging excessive fees. In 2014, the director-general of the
Competition Authority published a public statement on the
prohibition of excessive pricing by a monopoly.
The "Safe Harbor" Test
This statement took an affirmative view of the question and
prescribed parameters for examining the fairness of a price. The
statement prescribed a "safe harbor" test, whereby a price not
exceeding 20% above the recognized costs shall not be subject to
prohibition enforcement. Since the publication of the public
statement, numerous motions have been filed with the courts to
certify class actions over excessive pricing. In 2017, the
Competition Authority published an updated statement after
re-examining the issue. It determined to engage in moderate
enforcement of the prohibition of unfair high pricing and focus on
instances when the benefit of enforcement outweighs the damage
involved.
Regarding both recognition of the cause of action and the
conditions for applying it, the dispute is currently under
deliberation by the Israeli Supreme Court. The most dramatic ruling
expected is on the certification of a class action against the
Central Bottling Company for excessive pricing of Coca-Cola
bottles. The Attorney General submitted a position in that
proceeding, believing it correct to acknowledge the existence of
excessive pricing as a cause of action but to apply this carefully
and with restraint.
In parallel, in November 2021, the Competition Authority announced
its intention to institute enforcement proceedings against MBI
Pharma for charging an unfairly high price, subject to a hearing
[See our previous update here].
Tnuva case ruling
The Honorable Judge Tamar Bazak-Rapaport, head of the Competition
Tribunal, handed down the Jerusalem District Court ruling. The
ruling referred to two motions filed in 2014 by Prof. Yaron Zelekha
to certify a class action against Tnuva. The motions claimed that
Tnuva charged excessive prices for 5% white cheese and 38% and 32%
sweet cream.
The District Court chose to rule on the issue of whether the cause
of action of excessive pricing exists and how to apply it. It did
so even though the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The
District Court explained that it did not deem it fitting to delay
the proceedings underway considering their long duration and the
movant's objection to a stay of proceedings.
The starting point in the ruling was that Israeli law recognizes
the prohibition against a monopolist charging a high and unfair
price. Nevertheless, the Court dismissed the motions to certify a
class action.
Firstly, it rejected the movant's argument that a lower burden of
proof is imposed on him at the motion to certify stage, considering
the information gaps between the parties. The District Court
referred to the extent of the disclosures in the case at hand.
Tnuva exposed the movant and his attorneys to extensive data and
document during the disclosures. The court ruled that, under these
circumstances, it is not warranted to rule that a reduced burden of
proof is imposed on the movant and that the opposite might be the
case.
Relevant Markets
Secondly, the court ruled that no reasonable foundation was proven
to determine that Tnuva has a monopoly on each product specified in
the motions to certify. According to the ruling, the relevant
market was not defined for each of the various products. In the
relevant market, the product under examination itself will be found
alongside the most limited group of products that are significant
direct substitutes for such product in the consumer's eyes. Since
no relevant market was defined, the existence of Tnuva's
monopolistic position in relation to each of the products was not
examined. The court ruled that the movant could not rely on the
Competition Authority's 1988 declaration of Tnuva as holding a
monopoly on "dairy products." The court explained that that
declaration does not prove the existence of a monopoly when the
relevant market concerns specific dairy products and not the "dairy
market" as a whole.
The Two-Stage Test
Thirdly, and primarily, the District Court rejected the argument
that the Competition Law prohibits charging a higher price than the
market price, per se. The court ruled that the law prohibits
charging a significantly higher price than the market price, and
only if it is also unfair. According to this two-stage test, it is
first necessary to check if there is a significant and blatant
difference between the product's price and the market price. Only
if the answer to this is yes, will the question be if the
difference reaches the point of being "unfair". If so, they might
attest to abuse of monopolistic position. This examination relates
to all relevant data, including the economic value of the product,
the magnitude of the monopolist's market power, entry barriers,
etc.
The court ruled that intervention in the "heart of the free
market," -- the pricing aspects -- poses conceptual and practical
difficulties.
These difficulties lead to a situation where it is appropriate to
define a price as unfair due to its size only in a few clear cases.
According to the ruling, this narrow interpretation is consistent
with the Economic Competition Law. The law does not prohibit
monopolistic activity. It does not require a monopolist to sell at
"market prices" but rather prohibits setting an unfair price level.
The court explained that a monopolist's actions to maximize its
revenues may be legitimate as long as they do not reach
"unfairness." Therefore, a price higher than the theoretical price
set under competitive conditions does not necessarily constitute an
abuse of monopolistic position. It also noted that price control
regulation generally pertains to the price control laws and not to
the competition laws. Furthermore, the court explained there needs
to be a conspicuous difference in prices to justify examining the
fairness of the price within the framework of a civil proceeding
pursuant to the Competition Law.
The court ruled the movant did not prove, even at the prima facie
level needed during the motion to certify stage, that Tnuva had
charged an unfairly high price attesting to abuse of monopolistic
position.
Excessive pricing - where do we go from here?
The District Court's ruling deepens the dispute over unfair high
pricing as a cause of action and its application. Whether or not
the Supreme Court will examine this ruling under an appeal
proceeding has generated significant and emphatic statements. It
remains to be seen if the Supreme Court's decision on this
precedential issue will reflect these statements. It will be
particularly interesting to see which position the Supreme Court
adopts. A narrow interpretation, as expressed by the Jerusalem
District Court, or will it prefer a more expansive interpretation.
[GN]
TRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Bales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triage Healthcare
Staffing, LLC. The case is styled as Shirley Bales, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Triage Healthcare
Staffing, LLC, Case No. BCV-22-100045 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Jan. 6, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Triage Staffing -- https://triagestaff.com/ -- is a leading medical
staffing agency in Omaha providing employment for traveling nurses
and all traveling medical professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ashkan Y. Shakouri, Esq.
SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 5
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1995
Phone: 310-575-1827
Fax: 310-575-1890
Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com
TUDOR GAMES: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tudor Games, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Tudor Games, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00174 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tudor Games -- https://tudorgames.com/ -- is a manufacturer and
distributor of sports games and hobby products led by its flagship
brand, Electric Football.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
UINTA BREWING: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uinta Brewing
Company. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uinta Brewing
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00138 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Uinta Brewing Company -- https://www.uintabrewing.com/ -- is a pub
offering a sandwich menu & craft brews plus a store selling logo
glassware, apparel & beer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
UNILODGE: Class Action in Australia Over Alleged Wage Theft Mulled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Li Giam, writing for Woroni, reports that Adero Law is
investigating alleged wage theft of UniLodge student workers in
preparation for a potential class-action lawsuit. Previous UniLodge
Resident Advisors (RAs) allege that they were underpaid for their
shifts providing after-hours pastoral care.
Prior to 2020, RAs at UniLodge held responsibilities similar to
what current Duty Senior Residents (SRs) have. This included
after-hours pastoral care from letting students who have lost their
keys into their rooms to providing emergency care for medical and
mental health emergencies. RAs also had to do three security rounds
of the hall before 12am.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, ANU Alumni and
former Davey Lodge resident, Gabrielle Magyary stated that because
"[she] started before the intake period and worked for two to three
months before [she] got [her] mental health training," she "ended
up going to mental health crises without any training."
When asked if UniLodge ever responded to Resident Advisors' dispute
of their wages, Magyary explained that UniLodge "made it difficult"
for RAs to "ask for compensation for working more than an hour
overnight." Thus, RAs simply resorted to "accepting that [they]
would be paid the same amount every shift no matter how much the
workload varied." For each on-call shift from 5pm to 8am, RAs were
only paid for three hours, equivalent to remuneration of $100,
Maygary explained.
When the RA position at UniLodge was decommissioned in 2020, the
responsibilities of RAs were designated to SRs. SRs are not staff
members, but instead volunteer staff who are compensated through a
scholarship worth 100% of the rent of a single studio apartment. On
the other hand, RAs were considered staff who were paid for each
shift they completed.
Existing SRs possess their own grievances due to their scholarship
payment arrangement. A 2021-2022 UniLodge Summer SR contacted
Woroni regarding the unfairness of the expectation that SRs
complete duty shifts on public holidays without any additional
compensation. This is in the place of reception staff who would
earn penalty rates in their hourly wages, as opposed to SRs who
receive a set scholarship amount regardless of when they work their
duty shifts.
Unfortunately for SRs, there are limited legal mechanisms for
volunteers to access. For example, current SRs cannot take part in
the class-action lawsuit due to their position being considered as
voluntary, rather than official employment.
Former RA Magyary is expected to lead the class-action as a
claimant. Speaking to Woroni, Magyary detailed her role in the
class-action as involving several interviews with Adero Law,
providing documents such as rosters, correspondence with UniLodge,
and employment contracts. As a lead claimant, Magyary is also
expected to be the "face" of the case, presenting her story in
media coverage.
Adero Law, a law firm specialising in class-action suits, plans to
file the law suit in February. Adero's case rests upon the belief
that UniLodge RAs should have been paid under the Higher Education
Award, rather than the Hospitality Award. Moreover, Adero posits
that "UniLodge in all the circumstances failed to pay for the
actual hours worked by casual employees at their UniLodge sites
constituting an underpayment under Australian Minimum Wage
Standards," even where proceedings were lawful.
Adero Law is currently seeking registrations of interest for anyone
previously or currently employed by UniLodge as a Resident Advisor,
Senior Resident Advisor, or Residential Life Manager.
An ANU spokesperson confirmed to Woroni that the University is
aware of the class-action, but cannot comment on the specifics.
They further iterated that "[the University] would expect all
members of [this] community, including [its] students, to be paid
in accordance with the law."
Dr Lachlan Clohesy, ACT Division Secretary of the National Tertiary
Education Union (NTEU), affirmed that the NTEU: "support[s] these
workers standing up for their rights – it's what union members do
everyday."
Clohesy added that, "in addition to pursuing back pay for
underpayments, the NTEU can work with members to ensure that pay
and conditions are applied properly in the future – as well as
negotiating for improvements."
Additionally, Clohesy informed Woroni that UniLodge "has a duty of
care which extends beyond paid employees" such as SRs, and that the
NTEU "can work with members to ensure a safe workplace." Those
seeking more information on joining the NTEU can email
act@nteu.org.au. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Grimm, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a "cartel"
of elite universities that includes Northwestern, University of
Chicago and Notre Dame conspired to restrict financial aid for
needy students, a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in
Chicago claims.
The three Chicago-area schools have been sued alongside colleges
such as MIT, Duke and Yale as members of a group of top
universities that shared information about students and set up
joint rules to determine the financial need of students. Such
information sharing is allowed if the schools involved agree to
exclusively "need-blind" admissions policies -- meaning students
are admitted based only on their merits, not their family's
finances.
But the lawsuit cites public statements by officials at
Northwestern and Notre Dame and other schools in the organization,
called the 568 Presidents Group, which show that the schools do
consider if prospective students can pay full freight for tuition,
and especially whether their parents are wealthy or influential
enough to make large donations.
The University of Chicago, which dropped out of the 568 Group in
2014, "may or may not" have followed purely need-blind admissions
practices, but should have known other universities in the group
did not, the lawsuit states.
"These elite institutions occupy a place of privilege and
importance in American society," the lawsuit states.
"And yet these same defendants, by their own admission, have
participated in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or
eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that in fact
has artificially inflated the net price of attendance for students
receiving financial aid."
The lawsuit seeks payouts for a pool of as many as 170,000 students
who attended the schools and received financial aid since 2003,
when the 568 Group created its formula for determining financial
need. Two former Northwestern students are among the five named
plaintiffs.
A spokeswoman for Northwestern said university officials would not
comment on pending litigation. Representatives of Notre Dame and
University of Chicago did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The lawsuit cites a 2019 article in the Daily Northwestern, the
school's student newspaper, in which university President Morton
Schapiro told reporters that he personally reviewed several hundred
admissions applications, including some that were "associated with
wealthy donors." In a 2016 magazine article, a former Notre Dame
admissions official said "if someone donated $15 million, then
their children would be given 'some special interest' during the
Notre Dame admissions process."
Undergraduate tuition at Northwestern was more than $58,000 for the
2021-2022 academic year, with the full cost of attendance,
including room and board, totaling nearly $80,000 per year. The
full cost of a year at either University of Chicago or Notre Dame
was more than $80,000. Each school has an endowment of $11 billion
or more. [GN]
VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in Dekker Seek Class Cert. Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERRIE DEKKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., VIVINT SOLAR
DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-07918-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting briefing schedule for the motion for class
certification:
Scheduled Event Current Modified
Deadline Deadline
-- Opposition brief: Jan. 10, 2022 Jan. 27, 2022
-- Reply brief: Jan. 24, 2022 Feb. 10, 2022
-- Hearing date: Feb. 10, 2022 Feb. 24, 2022
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FpEg8t at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
- and -
Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1330 Broadway, Suite 428
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 227-3998
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred Norton, Esq.
Bree Hann, Esq.
George C. Harris, Esq.
Esther Chang, Esq.
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 906-4900
E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com
bhann@nortonlaw.com
gharris@nortonlaw.com
echang@nortonlaw.com
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Proposed Stryker Acquisition Investigated
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Vocera Communications, Inc. (VCRA), relating to its proposed
acquisition by Stryker Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, VCRA
shareholders will receive $79.25 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/vocera-communications-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Castlight Health, Inc. (CSLT), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Vera Whole Health, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CSLT
shareholders will receive $2.05 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/castlight-health-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Enterprise Diversified, Inc. (SYTE), relating to its proposed
merger CrossingBridge Advisors, LLC. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/enterprise-diversified-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Lawson Products, Inc. (LAWS), relating to its merger with LKCM
Headwater Investments' portfolio companies TestEquity and Gexpro
Services. Under the terms of the agreement, LAWS shareholders will
own approximately 47% of the combined company. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/lawson-products-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Aditxt, Inc. (ADTX), relating to its merger with AiPharma Global
Holdings, LLC. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/aditxt-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
Quidel Corp. (QDEL), relating to its merger with Ortho Clinical
Diagnostics Holdings plc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/quidel-corp. 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. Its 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. [GN]
VROOM AUTOMOTIVE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vroom Automotive,
LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vroom Automotive, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vroom -- https://www.vroom.com/ -- is a New York City-based used
car retailer and e-commerce company that enables consumers to buy,
sell and finance cars online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
WALMART INC: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Elletson, writing for Law360, reports that Walmart forced
delivery drivers to take unpaid meal breaks even when they were too
busy to do so, causing them to lose overtime pay, according to a
proposed class action. [GN]
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Aug. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY GONZALEZ, an
individual, v. XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, a limited-liability
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-01704-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto
entered a scheduling Order as follows:
Matter Existing Date New Date
-- Class Certification Jan. 14, 2022 June 14, 2022
Discovery Cut-Off:
-- Last Day to File Motion Jan. 31, 2022 July 5, 2022
for Class Certification:
-- Opposition to Motion for March 2, 2022 Aug. 2, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Reply to Opposition to March 23, 2022 Aug. 23, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Motion for Class March 30, 2022 Aug. 31, 2022
Certification:
-- Further Status July 28, 2022 Nov. 30, 2022
Conference:
Xtreme Manufacturing is a leading manufacturer of heavy equipment &
construction machinery including lifts, loaders, telehandlers &
more.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I1OAVM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
YALE UNIVERSITY: Named Defendant in Financial Aid Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Luc Cohen, writing for Reuters, reports that five U.S. college
graduates have sued 16 major U.S. universities including Yale,
Columbia and the University of Chicago, accusing them of colluding
to limit financial aid to undergraduate students in violation of
antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, saying the
collusion has limited price competition and caused 170,000
financial aid recipients to be overcharged hundreds of millions of
dollars over two decades.
The 16 schools are members of the 568 Presidents Group, a
consortium of colleges that discuss common financial aid
principles.
"Elite, private universities like defendants are gatekeepers to the
American Dream," the plaintiffs wrote. "Defendants' misconduct is
therefore particularly egregious because it has narrowed a critical
pathway to upward mobility."
Yale and Columbia did not respond to requests for comment on
Monday. A University of Chicago spokesperson declined to comment. A
message sent to a website for the 568 President's Group was not
immediately acknowledged.
Tuition increases at private U.S. universities have outpaced
inflation in recent decades, according to the College Board.
Undergraduate tuition at Yale and Columbia for the current academic
year is $59,950 and $60,514, respectively, excluding room and
board, according to the schools' websites.
The lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court seeks unspecified triple
damages for financial aid recipients who have attended the schools
since 2003, as well as for their parents.
Many schools offer financial aid based on family income, known as
need-based aid.
Universities in the 568 Presidents Group say they are need-blind,
meaning they do not consider financial aid in admissions decisions.
[GN]
ZILLOW GROUP: Hillier Sues Over Losses From Stock Price Decline
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON WINSTON HILLIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., RICHARD N.
BARTON, LLOYD D. FRINK, ALLEN W. PARKER, and JEREMY WACKSMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00014 (W.D. Wash., January 6, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission about Zillow Group's business and operations in order to
trade Zillow securities at artificially traded prices between
August 7, 2020, and November 2, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company knew that it
did not have the ability to properly price homes for its Zillow
Offers business; (2) this inability, in addition to labor and
supply shortages, resulted in a backlog of inventory in the Zillow
Offers business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the company was
reasonably likely to wind-down its Zillow Offers business, which
would have a material adverse impact of the company's financial
results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants
positive Class Period statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, the price of Zillow common stock (ZG)
declined $20.24 per share over two trading days, or more than 19
percent, from a close of $105.72 per share on October 29, 2021, to
close at $85.48 per share on November 2, 2021. Similarly, the price
of Zillow capital stock (Z) declined $16.43 per share, or nearly 16
percent, from a close of $103.63 per share on October 29, 2021, to
close at $87.20 per share on November 2, 2021. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting
declines in the market value of the company's securities, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant damages.
Zillow Group, Inc. is an American online real estate marketplace
company, with its principal executive offices located in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
John A. Tondini, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-2000
Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com
jtondini@byrneskeller.com
- and –
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
ksauder@ktmc.com
[*] 16 U.S. Elite Private Universities Face Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
568Cartel.com disclosed that a group of national law firms with
extensive antitrust experience on Jan. 10 filed an antitrust class
action lawsuit against 16 of the country's most elite, private
universities, alleging that they have unlawfully conspired to
reduce the amount of financial aid they provide to admitted
students, effectively fixing the net price of attendance.
The Complaint alleges that, through their membership in a formal
cartel, these 16 universities
1. Have agreed to fix the net price of attendance;
2. Have invoked an exemption from the antitrust laws to which they
are not entitled; and
3. Have effectively impeded discovery of this misconduct and of the
resulting injury to the proposed class.
The Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, where the unlawful cartel has met.
"We have conducted a multi-year investigation of these practices,
which we allege are unlawful, and we plan to vindicate the rights
of more than 170,000 financial aid students and their families whom
we believe have been overcharged by these elite universities," said
Robert D. Gilbert, who has represented major corporate clients for
more than three decades.
The Complaint alleges that the universities' conduct falls outside
a limited antitrust exemption allowing only those universities
using need-blind admissions policies to "to use common principles
of analysis for determining the need of such students for financial
aid." The exemption, in Section 568 of the Higher Education Act,
defines "need-blind" to mean "without regard to the financial
circumstances of the student involved or the student's family."
The Complaint alleges that, contrary to the exemption, at least
nine of the Defendants have been systematically favoring wealthy
applicants in making admissions decisions and that the others were
part of same cartel. The Complaint further alleges that the
Defendants used a "Consensus Methodology" for determining financial
aid that amounts to an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy, which has
suppressed the amounts of financial aid the universities awarded to
their students over nearly two decades.
"We look forward to fighting for the rights of thousands of
students and their families, who we allege have been improperly
deprived of the fruits of competition in the provision of financial
aid," said Eric Cramer, one of the nation's leading antitrust class
action attorneys.
The lawsuit seeks to put a halt to these allegedly unlawful
activities and to recover damages to make the class members whole.
As the Complaint alleges, these universities "are gatekeepers to
the American Dream" and provide a "a critical pathway to upward
mobility that admission to their institutions represents." The
Complaint alleges that in putting the burden of the overcharges "in
particular on low- and middle-income families struggling to afford
the cost of a university education and to achieve success for their
children," Defendants have unlawfully narrowed that pathway.
"Varsity Blues took on the side door of admissions. This case takes
on the back door -- alleging that, while conspiring together on a
method for awarding financial aid, which raises net tuition prices,
defendants also favor wealthy applicants in making admissions
decisions. The law does not allow them to do both," said Eric
Rosen, the former federal and state prosecutor who led the Varsity
Blues prosecution team and who is now a partner at Roche Freedman,
one of the law firms filing this action.
Named Defendants
The Defendants are Brown University, California Institute of
Technology, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell
University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University,
Georgetown University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Northwestern University, Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania,
Rice University, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
For more information on the litigation, go to 568Cartel.com.
About Plaintiffs' Legal Team
Roche Freedman lawyers have litigated antitrust, securities, and
market manipulation claims for both plaintiffs and defendants for
more than a decade. Over the past two years, the firm has been
appointed as lead or co-lead counsel in over fifteen class
actions.
Gilbert Litigators & Counselors is a national litigation boutique.
The Firm focuses on domestic and international litigation and
arbitration, and the resolution of large, complex commercial
disputes when the amounts in controversy range from tens of
millions to several billions of dollars, with a particular emphasis
on fraud and business tort cases, antitrust litigation and
litigation involving significant public policy issues.
Berger Montague is one of the nation's most experienced and
successful complex litigation firms, having pioneered the antitrust
class action. The firm has recovered more than $40 billion in
verdicts and settlements for class members over 50 years and
achieved one of the largest antitrust class action settlements --
nearly $6 billion -- in U.S. history.
FeganScott, a national litigation firm based in Chicago, has
successfully led nationwide class actions, has been recognized by
courts in the Northern District of Illinois for its experience, and
has been appointed by Illinois federal and state courts to Special
Master teams overseeing class actions. [GN]
[*] P.E.I. Proposed Bill May Lead Class Action Cert. Process Harder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Campbell, writing for CBC News, reports that a bill passed in
the P.E.I. Legislature in November, described by government as a
way to make it easier for litigants to bring forward class action
lawsuits in the province, will actually make it harder, according
to the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association (APTLA).
The Class Proceedings Act received royal assent on Nov. 17.
Whenever cabinet brings it into force, P.E.I. will become the last
province in Canada to enact legislation to provide a framework for
class action certification. Prior to P.E.I., the most recent
province to bring in similar legislation was Nova Scotia, which
enacted its law in 2008.
Without a legal framework for the certification of class
proceedings, lawyers trying to bring a suit forward in P.E.I. have
had to argue in court for certification based on common-law
principles.
Only one case has ever been certified on P.E.I., on behalf of
Islanders with mental health-related disabilities who were excluded
from the province's Disability Support Program. That case has been
in the court system for six years and has yet to come forward to
trial.
But in a letter sent to the province as part of consultations on
the new legislation, the APTLA argued having no legislation at all
would be better than the law put forward by the province and passed
by MLAs in November.
The APTLA said the new law "would undermine the purported goal of
creating an environment promotive of timely and affordable access
to justice for residents of P.E.I."
New test seen as impediment
At issue is what's known as a predominance test, included in
P.E.I.'s law, which would require that facts or legal issues common
to every member of a class predominate over issues which vary from
member to member in order for a suit to go forward.
For example, in a class action alleging abuse at an institution
like an orphanage or school, a common issue that could be argued on
behalf of all claimants could be that the institution was
negligent.
But under the predominance test, if a court determined that the
abuse suffered by the claimants was specific to each individual's
circumstance or required evidence from each claimant, then the
court might not certify the class action.
In that case anyone wanting to sue would have to bring forward
their own separate proceeding in their own name.
Change favours defendants, commission said
The only other province in Canada to include a predominance test is
Ontario, which introduced the measure in 2020.
The Law Commission of Ontario argued the change would shift the
certification test "strongly in favour of defendants," having "a
significant and negative impact on access to justice" while
creating "significant barriers" to prevent residents from suing
their own government.
The commission said previous landmark class actions which had been
successful might never have gone forward under the new law,
including the suit that came in response to the Walkerton tainted
water crisis, or the class action on behalf of survivors of Indian
residential schools.
Making access more difficult, lawyer says
"It's a really technical point, but it's a really big deal," said
Mike Dull, the Halifax lawyer behind the only class-action
certified under common law on P.E.I. (Common law is the body of
legal rulings of all past cases, upon which new rulings are based
when there is no written legislation on a topic).
Dull questioned whether his class action on behalf of Islanders
with mental health-related disabilities would have been certified
under the new law.
That suit was certified in P.E.I. Supreme Court in 2019, a decision
upheld by the P.E.I. Court of Appeal in 2020.
"A cynic would say that the government of Prince Edward Island is
passing legislation that is self-protectionary, that they are
making it actually more difficult for groups — marginalized
groups like residents with mental disabilities — to access the
court system," said Dull.
The P.E.I. Human Rights Commission ruled in 2016 that the P.E.I.
government had discriminated against Islanders with mental illness
who were denied financial support under the Disability Support
Program. The case had been brought forward by Millie King on behalf
of her daughter.
The government appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the human
rights ruling in 2018.
P.E.I. courts have been urging the provincial government to enact
class action legislation for years. A bill was introduced in 1997
by the government of Pat Binns but it never passed.
"The time has come for government to enact legislation, which would
provide better access to justice for individuals who might benefit
from such class proceedings," Justice Michele Murphy wrote in the
2020 decision upholding certification of the King case.
"That P.E.I. is the only province without such legislation is not
only telling, it is compelling."
During debate on the bill in October, Blair Barbour, a legislative
specialist with the P.E.I. Department of Justice, told MLAs that
the government expected to bring the new law into effect sometime
in 2022.
CBC News reached out to the Department of Justice for comment, but
a spokesperson said no comment could be provided in time for
publication.
CBC also asked for copies of submissions put forward during
consultations on the new legislation. A spokesperson said the
department was going through the submissions to look for personal
information that would need to be redacted before any release. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paddock Ent. Has $610MM Bankruptcy Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Gateway reports that Paddock Enterprises, a wholly owned
subsidiary of US-based glass container manufacturer O-I Glass, has
filed a Chapter 11 reorganization plan and disclosure statement
with the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
The filing comes under the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case that the
company filed in January 2020. It will permanently settle all
existing and future asbestos-related claims after receiving the
court's approval.
As part of the plan, a trust will be established to process and pay
for all claims related to asbestos. Once the plan comes into
force, the trust will receive $610 million in funding.
O-I Glass CEO Andres Lopez said: "We are pleased that Paddock is
one significant step closer towards achieving the goal of resolving
its legacy liabilities in a manner that is fair and efficient for
claimants and that provides finality for O-I Glass and Paddock.
This plan represents a favourable outcome for all parties, and we
look forward to the plan’s implementation as Paddock moves
towards emergence."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay on J&J Talc Lawsuits Extended to Jan. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nagle of Bloomberg reports that Johnson & Johnson will
continue to receive a temporary break from lawsuits over claims
that its baby powder caused asbestos-related illnesses.
The decision from Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey extends to Jan. 28 an existing
preliminary injunction blocking the litigation against the health
care giant.
The short-term extension provides time for a federal district court
judge to decide whether to oversee a lawsuit by LTL Management
LLC—a company J&J created to manage asbestos-related claims—to
block asbestos litigation against J&J throughout LTL's bankruptcy.
*********
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 ***