/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 7 Headlines AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE: Borrowers Slam Usurious Loan Rates ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Loschiavo Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ALKERMES PLC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE: Marrero Suit Seeks Mechanics' Unpaid Wages BARDOLINO PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Anastasio Suit Says BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES: Muhammad Appeals Arbitration Ruling BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Parton Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. W. Va. BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY: Bryan Sues Over Data Breach BOYNE USA: Calloway FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Agent Class BRIGHT HEALTH: Marques Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price BRONX PARK: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Apartment Tower Fire CARGILL INC: Hearing Held as Part of COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit CAROL MICI: Diggs Sues Over Unconstitutional Treatment of Prisoners COLLECTION BUREAU: Rivera TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Suit CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid OT for Paralegals DESKTOP METAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 22 Deadline DISCOVERY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline DOCUSIGN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline EMORY UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Action EOG RESOURCES INC: White Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces Faulkner Suit Over Gender Discrimination ETHEREUMMAX: Huegerich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme FIRST SOLAR: City Workers' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Panel Flop FIRST SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline GEICO: Seeks to Stay Deadline for Class Certification Response GENUINE PARTS: Cervantez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California GENUINE PARTS: Faces Cervantez PAGA Suit in California GOOGLE LLC: Averts AdWorks Fraud Class Action Lawsuit H MART: Baires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Supermarket Workers HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Diamonds Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal HEALING ENERGY: Faces Lane Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania HOGSHEAD TAVERN: Solis Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in N.Y. I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio Seeks to Certify Class Action JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Rosales Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California JOJO SIWA INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JULLIARD SCHOOL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 28 Deadline KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Johnson Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa. LAWNBRIGHT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LUCID GROUP: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAJOR LEAGUE: Colludes to Restrict Baseball Market, Concepcion Says MALCO PRODUCTS: Faces Chadwell Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal. MENLO PARK, CA: Class Action Claims City Must Refund Residents META PLATFORMS: Faces UK Class Suit For Breach of Competition Law METROMILE INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says MIDLAND CREDIT: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York MOOV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MY CUBE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NAMASTE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL MENTOR: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hagans Suit Claims NCAA: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Johnson FLSA Suit NEW YORK: Foster Children Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid NEWELL BRANDS: Schaer Slams Mislabeling on Service Warranty NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: ADA Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania NORTH AMERICAN: Bennett Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action OAK STREET: Faces Allison Suit Over 20% Decline of Stock Price OAK STREET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 14 Deadline ONE HOME BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OPEN ACCESS: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing OPENSKY PROJECT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OTHER HALF BREWING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OVH GROUPE: 51 Int'l Companies Join Class Action Over Data Loss PERMIAN DUST: Ginkinger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit PETRA LIVING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class PREVECEUTICAL MEDICAL: Settlement Reached in Tietz Fraud Lawsuit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suit Alleges Carcinogenic Aerosol Antiperspirants PROPER CLOTH: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUALITY LIAISON: Faces Bernard Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn. QUANTUM GROUP: Ciofoletti Sues Over Illegal Usurious Loans' Losses RAY JONES: Back Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers RB HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REXNORD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Machinists, Jordan Suit Claims ROCKET MORTGAGE: Supreme Ct. Orders Review of Recession-Era Suit ROUND TABLE: Barker Sues Over Car Wreck Patients' Hospital Liens SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Earbuds Allergic Reactions SAXX UNDERWEAR: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Oddei Appeals Judgment in Contract Suit SG GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Boone Alleges SQUATTY POTTY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Holder Sues Over Credit Reporting Violations STENGER & STENGER: Blum Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter TABCOM LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TALKSPACE INC: Faces Fraud Class Suit as Consumer Revenue Declines TOWER HILL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification TRACFONE WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Barcomb Claims UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Options Strategy UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Personal Vehicle Drivers, Yardley Says UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Seeks to Clarify Dec. 9, 2021 Order UNIVERSAL YUMS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UPTOWN HEALTHCARE: Time Extension for Class Certification Sought WALGREENS CO: Pain Relieving Products' Label "Deceptive," Dang Says WALMART INC: Hit With Proposed Suit Over Female Drivers' Uniforms WALMART INC: McEnheimer Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages WHATABRANDS LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHP MEZZ: Morel Balks at Superintendents' Unpaid Wages, Retaliation WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Sues Over Access of Customers' Info XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes [*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Certification Trends [*] U.S. Hiring, Retention Incentive Class Suits Expected to Spike ********* AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE: Borrowers Slam Usurious Loan Rates ---------------------------------------------------------- Mary Haremza and Jacob Murray, in his capacity as the executor of the estate of Stacy Murray (Jacob's late wife), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Does Nos. 1-15, Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC, Terry Brockie, Dustin Monroe, Tracy King, Kenneth Helgeson, Chris Gardipee, Romona Horn and John Hawley,, Case No. 22-cv-00043 (D. N.J., January 5, 2022), challenges the legality of Bright Lending's high interest loans and seeks damages and declaratory relief against co-conspirators participating in this scheme, and seek relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, New Jersey's usury laws, New Jersey's Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs are New Jersey consumers who claim to have incurred illegal, high-interest loans over the internet, supposedly made by an online lending company named Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC operating as "Bright Lending." Both of the loans at issue in this case charged Plaintiffs an annual percentage rate of 699.9%, requiring them to repay more than $2,500 in finance charges in less than six weeks on loans that were $550 or less. This, according to the complaint, grossly exceeding New Jersey's 16% rate cap for interest rates. Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC is an entity formed under the laws of the Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Grogan, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 320-5660 Fax: (215) 320-5703 Email: jgrogan@langergrogan.com ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Loschiavo Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loschiavo, et al., v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective action under Section 216(b) against Defendant ADS on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals; 2. implementing an Opt-In period of whereby Court-approved Notice of Named Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent via U.S. Mail and e-mail to: "All current and former hourly employees of ADS who (a) worked as a production or yard worker; and (b) whose payroll records reflect that they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the instant Motion and continuing to the present ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs"). 3. approving the content contained in the proposed Notice and Consent to Join; 4. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, dates of employment, location(s) worked, last- known mailing addresses, and personal email addresses of all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present; and 5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within 14 days of receipt of the list using the home and email addresses provided by Defendant. On October 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their collective and class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay hourly, non-exempt employees overtime wages for all hours worked under the FLSA, as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. ADS is a manufacturer of corrugated pipe and services the storm and water waste industry through a global network of domestic and international manufacturing plants and distribution centers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kcdzrk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com ALKERMES PLC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Against Alkermes; Delaware Court of Chancery Allows SPAC Litigation to Proceed; Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Convicted on Four Counts of Fraud; Second Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action Against Hain. On December 7, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud putative class action alleging that biopharmaceutical company Alkermes PLC and certain of its executives had defrauded investors by mispresenting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's feedback on ALKS 5461, an opioid combination drug originally intended to treat major depressive disorder and cocaine dependence. Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants made misleading statements about the FDA's approval process relating to ALKS 5461. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed plaintiff's complaint, concluding that plaintiff had failed to plead the required strong inference of scienter. On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed. The Second Circuit found that while plaintiff alleged that Alkermes "mischaracterized" the FDA's response to Alkermes' "novel approach to providing evidence of efficacy for a new drug," the FDA had told Alkermes that the approach appeared "reasonable" and Alkermes had disclosed that there was a risk that the FDA would not accept it. The Second Circuit concluded that rather than support an inference of fraud, the circumstances, including Alkermes's disclosures, "reflect[ed] the iterative process between a company and the FDA, particularly when the agency must evaluate a novel study methodology" and that Alkermes "viewed ALKS 5461's chances of FDA approval with optimism, yet still made honest attempts to disclose the FDA's feedback where relevant and to caution the market as to the risks inherent in proposing new study designs." Having affirmed the dismissal of the primary Section 10(b) claim, the Second Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of the secondary Section 20(a) claim. Finally, the Second Circuit also affirmed the district court's refusal to grant plaintiff leave to further amend its complaint, concluding that plaintiff had not provided an adequate explanation as to the specific changes it would make to cure the pleading deficiencies. Goodwin represented defendants in connection with the successful motion to dismiss and the successful appeal. DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY ALLOWS SPAC LITIGATION TO PROCEED On January 3, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery largely denied defendants' motions to dismiss in In re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litigation, a challenge to the merger between Churchill Capital Corp. III, a SPAC, or special purpose acquisition company, and MultiPlan Inc. The case reflects the novel application of traditional fiduciary duty principles in the SPAC context. In February 2020, the SPAC went public, raising $1.1 billion from investors. In July 2020, the SPAC's board approved a merger agreement with MultiPlan, a healthcare data analytics company, and recommended that the SPAC's stockholders approve the merger. According to plaintiffs, the proxy statement issued in connection with the merger failed to disclose that MultiPlan's largest customer was developing its own data analytics platform. In October 2020, the SPAC's stockholders approved the merger. When the development of MultiPlan's largest customer's data analytics platform later became public, MultiPlan's share price fell and this litigation was filed. Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against the SPAC, its founder, directors, and officers, and certain affiliated entities, alleging, among other things, that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading. Vice Chancellor Will concluded that the entire fairness standard of review, which requires defendants to provide that both the price and the process of the challenged transaction were fair to stockholders, applied to the merger, or de-SPAC transaction, for two reasons. First, the court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the merger was a conflicted controller transaction because Michael Klein, who, through the SPAC's sponsor entity controlled the SPAC, had a "potential conflict [with] public stockholders resulting from their different incentives [with respect to] a bad deal versus no deal." Specifically, the sponsor held warrants and founder shares that were worth about $356 million when the merger closed -- "representing a 1,219,900% gain on the [s]ponsor's $25,000 investment" -- but would have been worthless had there been no deal. The SPAC's public stockholders, on the other hand, would have received back their investments had the SPAC failed to close a deal. Second, the court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the SPAC's directors were conflicted because their economic interest in the sponsor meant that they would "benefit from virtually any merger -- even one that was value diminishing for [public] stockholders" and because they were not independent of Klein, who had appointed many of them to other SPAC boards. Applying the entire fairness standard, Vice Chancellor Will refused to dismiss the claims against the SPAC's directors. As this case represents the novel application of traditional fiduciary duty principles in the SPAC context, it remains to be seen how the court's view of the economic interests of SPAC participants will impact future litigation. Vice Chancellor Will noted that while the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the SPAC's directors were not dismissed, "[that] conclusion does not address the validity of a hypothetical claim where the disclosure is adequate and the allegations rest solely on the premise that fiduciaries were necessarily interested given the SPAC's structure" and that "[i]f public stockholders, in possession of all material information about the target, had chosen to invest rather than redeem, one can imagine a different outcome." EX-THERANOS CEO ELIZABETH HOLMES CONVICTED ON FOUR COUNTS OF FRAUD On January 3, 2022, after a four month trial and seven days of deliberation, a jury convicted former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes of four of the 11 counts with which she was charged: one count of conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud. The jury concluded that Holmes and former business partner Sunny Balwani had intentionally solicited payments from investors with false statements about the blood testing devices developed by Theranos, its business partnerships, and its financial model. The jury also concluded that Holmes had committed wire fraud in connection with investments Theranos obtained from (1) PFM Sciences, (2) a firm associated with the family of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and (3) Daniel Mosely, formerly an advisor to Henry Kissinger. Evidence introduced at trial in connection with those counts indicated that Holmes had misrepresented, among other things, Theranos' revenue from the U.S. Department of Defense, the use of Theranos' technology by the military, and the endorsement of Theranos' technology by pharmaceutical companies. The jury did not reach a verdict with respect to three additional counts of wire fraud. The jury cleared Holmes of charges that she had defrauded medical patients who used Theranos' blood testing devices. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison for each count on which she was convicted, as well as potential fines and restitution. Her sentencing has not yet been scheduled. SECOND CIRCUIT VACATES DISMISSAL OF SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTION AGAINST HAIN On December 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of a securities fraud putative class action against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers, remanding the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further consideration. Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants made misleading statements attributing Hain's growing sales levels to strong consumer demand when in fact they were allegedly due to "channel stuffing," in which customers were incentivized to purchase more product than needed prior to the end of each quarter, and also that defendants' channel stuffing constituted an unlawful scheme to defraud investors. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of Rule 10b-5 and had also failed to allege scienter. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal. The Second Circuit noted that as opposed to a violation of Rule 10b-5(a) or 10b-5(c), a violation of Rule 10b-5(b) does not require the defendant to have used a fraudulent scheme or practice, but instead "focus[es] . . . on whether something said was materially misleading." The Second Circuit found that "[t]he district court mistakenly imported the requirement of clauses (a) and (c) of a fraudulent scheme or practice into clause (b), which includes no such requirement" and that "[t]he success of . . . a complaint in alleging a violation of clause (b) does not depend on whether the alleged channel stuffing practices were fraudulent or otherwise illegal." The Second Circuit also concluded that "[t]he district court's mistaken understanding of the substance of the alleged offense inevitably affected the district court's view of whether it was done with scienter" and that the district court had also failed to weigh plaintiffs' scienter allegations as a whole. The Second Circuit's decision reaffirms that a defendant may be held liable for securities fraud for a misleading statement even where the statement does not implicate illegal or otherwise fraudulent activity.[GN] AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on December 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed a putative class action against a public utility company and certain of its executives under the Securities Exchange Act. Nickerson v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No. 2:20-cv-4243 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made various statements regarding prospective energy legislation in Ohio which were misleading because they omitted that the company was actively involved in an alleged lobbying scheme to create that legislation. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations. The allegations related to the company's statements regarding an Ohio bill that was designed to provide subsidies to nuclear or solar energy producers based on the power they produced. Slip op. at 4. After the legislation was passed, multiple individuals were indicted on racketeering and corruption charges related to the law's passage. Id. Plaintiffs alleged that the company retained lobbyists who worked on the legislation and contributed funding to other industry groups involved in the effort. Id. at 6. With respect to an earnings call in which the company stated it was withholding support from a draft form of the legislation, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that this statement was misleading because it did not disclose that the company was withholding its support because the bill did not include a cost recovery measure that the company sought. Id. at 28-29. The Court emphasized that defendants had been publicly advocating for those terms for several years. Id. Moreover, the Court concluded that the challenged statements were "too generic and innocuous" to create a duty to disclose the bribery scheme alleged by plaintiffs. Id. at 29. Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that another earnings call was misleading because it gave the impression that the company had not yet evaluated the impact of the legislation when, in fact, the company helped create it and lobbied for its passage. Id. at 30. The Court again concluded that the challenged statements were "so vague, generic, and innocuous" that they did not create an impression about the company's lobbying activities. Id. at 31. In addition, the Court assessed and rejected plaintiffs' argument that the company's annual "corporate accountability reports" contained statements that created a duty to disclose lobbying activities, including "[e]ach year, [the company] publicly discloses lobbying activities and political contributions" and "[w]e believe in transparency and active participation in public debate." Id. at 9. The Court determined that these statements were mere puffery -- "corporate-speak so banal and ubiquitous" that a reasonable investor would not rely on them. Id. at 31. [GN] ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE: Marrero Suit Seeks Mechanics' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS INC. and ANTHONY VACCARO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00138 (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a mechanic at the Defendants' automobile repair shop known as Anthony's Automotive Repairs, located at 5268 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, New York from February 2019 through and including March 11, 2020. Anthony's Automotive Repairs Inc. is an automobile repair shop, located at 5268 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com BARDOLINO PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Anastasio Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTOLIN ANASTASIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARDOLINO PIZZA INC. (D/B/A BARDOLINO PIZZA), MARIA T. ARIAS, and ANGEL S. AGUDO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00192 (S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker at Bardolino Pizza in New York, New York from September 20, 2020 until November 21, 2021. Bardolino Pizza Inc. is an owner and operator of a pizzeria, located at 1505 Lexington Ave, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES: Muhammad Appeals Arbitration Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jahad Muhammad filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JARAD MUHAMMAD, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES, LLC, California limited liability company AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Delaware corporation, AMAZON.CO SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liabili corporation, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 30 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07225-VAP-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on September 8, 2021. The case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of: (1) all hourly-paid 10 employees employed by, or formerly employed by the Defendants within the state of California, to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid sick days, unreimbursed business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, as well as other damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code; (2) all former similarly-situated employees of the Defendants that did not receive the timely payment of their wages upon the separation of their employment to recover statutory penalties and damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code; and, (3) all persons residing in California who applied for a job with the Defendants in the state of California and who executed Defendants' standard "BACKGROUND CHECK DISCLOSURE" form to recover actual damages, statutory damages, penalties and punitive damages. On October 14, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On December 2, 2021, Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissing class claims. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of that order. The appellate case is captioned as Jahad Muhammad v. Battle-Tested Strategies, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 3, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Jahad Muhammad Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 10, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 31, 2022; -- Transcript is due on February 28, 2022; -- Appellant Jahad Muhammad opening brief is due on April 12, 2022; -- Appellees Amazon Logistics, Inc., Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC and Battle-Tested Strategies, LLC answering brief is due on May 12, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAHAD MUHAMMAD, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is represented by: Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq. BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855-3270 E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law Defendants-Appellees BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES, LLC, a California limited liability company; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq. Timothy L. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 E-mail: nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com - and - Albert Giang, Esq. Kelly L. Perigoe, Esq. KING AND SPALDING, LLP 633 W 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 E-mail: agiang@kslaw.com kperigoe@kslaw.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Parton Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. W. Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW PARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, unknown employees or officers of Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.; and DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00014 (S.D. W. Va., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for improper withholding and/or reduction of wages for returned products, unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, and punitive damages. The Plaintiff worked as a driver and delivery-person for Bimbo. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is a bakery owner and operator with its principal place of business in West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. NEW, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive P.O. Box 5516 Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 Facsimile: (304) 250-6012 - and – Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO 405 Capitol Street Suite P-1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY: Bryan Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Bryan and Patricia White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00030 (M.D. Fla., January 5, 2022), seeks injunctive and other equitable relief in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and from the failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information and protected information acquired from or created for its employees, including without limitation, names, addresses, dates of birth, patient identification numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, passport numbers, credit/debit card information and financial account information. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services is a specialty pharmacy company in Alamonte Springs, FL. In November of 2021, Bioplus first learned of an unauthorized entry into its network, which contained customers' private information. Bryan used BioPlus's services in 2021 when she had a specialty prescription filled through her doctor's office. To receive services at BioPlus, Bryan was required to disclose her PII, which was then entered into BioPlus's database. In December of 2021, Bryan received a notification letter from Bioplus stating that her data was taken. She claims that she has been incurring fraudulent charges, medical procedures ordered in her names without her permission, and targeted advertising without patient consent. White's information was entered into BioPlus's systems in 2015 when a clerical error resulted in her prescription information from her doctor's office being sent to BioPlus instead of her in-network pharmacy. Ms. White corrected the clerical error and canceled the service from BioPlus, but her information remained in Bioplus' systems until the data breach occurred in November of 2021. Ms. White received a notice letter from Defendant that her information was taken in December of 2021. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Tel: (561) 569-7062 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com BOYNE USA: Calloway FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Agent Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY CALLOWAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BOYNE USA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00521-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the following collective: "All hourly-paid Sales Agents, or employees who had similar duties to Sales Agents, who earned a commission in connection with work performed in any week in which they worked over 40 hours at any time after June 21, 2018." 2. Approving his proposed Notice and Consent to Join and proposed method of distribution including mailing and emailing; 3. direcitng the Defendant to produce the requested contact information of each putative collective member in an electronically importable and malleable electronic format, such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order is entered; 4. allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin seven days after the day that the Defendant produces the names and contact information for the putative collective. 5. granting him the leave to send the applicable Notice and Consent forms to each putative collective member via U.S. Mail and email; 6. granting him the leave to send the Follow-Up Postcard via U.S. Mail and email, thirty days after the opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to the Notice; 7. awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant all other good or necessary relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not. The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of certain former and current sales agents for the Defendant, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other claims. Boyne USA, Inc. owns and operates mountain resorts. The Company offers gaming arcade, bike park, winter sportswear and equipment store, and cafeteria. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tueuh6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick C. Lannen, Esq. Plunkett Cooney, Esq. 38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 901-4027 E-mail: plannen@plunkettcooney.com BRIGHT HEALTH: Marques Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORINO MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., G. MIKE MIKAN, CATHERINE R. SMITH, JEFFREY J. SCHERMAN, ROBERT J. SHEEHY, KEDRICK D. ADKINS JR., NAOMI ALLEN, JEFFREY FOLICK, LINDA GOODEN, JEFFERY R. IMMELT, MANUEL KADRE, STEPHEN KRAUS, MOHAMAD MAKHZOUMI, and ADAIR NEWHALL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bright Health common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about June 24, 2021; and/or (b) Bright Health securities between June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021, both dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bright Health is an integrated care delivery company that engages in the delivery and financing of health insurance plans in the U.S. The Company operates in two segments -- NeueHealth and Bright HealthCare. Bright Health offers individual and family, Medicare, and employers' insurance plans. The Company also operates 28 managed and affiliated risk-bearing primary care clinics. On May 19, 2021, Bright Health filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 23, 2021. On June 25, 2021, Bright Health filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement, also known as the Offering Documents. Allegedly, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii) the Company was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Bright Health’s business and financial condition; and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com BRONX PARK: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Apartment Tower Fire -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuven Fenton, Priscilla DeGregory, Nolan Hicks and Bruce Golding, writing for New York Post, report that a $3 billion, class-action suit alleges that the current and former owners of a Bronx apartment tower should be held liable for the fatal fire there that killed 17 people -- and a related filing says everyone affected should get $1 billion each because city officials are also "responsible" for the tragedy. The suit filed on Jan. 11 by two tenants of 333 E. 181st St. alleges that the landlords "had actual notice of defective conditions" at the 19-story building, where officials have said a self-closing door malfunctioned and let smoke pour out of an apartment that was set ablaze by a space heater on Jan. 9. Married couple Rosa Reyes and Felix Martinez, the lead plaintiffs, are seeking $1 billion in compensatory damages for alleged negligence and another $2 billion in punitive damages on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated." Another plaintiff, Jessika Valdez, 38, told The Post that her door to her 18th-floor apartment "never closed on its own" during the 15 years she's lived there. "We always had to pull it closed," she said. "If you're renting to me, it's OK if you don't have an emotional tie to me, but you have to protect your investment. I'm your investment." The defendants named in the Bronx Supreme Court suit include the building's joint-venture owner, Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC, and its three member companies, Lich Investment Group, Belveron Partners, and Camber Property Group. The other defendants are former building owners Cammeby's International Group and the company's founder, real-estate tycoon Rubin Schron of Brooklyn, who sold the property in 2019. The class-action suit supplanted another court filing by Reyes and Martinez earlier in the day. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Robert Vilensky, also filed a notice of claim against the city; the Department of Buildings; the Department of Housing, Preservation and Development; former Mayor Bill de Blasio and Housing Commissioner Melanie La Rocca. It seeks $1 billion each for everyone who joins the planned class-action case. That notice says the shutting devices, or "returns," on self-closing apartment doors "become rusty over time and the springs on the door returns need to be replaced over time." It alleges that city officials "failed in every way" to make sure that happened at 333 E. 181st St. It also says that the city, de Blasio and La Rocca "have known of this condition for many, many years now and certainly since December 28, 2017," when 13 people were killed in a fire at 2363 Prospect Ave. in The Bronx. "At that time, [de Blasio] promised to ensure that the building department inspectors inspected all buildings for these issues," Vilensky wrote. "Yet it is obvious that said Department Building [sic] and politicians only give ‘lip service' to safety issues and are responsible for the resulting injuries and deaths." The notice includes a copy of a Jan. 10 report by The Post about how the building racked up more than two dozen violations and complaints since 2014, one year after Schron got nearly $25 million in state loans for repairs and upgrades. "When I heard about what happened on Jan. 9, my blood boiled because this was a preventable accident and a preventable fire. By that, I mean the fire spreading," Vilensky told The Post. In a prepared statement, Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC said, "We are devastated by this terrible tragedy and are cooperating fully with the Fire Department and other agencies as they continue to investigate." The city's Law Department also issued a statement that said, "This was a horrific tragedy and too many lives were lost. There is an active investigation into this tragic incident. We'll review the claim." Cammeby's and Schron didn't immediately return a request for comment. [GN] CARGILL INC: Hearing Held as Part of COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Dryden at CBC News reports that a hearing in the class-action lawsuit against the Cargill meat-packing plant near High River, Alta., was held in Calgary with the judge reserving a decision on how the case will proceed. The lawsuit, which was initially filed in mid-2020 by the Calgary-based Guardian Law Group and James H. Brown and Associates, alleges that Cargill should have known that a lack of preventative measures could impact close contacts of employees. The COVID-19 outbreak at the facility was at one point the largest in North America. Mathew Farrell, a lawyer at Guardian Law Group representing the plaintiff, told CBC News prior to the hearing that workers' families "deserve to be able to hold this company to account for the specific wrongdoing that this specific company did." "Part of this was about making sure that businesses knew from the get-go that, look, you have a responsibility. There are things you can do to protect your workers and you have to do them or the courts will hold you accountable," Farrell said. Cargill's defence stated it would be unreasonable to hold the company accountable for the "legally indeterminate" spread of infection from the workers. A spokesperson with Cargill did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment. The allegations have not been proven in court. The class action concerns those people who had close contact with employees. The workers themselves are covered by labour and workers' compensation laws. The deaths of three people were linked to the factory's COVID outbreaks. Two were employees. The third was a worker's father, Armando Sallegue, who had travelled to Alberta to visit his son. The outbreak is the subject of a police investigation, though no charges have been laid. Criminology professor unsurprised at lawsuit Steven Bittle, an associate criminology professor at the University of Ottawa, said he isn't surprised at the existence of the lawsuit, given the company's "inability or unwillingness to address the safety concerns around the COVID pandemic." History shows that such class action lawsuits are difficult to win, Bittle said, especially when one is dealing with large companies with deep pockets that can contest issues in court. "This is one of the tools that people have tried more in the United States, this class-action route, to try to get some justice and compensation for the situation," he said. "It's highly unusual." The plaintiff's case involves a claim that the risks were known by the company and that the company did not adequately adjust to meet those risks, Bittle said. He said the company, meanwhile, has made the argument that even if they had a legal duty to protect workers, they cannot be held responsible for that secondary victimization. "I think the employer will try to argue in this case that they're not responsible for the pandemic," he said. Meanwhile, Bittle said the lawsuit speaks to the level of frustration people have associated with what happened at the plant. "In this case, we could call it the death, the secondary victimization that happened when somebody came home with the virus and passed it on to somebody else," he said. "Without any accountability here, there is a real sense of a lack of justice." Farrell, the lawyer with Guardian Law Group, said he is unsure at this time whether the judge presiding over the case will provide a written or oral decision. The plaintiff wants the issue of certification of the class-action lawsuit to be heard first. Cargill wants its application to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for want of cause of action to take priority. The judge has reserved a decision. [GN] CAROL MICI: Diggs Sues Over Unconstitutional Treatment of Prisoners ------------------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE DIGGS, DEMETRIUS GOSHEN, JAMES JACKS, DAVID JACKSON, RAPHAEL REBOLLO, LUIS SALDANA, DAVONGIE STONE, XAVIER VALENTIN-SOTO, and DANAVIAN DANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction; PAUL HENDERSON, former Deputy Commissioner of Field Services; PATRICK DEPALO, Deputy Commissioner of Field Services; CHARLES PRIMACK, Director of Special Operations; STEVEN KENNEWAY, former Superintendent of Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; DEAN GRAY, Superintendent of Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; RONALD GARDNER, Director of Security at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; Captains DONALD DENOMME and DAVID BRIEN; Lieutenants PAUL BIRRI, KEITH HOULE, ROBERT DESCHENNE, JAMES ALLAIN, and JAMES GEARIN; Sergeant ROBERT D'AMADIO; Correction Officers JOSEPH BELLINI and JOHN MADDEN; and K9 Officer EVAN LARANJO, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-40003-TSH (D. Mass., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The case arises from the Defendants' role and contribution in the launch of a campaign against the prisoners at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC) wherein they were subjected to excessive force and unconstitutional treatment. The alleged retaliatory force campaign consisted of weeks of unprovoked, retaliatory violence against SBCC prisoners, and amounted to an unlawful, orchestrated effort to intimidate, injure, and violate the rights of prisoners in retaliation for the tensions that occurred between a small group of prisoners and officers in the N1 Unit at SBCC on January 10, 2020, despite the fact that those individuals were not actually involved in the incident. The Defendants were present on numerous occasions when officers used excessive and unjustified force against prisoners, but allowed it to continue, says the suit. The Plaintiffs therefore seek, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to them, damages for injuries suffered due to violations of their rights during the campaign, and declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the Defendants' continuing constitutional violations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Petit, Esq. James R. Pingeon, Esq. David Milton, Esq. Kristyn J.E. Henry, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS 50 Federal Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-2773 E-mail: lpetit@plsma.org jpingeon@plsma.org dmilton@plsma.org khenry@plsma.org - and – Anthony E. Fuller, Esq. Gregory F. Noonan, Esq. Julia McLetchie, Esq. Elizabeth C. Pignatelli, Esq. Alexandra G. Watson, Esq. Courtney A. Caruso, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 125 High Street, Suite 2010 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 371-1000 E-mail: anthony.fuller@hoganlovells.com gregory.noonan@hoganlovells.com julia.mcletchie@hoganlovells.com elizabeth.pignatelli@hoganlovells.com alexandra.bailey@hoganlovells.com courtney.caruso@hoganlovells.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Rivera TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Collection Bureau Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 9:21-cv-80711-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class with respect to his claims for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA);" "All persons who during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit were successfully transmitted a prerecorded voice call on their cellular telephones from or on behalf of Defendant using the VoApps, Inc. calling platform and whose cellular telephone number was obtained by Defendant utilizing the TLOxp skip tracing service provided by TransUnion;" 2. designating him as class representative; and 3. designating his counsel as Class Counsel. This case concerns Defendant's use of robocalls to collect debts. The Defendant has contributed to the barrage of robocall related complaints by utilizing "skip tracing" to acquire the Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephone numbers, and then harassing them with prerecorded voice calls. The Defendant is a "contingency" debt collection agency that collects on past-due accounts for its creditor clients. Beginning in approximately 2013, and as part of its attempts to contact consumers for its clients, Defendant began using non-party vendor VoApps, Inc. to send prerecorded voice messages using purported "ringless" voicemail calls, the lawsuit says. "Americans passionately disagree about many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls -- 3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone," the suit adds. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rmXSF8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com Telephone: 786.496.4469 - and - 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 CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Butler, writing for The Ithaca Voice, reports that Cornell University is one of 16 universities named in a class action lawsuit over alleged student financial aid collusion practices in violation of antitrust laws. The suit, which is available to read here, demands damages on behalf of five plaintiffs (plus "all others similarly situated") as well as an injunction against the defendant schools from "continuing to illegally conspire regarding their pricing and financial-aid policies." It names Cornell among 16 other schools including Duke University, Brown University, University of Chicago, Columbia University and others—the "568 Cartel," as deemed by the lawsuit, referring to Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. That section provides an exemption to anti-trust laws for schools where "all students are admitted on a need-blind basis," and financial capacity of students and their families are not considered. Those schools are accused of violating that tenet through the "consensus methodology," a "common formula for determining an applicant's ability to pay." An article from 2001 shows that then-Cornell president Hunter Rawlings mentions the formulation of the "consensus approach," but in the context of determining which students are eligible for financial aid among schools claiming Section 568 exemptions. That very determination method seems to be the root of the class action suit. Cornell spokesperson Abby Butler declined to comment on the suit. It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The plaintiffs are named as Sia Henry, Michael Maerlander, Brandon Piyevsky, Kara Saffrin, Brittany Tatiana Weaver and others, presumably all student applicants. The complaint is 61 pages, filed in Illinois, and allege that "these defendants 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 suit argues that the defendants have admitted students at least in part based on the "financial circumstances of students and their families, thereby disfavoring students who need financial aid." The latter conduct violates the antitrust exemption that the schools were given by the federal government, the suit argues. The lawsuit separates the 16 schools into two groups: nine which are explicitly not adhering to the "need-blind" methodology, according to the suit, and seven (including Cornell) which are in violation of the antitrust exemption for claiming it while the other schools are actively violating it. In short, the suit does not directly allege that Cornell has actually engaged in preferential treatment for students who won't need financial aid to afford tuition. It does, though, charge that Cornell is "conspiring" with the other schools to maintain the collusion and "should have known" that the other nine schools were not properly using need-blind policies—a guilt by association charge, per se. The suit states that Cornell's undergraduate student body is made up of people with median family income of $151,600, with 10 percent of the undergrads coming from the top 1% of the country's income distribution and 64% from the top 20%, far outweighing the percentage that comes from the bottom 20%. It cites the New York Times as the source for these numbers. "In critical respects, elite, private universities like Defendants are gatekeepers to the American Dream," the lawsuit states. "Defendants' misconduct is therefore particularly egregious because it has narrowed a critical pathway to upward mobility that admission to their institutions represents." [GN] CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid OT for Paralegals ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLA V. BRICENO and GIOVANNI J. VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW CORP. d/b/a SERVING IMMIGRANTS INC., CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES INC., d/b/a SERVING IMMIGRANTS and MAGDALENA CUPRYS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20139-RKA (S.D. Fla., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated paralegals overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Briceno and Velez worked as paralegals at Serving Immigrants located at 4011 West Flagler Street, Suite 406, Miami, Florida from July 01, 2019 to August 7, 2019 and from June 01, 2019 to July 31, 2019, respectively. Cuprys and Associates Attorneys at Law Corp., doing business as Serving Immigrants Inc., is a law firm with its place of business at 4011 West Flagler, Suite 406, Miami, Florida. Cuprys and Associates Inc., doing business as Serving Immigrants, is a law firm located in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DESKTOP METAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds Investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired securities of Desktop Metal, Inc. ("Desktop" or the "Company") (NYSE: DM) between March 15, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Desktop securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Desktop Metal, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Desktop purports to offer additive manufacturing technologies focused on the production of end use parts. The Company's platforms include: Production System, a manufacturing platform using the Company's proprietary Single Pass Jetting technology enabling production quantities of up to millions of parts per year; Shop System, an affordable turnkey binding jetting platform to bring metal 3D printing to machine and job shops; Studio System, an office-friendly metal 3D printing system; and Fiber, a desktop 3D printer using the Company's proprietary Micro Automated Fiber Placement. On February 16, 2021, the Company acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "EnvisionTEC"), a provider of volume production photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use parts. According to the complaint, 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: (i) there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products; and (iii) 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. On November 8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop disclosed that it was conducting an internal investigation into certain matters, including "manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its photopolymer equipment and materials at its EnvisionTec US LLC facility." The Company also stated that the Chief Executive Officer of EnvisionTec US LLC had resigned. On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at $8.81 per share on November 9, 2021. Then, on November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company stated that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA of "compliance issues with certain shipments of EnvisionTEC's Flexcera dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box." On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at $6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Desktop securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/desktopmetalinc-dm-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-471/ or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN] DISCOVERY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Discovery Inc. ("Discovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DISCA) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/discovery-inc-goldman-sachs-group-inc-loss-submission-form or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. Discovery Inc. NEWS - DISCA NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Discovery shares during the class period while in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Discovery, you have until March 8, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Discovery securities between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/discovery-inc-goldman-sachs-group-inc-loss-submission-form or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] DOCUSIGN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds Investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired securities of DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOCU) between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DocuSign securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit DocuSign Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. DocuSign purportedly offers the Agreement Cloud, a broad cloud-based software suite that enables users to automate the agreement process and provide legally binding e-signatures from nearly any device. According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's business was positive, not negative; (ii) DocuSign misrepresented the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its growth; (iii) DocuSign downplayed the impact that a 'return to normal' would have on the Company's growth and business; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On December 2, 2021, after market hours, DocuSign held an earnings conference call for its third quarter fiscal year 2022 ("3Q 2022 Earnings Call"). During the 3Q 2022 Earnings Call, the Company revealed that its anticipated growth for the fourth quarter of 2022 would be lower than expected. Also on December 2, 2021, DocuSign published a press release announcing its third-quarter fiscal year 2022 financial results and guidance for the fourth-quarter fiscal year 2022. The guidance provided, in pertinent part, midpoint revenue guidance of $560 million, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $573.8 million. The guidance also provided a billing guidance of $653 million, missing consensus estimates of $705.4 million. On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DocuSign securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/docusigninc-docu-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-472/ or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN] EMORY UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS46 reports that an antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed 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 lawsuit alleges that the 16 universities agreed to fix the net price of attendance; invoked an exemption from the antitrust laws to which they are not entitled; and impeded discovery of their misconduct and of the resulting injury to the proposed class. 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. The group was reportedly called the "568 Presidents Group" and was allegedly formed to reduce or eliminate price competition among its members. Emory University reportedly left the group in 2012, according to the lawsuit. The crux of the lawsuit hinges on part of a 1994 federal education law called Section 568, which provides exemption from antitrust laws for colleges and universities that that don't consider an applicant's financial status while deciding admission, known as need-blind admission. This exemption allows the need-blind colleges and universities to ignore the antitrust laws and collaborate with their competitors. The actions of the schools reportedly affected more than 170,000 financial-aid recipients by at least hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleges the schools favored students who didn't need financial aid. The lawsuit, which was filed on the behalf of five former Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Duke University students, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit 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 schools. [GN] EOG RESOURCES INC: White Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Brannon White, on of behalf herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOG Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00025 (D. N.M., January 11, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. EOG is an oil and gas exploration and production company with operations throughout the United States where White worked as a drilling consultant from approximately January 2017 through April 2020. White was paid a day rate with no overtime compensation and was misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces Faulkner Suit Over Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN FAULKNER and QUINN TEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00242 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff Faulkner on the basis of her gender by not recommending its members to use her as a personal trainer on the basis of her gender and terminated her in retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination. The Defendant also discriminated against Plaintiff Tew on the basis of her pregnancy by allegedly refusing to provide her with a pregnancy accommodation. The Plaintiffs seek to recover: (i) back pay; (ii) emotional damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) interest; (v) attorneys' fees and costs; and (vi) such other and further relief as the court finds necessary and proper. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as personal trainers at its luxury fitness center in New York. Equinox Holdings, Inc. is a company that owns and operates luxury fitness centers located across the State of New York and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Vagnini, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 ETHEREUMMAX: Huegerich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN HUEGERICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. STEVE GENTILE, GIOVANNI PERONE, JUSTIN FRENCH, KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR., PAUL PIERCE, DEFENDANT "X," and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00163 (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and an objectively identifiable class consisting of all investors that purchased EthereumMax's EMAX Tokens between May 14, 2021 and June 17, 2021, arising from a scheme among various individuals in the cryptocurrency sector that violates the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California common law. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant EthereumMax (or the "Company"), Steve Gentile, Giovanni Perone, Justin French (the "Executive Defendants"), Kimberly Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and Paul Pierce (the "Promoter Defendants" and, together with the Executive Defendants, the "Defendants"). Allegedly, the Defendants misleadingly promote and sell the digital asset associated with EthereumMax (the EMAX Tokens) to unsuspecting investors. The Company's executives, collaborating with several celebrity promotors, (a) made false or misleading statements to investors about EthereumMax through social media advertisements and other promotional activities and (b) disguised their control over EthereumMax and a significant percent of the EMAX Tokens that were available for public trading during the Relevant Period (the "Float"), says the suit. In furtherance of this scheme, the Defendants touted the prospects of the Company and the ability for investors to make significant returns due to the favorable "tokenomics" of the EMAX Tokens. In truth, the Defendants marketed the EMAX Tokens to investors so that they could sell their portion of the Float for a profit, the suit added. Plaintiff Huegerich purchased EMAX Tokens and suffered investment losses as a result of Defendants' alleged conduct. EthereumMax is a company that offers ERC-20 tokens, the EMAX Tokens that are blockchain-based digital assets, on the ethereum ETHUSD, +1.22% network, according to its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 236-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Sean T. Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com FIRST SOLAR: City Workers' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Panel Flop --------------------------------------------------------------- City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Solar Inc., Mark Widmar, Alexander R. Bradley and George Antoun, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00036 (D. Ariz., January 7, 2022) seeks compensatory damages including interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First Solar is a manufacturer of solar energy panels and power plants headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. Its project development segment buys land, develops sites, installs solar panel units, and then sells the entire site to a buyer, typically a utility provider or large tech company. During construction and after a site has been sold, its engineering, procurement, and construction segment provides engineering design and related services, such as construction contracting, while its operating and maintenance segment provides support to solar panel sites, including activities associated with operating and maintaining a solar power system. Through these interrelated business segments, First Solar stood to generate income not only through the manufacturing of solar panels and the creation of Project Development sites, but also through the operating/maintenance segments that continued to generate income for First Solar after a project was developed and sold. In 2017, First Solar launched a new PV solar panel module, the Series 6 which it touted an aggressive cost per watt reduction target. Plaintiff alleges that First Solar misrepresented to its investors that the Series 6 solar module was not commercially ready at the time of its release, that had a component that was failing in the field and causing fires, was not able to hit its projected and touted wattage targets and had an inconsistent output. On this news, the price of First Solar stock fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close of $58.78 on January 14, 2020, to close at $54.75 per share on January 15, 2020. On February 6, 2020, another report and suggested that, in an attempt to gain back its market share, First Solar was "bidding more aggressively, leading to lower prices, and finally cutting into margins." On this news, the price of First Solar stock fell $0.45 per share, from a close of $53.10 on February 5, 2020, to close at $52.65 per share on February 6, 2020. Finally, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was exploring a sale of its Project Development business. On the same day, First Solar acknowledged it was experiencing "challenges with regard to certain aspects of the overall cost per watt" and that the company would not be realizing its cost per watt goals, despite having previously represented that it had been "slightly ahead of" its goals as recently as the previous quarter. Following this, the company stated that it would no longer be disclosing a discrete cost per watt for its Series 6 units. These disclosures caused First Solar stock to decline by $8.73 per share, or nearly 15%, from a close of $59.32 per share on February 20, 2020, to close at $50.59 per share on February 21, 2020. City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System is a pension plan providing benefits to eligible general employees of the City of Pontiac, Michigan. It purchased shares of First Solar common stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered damages as a result of the violations of the federal securities laws. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Kimberly C. Page BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Email: afriedman@bftb.com kpage@bffb.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Email: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com avi(ablbglaw.com - and - Naumon Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Email: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com FIRST SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar, Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FSLR) common stock between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). First Solar investors have until March 8, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your First Solar investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/first-solar-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On January 15, 2020, Barclays reported that First Solar had "seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream solar market" and that the Company had concealed its rapidly declining market share through misleading financial reporting by including projects in its Project Development pipeline that had actually been completed in prior years. On this news, First Solar's stock fell $4.03, or 7%, to close at $54.75 per share on January 15, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on February 6, 2020, Barclays stated that, in an attempt to gain back its market share, First Solar was "bidding more aggressively, leading to lower [Project Development contract] prices, and finally cutting into margins." On this news, First Solar's stock fell $0.45 to close at $52.65 per share on February 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was exploring a sale of its Project Development Business. The Company also disclosed that it was experiencing "challenges with regard to certain aspects of the overall cost per watt" and that it would not be realizing its cost per watt goals. On this news, First Solar's stock fell $8.73, or 15%, to close at $50.59 per share on February 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. 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) the Company's Series 6 solar module was not commercially ready at the time of its release, had a component that was failing in the field and causing fires, was not able to hit its projected and touted wattage targets, had an inconsistent output, and (2) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar 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 wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] GEICO: Seeks to Stay Deadline for Class Certification Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN ZAMBITO, et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 8:21-cv-02223-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant GEICO asks the Court to enter an order staying its deadline to respond to Plaintiff Ryan Zambito's Motion for Class Certification until 30 days after submission of a Case Management Report, if needed. In the alternative, should the Court deny GEICO's request for a stay, GEICO requests that the Court grant it 30 days from the date of such order, so that GEICO has adequate time to prepare a response to Plaintiff's Motion and is not prejudiced. On September 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs Ryan Zambito and Robert McDaniel filed a First Amended Class Action and Collective Action Complaint against GEICO. On October 1, the Court issued its FLSA Scheduling Order, which directed the exchange of specified written discovery, required counsel for the parties to meet following that exchange to discuss settlement, and, following that attorney conference, required the parties to file a Report Regarding Settlement. On January 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification, requesting notice to allegedly similarly situated current and former employees of GEICO under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to ask them to join the lawsuit. Among Plaintiff's requested relief is that GEICO produce a list of individuals employed in job positions like that of Plaintiff in Florida over the last three years, including their personal contact information. GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nt8qBE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Reed L. Russell, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602-5315 Telephone: (813) 472-7550 Facsimile: (813) 472-7570 E-mail: reed.russell@phelps.com - and - Eric Hemmendinger, Esq. Teresa D. Teare, Esq. SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP One South Street, Suite 1800 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-1040 Facsimile: (410) 752-8861 E-mail: eh@shawe.com teare@shawe.com GENUINE PARTS: Cervantez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARK CERVANTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, doing business as NAPA AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV40245, 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 11, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00211 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to timely pay wages. Genuine Parts Company, doing business as NAPA Auto Parts, is an automobile parts company, with its principal place of business in Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander W. Simon, Esq. MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP 2573 Apple Valley Road NE Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 909-8100 Facsimile: (404) 909-8120 E-mail: asimon@martensonlaw.com GENUINE PARTS: Faces Cervantez PAGA Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ MARK CERVANTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, doing business as NAPA AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV00981 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages owed during employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to keep accurate records, and failure to pay sick pay at the proper rate. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Genuine Parts Company, doing business as NAPA Auto Parts, is an automobile parts company, with its principal place of business at 2999 Wildwood Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com GOOGLE LLC: Averts AdWorks Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet Inc.'s Google dodged class action litigation over fraud claims involving its AdWorks business, when a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., ruled that the advertiser leading the case raised too many issues unlikely to affect other customers. Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied a bid to certify the case as a class action late on Jan. 10, reducing Google's legal exposure by orders of magnitude for allegedly exaggerating the percentage of malicious, bogus, or otherwise "invalid" ad "clicks" screened out by AdWorks. The lead plaintiff, Gurminder Singh, "provided no evidence" that other advertisers relied on alleged misrepresentations "buried" deep on Google's website. [GN] H MART: Baires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Supermarket Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMELINA MERCADO BAIRES, JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO, WALTER EDENILSO ESCALANTE CORADO, JORGE ADOLFO GARCIA HERNANDEZ, CARLOS ARTURO ZETINO MELGAR, ARTURO HERNANDEZ VILLANUEVA, JOSE MARTIN ALVARADO VELASCO, JOSE BELMER ALVARADO VELASCO, MARTIR HIREN VILLANUEVA, and WILFREDO MELENDEZ QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H MART BAYSIDE, LLC, H MART COMPANIES, INC., and H MART, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00158 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed at the Defendants' supermarket at any time between 2013 and 2021. H Mart Bayside, LLC is an owner and operator of a supermarket located at 46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York. H Mart Companies, Inc. is an owner and operator of a supermarket located at 46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York. H Mart, Inc. is an owner and operator of a supermarket located at 46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq. 580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 457-1699 HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Diamonds Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff ABC Diamonds Incorporated filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ABC DIAMONDS INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07097, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for bad faith breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of its operations, including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a Spectrum Business Owner's commercial insurance policy issued by Hartford to protect its properties and income from the operation of its businesses. The Plaintiff agreed to pay premiums to the Defendants in exchange for promises of coverage for all risks of loss except those specifically and unambiguously excluded. The actions of the Defendants in improperly denying the Plaintiff's claim were a blatant disregard for its contractual rights resulting in a material breach of the Defendants' duties and obligation owed under the Spectrum Policy and deprived it of the benefit of its bargain causing serious financial damages to the Plaintiff. On December 10, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as ABC Diamonds Incorporated v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 22-1026, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 7, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript information sheet is due by January 21, 2022; -- Docketing Statement is due for Appellant ABC Diamonds Incorporated by January 14, 2022; and -- Appellant's brief due on or before February 16, 2022 for ABC Diamonds Incorporated.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ABC DIAMONDS INCORPORATED, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lisa Brooke Weinstein, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 610-5351 E-mail: lweinstein@gelaw.com Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 227 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1265 E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com HEALING ENERGY: Faces Lane Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- DIAMOND LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALING ENERGY HOMECARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 220100797 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay wages which are due and owing for all hours worked in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and breach of its contractual obligations under Pennsylvania Common Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a direct care worker from October 1, 2021. Healing Energy Homecare, LLC is a home health care services provider, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Schreiber, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com aschreiber@phillyemploymentlawyer.com HOGSHEAD TAVERN: Solis Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOGSHEAD TAVERN and TARA WHOLLEY, Defendants, Case No. 150237/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay accurate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cleaner/maintenance man from November 2015 until August 2020. Hogshead Tavern is an owner and operator of restaurant and tavern, with a principal place of business located at 126 Hamilton PI, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq. T. A. BLACKBURN LAW, PLLC 1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11236 E-mail: tblackbum@tablackbumlaw.com I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:19-cv-13447-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. IC System is an accounts receivable management firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33AWPJu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Rosales Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JESUS EVELIO ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV40280, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00203 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. JetBlue Airways is an air transportation company with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Long Island City, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 - and – Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq. Taylor D. Horn, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com taylor.horn@morganlewis.com JOJO SIWA INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jojo Siwa, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jojo Siwa, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00255 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Joelle Joanie "JoJo" Siwa -- https://itsjojosiwa.com/ -- is an American dancer, singer, and YouTuber. She is known for appearing for two seasons on Dance Moms along with her mother, Jessalynn Siwa, and for her singles "Boomerang" and "Kid in a Candy Store."[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 JULLIARD SCHOOL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Julliard School. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Julliard School, Case No. 1:22-cv-00282 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Juilliard School -- https://www.juilliard.edu/ -- is a private performing arts conservatory in New York City.[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 KE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of KE Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BEKE) between August 13, 2020 and December 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 28, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased KE Holdings securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the KE Holdings class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2227.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) KE Holdings inflated the Company's GTV; (2) KE Holdings inflated the Company's revenues; (3) KE Holdings inflated the number of stores and agents using the Company's platform; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the KE Holdings class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2227.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Johnson Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DANNY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00104, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on January 11, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00039-JFC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, and duty to warn. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff was forced to replace the device at considerable cost, says the suit. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096 BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Helvey, Esq. LARRY HELVEY LAW FIRM 2735 First Avenue SE, Suite 101 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Telephone: (319) 362-0421 Facsimile: (319) 362-3496 E-mail: lhelvey@helveylaw.com LAWNBRIGHT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawnbright LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lawnbright LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00263-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lawnbright -- https://getlawnbright.com/ -- is an online lawn care subscription service that sell all-natural and organic treatment plans, similar to Sunday Lawn Care.[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 LUCID GROUP: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDELMIRA GUERRERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCID GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00268 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, lucidmotors.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Lucid Group, Inc. is an American electric vehicle manufacturer headquartered in Newark, California. Lucid's other divisions include energy storage, and original equipment manufacturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Colludes to Restrict Baseball Market, Concepcion Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CONCEPCION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, ROB MANFRED; ALLAN HUBER "BUD" SELIG; KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC; BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P.; ANGELS BASEBALL LP; CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., L.P.; CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., INC.; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES DODGERS, LLC; LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING CO.; STERLING METS L.P.; ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; AZPB L.P.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, INC.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, L.P.; THE PHILLIES L.P.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, INC.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL P’SHIP; NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP; TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD.; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC; CHICAGO BASEBALL HOLDINGS, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01017 (D.P.R., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Puerto Rico Wage and Hour Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy and agreement to restrict and depress, at below market rates, the wages and compensation they pay their minor league baseball players. The Defendants are members of the monopsony cartel known as Major League Baseball (MLB). In order to monopolize minor league players, and restrain and depress their salaries, the MLB cartel inserted a provision (known as the reserve clause) into players' contracts that allows teams to retain the contractual rights to players and restricts their movement and their ability to negotiate with other teams for their baseball services and the compensation they receive, which reserve clause preserves MLB's monopsony over the minor league system of artificially low compensation paid to minor league players and their nonexistent contractual mobility. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball is an unincorporated association doing business as Major League Baseball. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. is a baseball club operator in Kansas City, Kansas. Miami Marlins, L.P. is a baseball club operator in Miami, Florida. San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC is a baseball club operator in San Francisco, California. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. is a baseball club operator in Boston, Massachusetts. Angels Baseball LP is a baseball club operator in Anaheim, California. Chicago White Sox Ltd. is a baseball club operator in Chicago, Illinois. St. Louis Cardinals, LLC is a baseball club operator in Saint Louis, Missouri. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd. is a baseball club operator in Colorado. Baseball Club of Seattle, LLP is a baseball club operator in Seattle, Washington. The Cincinnati Reds, LLC is a baseball club operator in Cincinnati, Ohio. Houston Baseball Partners LLC is a baseball club operator in Houston, Texas. Athletics Investment Group, LLC is a provider of sporting events services in Oakland, California. Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership is a baseball club operator in Toronto, Ontario. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., L.P. is a baseball club operator in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., Inc. is a baseball club operator in Cleveland, Ohio. Padres L.P. is a baseball club operator in San Diego, California. San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P. is a baseball club operator in San Diego, California. Minnesota Twins, LLC is a baseball club operator in Minnesota. Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC is a baseball club operator in Washington. Detroit Tigers, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Detroit, Michigan. Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC is a baseball club operator in Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Co. is a baseball club operator in Los Angeles, California. Sterling Mets L.P. is a baseball club operator in Flushing, New York. Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Atlanta, Georgia. AZPB L.P. is a baseball club operator in Phoenix, Arizona. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Baltimore, Maryland. Baltimore Orioles, L.P. is a baseball club operator in Baltimore, Maryland. The Phillies L.P. is a baseball club operator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh Baseball P'Ship is a baseball club operator in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. New York Yankees P'Ship is a baseball club operator in New York. Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd. is a baseball club operator in Tampa, Florida. Rangers Baseball Express, LLC is a baseball club operator in Arlington, Texas. Rangers Baseball, LLC is a baseball club operator in Arlington, Texas. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC is a baseball club operator in Chicago, Illinois. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, L.P. is a baseball club operator in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Kornhauser, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-6281 Facsimile: (415) 981-7616 E-mail: samuel.kornhauser@gmail.com - and – Brian David, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID 1329 North Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (847) 778-7528 Facsimile: (312) 346-8469 E-mail: bdbriandavid@gmail.com - and – Rafael Baella-Silva, Esq. B & B LAW FIRM, PSC Baella & Baella 563 Pedro Bigay Street Urb. Ext. Baldrich San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 250-8080 E-mail: rbaellasilva@baellalaw.com MALCO PRODUCTS: Faces Chadwell Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- ALYCIA CHADWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MALCO PRODUCTS OF OHIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ohio, January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a pad room operator at its Barberton, Ohio manufacturing facility from in August 2020. Malco Products of Ohio, Inc. is a manufacturing company specializing in automotive fluid products, with its headquarters located at 361 Fairview Ave., Barberton Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE TOWNSEND, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorneys General Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to reimburse necessarily incurred business expenses, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due upon termination. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a recruiter in Oakland, California, and later worked remotely in Hayward, California, from approximately August 2018 to March 2021. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides home healthcare, companion and behavioral care, healthcare staffing, and workforce solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@whaines.com MENLO PARK, CA: Class Action Claims City Must Refund Residents -------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Bradshaw at almanacnews.com reports that Menlo Park residents David Fogel, Kirill Pertsev and Kaitlin Darke have filed a class action lawsuit looking for a refund of utility users taxes from the city of Menlo Park, alleging that the City Council has failed to properly reauthorize the tax collection since 2014. Menlo Park's Utility Users Tax (UUT) was approved by voters in 2006 and imposes a maximum 3.5% tax on gas, electrical and water usage and a maximum 2.5% tax on cable, telephone and wireless services, according to the city website. The taxes are collected by the utility service providers and sent monthly to the city's finance division. The taxes, which have been set at 1% since 2007, also set a cap of $12,000 for the total amount a user can pay for electric, gas and water utilities. In the 20-21 fiscal year, the city collected about $1.4 million in utility users taxes, and the amount collected annually since the 2012-13 fiscal year has generally fluctuated between roughly $1.1 million and $1.7 million. An Oct. 28 demand letter by attorney James Pistorino on behalf of Fogel, Pertsev and Darke states that these residents are demanding that the city stop collecting utility users tax and provide a refund. According to the lawsuit, filed Dec. 28, each person who paid Menlo Park's utility users tax past Dec. 31, 2016, "is entitled to a refund (with interest) of all such monies paid." When asked whether Menlo Park residents might see a tax refund in their future, City Attorney Nira Doherty said in an email to The Almanac, "The City now has the opportunity to file a responsive pleading to the class action lawsuit. The lawsuit is in the very early stages; any determinations on the allegations, including those related to a tax refund, would be premature." At the time the tax was approved in 2006, Pistorino writes in the initial demand letter, those pushing to have the measure passed argued that the city faced a recurring budget deficit of $2.2 million and needed the utility users taxes to avoid "drastic cuts" and help pay for police, emergency preparedness, libraries, street repairs, park maintenance and senior and youth programs. The law passed by a narrow 67-vote majority. In the municipal code, it says that the tax would need to be reviewed every two years, and to be reauthorized, the City Council would have to, by a two-thirds majority, make findings that the tax is "necessary for the financial health of the city." If it didn't, the tax would be terminated at the end of the calendar year. That's what happened when the council allegedly neglected to reauthorize the tax any time after 2016, Pistorino argues. Furthermore, under the California Constitution, it says that governments are not permitted to "impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote." Since Menlo Park voters haven't voted on it since the tax allegedly lapsed, the city is allegedly in violation of the state constitution, the lawsuit claims. According to Pistorino, citing city documents he obtained, the City Council made the needed findings in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, but hadn't been made in 2016 or any year beyond that, and as a result, the UUT would have expired at the end of 2016 which, by extension, means that any taxes collected after then were illegally collected. The group bring forward the lawsuit is making it a class action lawsuit on behalf of all of the households who paid the utility users tax after its authorization lapsed; estimated to be more than 12,000 households or entities, according to the legal complaint. The lawsuit requests that the judge determine that the UUT is no longer in effect, bar the city from collecting any more UUT, order the city to refund those taxes, including interest, and award the plaintiffs and class members litigation expenses and legal relief. The claimants' research into the UUT began after Aug. 31, 2021, when now Mayor Betsy Nash, Vice Mayor Jen Wolosin and Councilwoman Cecilia Taylor expressed favor toward increasing the utility users tax to the maximum 3.5% up from the current 1% rate to generate funds to help low-income households replace gas power with electric power. The votes "prompted increased scrutiny of the UUT itself and, as a result, this demand letter," Pistorino wrote. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Faces UK Class Suit For Breach of Competition Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Martin at foxbusiness.com reports that the parent company of Facebook is facing a class action lawsuit in the United Kingdom for breach of competition law, according to a report. The filing accuses the parent company, California-based Meta, of abusing its dominance of social networking in the U.K. for several years, according to TechCrunch. The accusation comes from a legal expert on competition, backed by a powerful litigation fund. The suit. If successful, would have Facebook paying $3.1 billion in damages to Facebook U.K. users. The lawsuit was filed with the U.K.'s Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The suit claims Facebook should pay its 44 million U.K. users compensation for the exploitation of their data between 2015 and 2019. JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES It says Facebook took all the personal and private data of its users and in return all its users got, in effect, was the ability to post photos of babies and kittens to their friends and families. The action is being mounted by international competition law expert Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen. She claims Facebook set an "unfair price" for U.K. Facebook users. TechCrunch reached out to Facebook asking for comment but had not yet received a response. Financial backing for the case is coming from Innsworth, one of the largest litigation funders in the world. [GN] METROMILE INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROMILE, INC., DAN PRESTON, COLIN BRYANT, JOHN BUTLER, SANDRA CLARKE, RYAN GRAVES, and VIKAS SINGHAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00180-KAW (N.D. Cal., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance of a false and misleading proxy statement by Metromile with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to convince Metromile stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of Metromile by Lemonade, Inc. The proxy statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Metromile's and Lemonade's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Metromile's financial advisor Allen & Company LLC; (ii) the background of the proposed transaction; and (iii) Metromile insiders' potential conflicts of interest. Unless remedied, Metromile's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed merger. Metromile, Inc. is a digital insurance platform company, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and – Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 MIDLAND CREDIT: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Moshe Plotnik, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-00231 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. also referred to as Midland Credit -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is one of the largest debt collection companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM J. FISHBEIN 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Phone: (516) 791-4400 Fax: (516) 791-4411 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MOOV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moov Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moov Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moov -- https://welcome.moov.cc/ -- creates award-winning fitness apps and wearables that combine inspiring design with cutting-edge technologies, delivering highly engaging workouts.[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 MY CUBE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Cube, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Cube, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00270 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mycube -- https://mycubesafe.com/ -- provides secure home safe solutions that fit seamlessly into customers' lifestyle.[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 NAMASTE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Namaste, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Namaste, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00283 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lifeist (previously Namaste Technologies Inc.) -- https://lifeist.com/home/default.aspx -- is at the forefront of the post-pandemic wellness revolution.[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 NATIONAL MENTOR: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hagans Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HAGANS and VIVIAN HAGANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC. and NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00128 (D.N.J., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as direct support professionals (DSPs) in New Jersey. National Mentor Healthcare, Inc. is an in-home care service company doing business as Sevita Health in New Jersey. National Mentor Healthcare, LLC is an in-home care service company doing business as Sevita Health in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com NCAA: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Johnson FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- NCAA, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 19-5230, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The First Amended Complaint alleges that student athletes who attend colleges and universities in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and who engage in Division I interscholastic athletic activity for those colleges and universities that is unrelated to academics are student employees similar to students engaged in work study programs and should be paid for the time they spend in NCAA Division I interscholastic athletics as if they were work study students. The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 Pa. Stat. Section 333.101, et seq. (the "PMWA"), the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 191, et seq. ("NYLL"), and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, C.G.S.A. Sections 31-58, et seq. ("CMWA"). The Complaint also asserts claims for unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut common law against all Defendants. The Complaint seeks the approval of an FLSA collective and classes to pursue the Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut law claims. On Aug. 25, 2021, the Court denied the Attended Schools Defendants' ("ASD") Motion to Dismiss. The ASD moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FLSA and state statutory law claims as against them on the ground that the Complaint does not allege facts that would establish that the Plaintiffs are their employees, which is a requirement for bringing a claim under the FLSA and the relevant state statutes The ASD argued that the Plaintiffs could not be their employees for three reasons: (1) student athletes such as the Plaintiffs are amateurs; (2) the Department of Labor has determined that interscholastic athletes are not employees for purposes of the FLSA; and (3) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the Plaintiffs are employees pursuant to a multi-factor test used to determine whether individuals are employees. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to all three of these arguments. The ASD asked the Court to certify the following issue for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b): Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act solely by virtue of their participation in interscholastic athletics. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 11, 2022, Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an Order-Memorandum: a. granting the Motion of the Attended Schools to Certify Interlocutory Appeal of Ruling Denying Their Motion to Dismiss; and b. certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal: Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act solely by virtue of their participation in interscholastic athletics. The Defendants now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as NCAA, et al. v. Ralph Johnson, et al., Case No. 22-8003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 7, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a/k/a THE NCAA, AND THE FOLLOWINGNCAA DIVISION I MEMBER SCHOOLSAS REPRESENTATIVES OF ADEFENDANT CLASS OF ALL PRIVATEAND SEMI-PUBLIC NCAA DIVISION IMEMBER SCHEDULES; DREXEL UNIVERSITY; LAFAYETTE COLLEGE; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; LAFAYETTE COLLEGE; UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; CORNELL UNIVERSITY; SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY; FORDHAM UNIVERSITY; and UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, are represented by: Alexandria M. Gilbert, Esq. Steven B. Katz, Esq. Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: skatz@constangy.com skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com - and - John E. MacDonald, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE Princeton South Corporate Center, Suite 140 100 Charles Ewing Boulevard Ewing, NJ 08628 Telephone: (609) 454-0096 E-mail: jmacdonald@constangy.com - and - Donald S. Prophete, Esq. CONTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 750 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 472-6400 E-mail: dprophete@constangy.com - and - Marla N. Presley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 232-0404 Plaintiffs-Respondents RALPH TREY JOHNSON, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, NICHOLAS LABELLA, ALEXA COOKE, STEPHANIE KERKELES, RHESA FOSTER, ESTEBAN SUAREZ, ZACHARY HARRIS, LAURA HAMILTON, MATTHEW SCHMIDT, LIAM WALSH, GINA SNYDER, TAMARA SCHOEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; Taylor J. Crabill, Esq. Renan Varghese, Esq. Michael J. Willemin, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 E-mail: tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com - and - Paul L. McDonald, Esq. P L MCDONALD LAW LLC 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 238-3835 E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com NEW YORK: Foster Children Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs ELISA W., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELISA W., et al., Plaintiffs v, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-5273, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was brought in 2015 on behalf of 19 children in foster care in New York City. The Plaintiffs assert a range of constitutional and statutory claims against both New York City and the State of New York, based on alleged systemic failures in the New York City foster care system, including a failure to exercise proper oversight over the agencies responsible for the day-to-day care of children. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs have been, and are at risk of being deprived of constitutional rights protected by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; that City Defendants' actions constitute a pattern or practice of depriving Plaintiffs of various rights conferred upon them by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; that City Defendants' actions constitute a deprivation of rights conferred on Plaintiffs by various provisions of the New York State Social Services Law and regulations adopted thereto; and that City Defendants have breached and failed to enforce contracts between ACS and Contract Agencies. At bottom, the Plaintiffs assert that children in foster care in New York City are harmed by systemic deficiencies, including failures by OCFS and ACS to perform their respective oversight functions, and to enforce the terms of the agreements between ACS and the Contract Agencies. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 21, 2021, Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied: (i) a Daubert motion filed by the City Defendants seeking to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, and (ii) a renewed motion by the Plaintiffs for class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the said denial of their motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Elisa W. v. The City of New York, Case No. 22-7, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 4, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Ayanna J., by her next friend, Meyghan McCrea; Dameon C., by his next friend, Reverend Doctor Gwendolyn Hadley-Hall; Olivia R., by their next friend, Dawn Cardi; Matthew V., by their next friend, Samuel D. Perry, Individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; Mikayla G., by her next friend, Michael B. Mushlin; Valentina T.C., by their next friend, Rachel Friedman; Jose T.C., by their next friend, Rachel Friedman; Lucas T., by their next friend, Rachel Friedman; Myls J., by their next friend, Elizabeth Hendrix; Ximena T., by their next friend, Rachel Friedman; Malik M., by their next friend, Elizabeth Hendrix; Emmanuel S., by their next friend, Samuel D. Perry, Individually and on behalf of a class and all others similarly situated; Alexandria R., by her next friend, Alison Max Rothschild; Thierry E., by his next friend Michael B. Mushlin; Elisa W.; Xavion M., by his next friend, Michael B. Mushlin; Tyrone M., by his next friend, Bishop Lillian Robinson-Wiltshire; Ana-Maria R., by their next friend, Dawn Cardi; and Brittney W., by her next friend, Shamara Mills, are represented by: Julie A. North, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza, 825 8th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com Defendants-Appellees The City of New York; New York City Administration for Childrens Services; and Sheila J. Poole, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, in her official capacity, are represented by: Jamison Davies, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2490 - and - Elizabeth Brody, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-6167 NEWELL BRANDS: Schaer Slams Mislabeling on Service Warranty ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Schaer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc. and Sunbeam Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-30004 (D. Mass., December 7, 2022), brings claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and resulting from unjust enrichment, and fraudulent omission. Newell Brands and Graco Children's Products manufacture, marketing and sale of consumer products sold under the Sunbeam, Crockpot, Oyster, and Mr. Coffee brand names. Schaer claims that said products contain warranty statements that condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service where a consumer product's warranty on the use of a specific repair service. Its product packaging allegedly states a one-year limited warranty, but the unlawful repair restriction is not revealed to the consumer until after the point of sale. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7011 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: ADA Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Allegheny School District, et al. The case is styled as JOHN DOE 1; JANE DOE 1, in their own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 2 and CHILD DOE 3; JANE DOE 3, in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 4 and on behalf of those similarly situated v. North Allegheny School District, a Pennsylvania governmental entity; Richard McCLure, Elizabeth Blackburn, Marcie Crow, Leslie Britton Dozier, Paige Hardy, Kevin Mahler, Vidya Szymhowiak, Elizabeth Werner, Shannon Yeakel, all individual elected officials sued in their official capacity as members of the North Allegheny School District Board of Directors; North Allegheny School District Board of Directors, a Pennsylvania elected legislative body; Case No. 2:22-cv-00055-MJH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. North Allegheny School District -- https://www.northallegheny.org/ -- is a large, suburban public school district located in McCandless, Pennsylvania, about 12 miles north of Pittsburgh.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq. BEHREND LAW GROUP, LLC 428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-4460 Fax: (412) 391-5073 Email: krbehrend@behrendlawgroup.com NORTH AMERICAN: Bennett Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE BENNETT on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and GERALD MCGHEE, v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, where Classes are defined as: "All persons in California who became NAB's pay-as-you-go merchants prior to September 1, 2017, and who were debited at least one $3.99 inactivity fee prior to September 1, 2017;" and "All persons in California who became NAB's pay-as-you-go merchants prior to September 1, 2017, who were debited at least one $3.99 inactivity fee after September 1, 2017, and did not agree to a contract authorizing debit of the $3.99 inactivity fee." 2. appoints Plaintiff June Bennett as the Class Representative of the Classes; and 3. appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and LaGuardia Law, APC as class counsel. In this action, the Plaintiff Bennett alleges that she and other NAB pay-as-you-go merchants were fraudulently, unfairly, and unjustly charged $3.99 monthly "inactivity" fees by the Defendant North American Bancard, LLC ("NAB"). Further, Plaintiff Bennett alleges that NAB's $3.99 monthly inactivity fees constitute conversion and unjust enrichment. In this Motion, the Plaintiffs assert that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because (1) the classes that Plaintiff Bennett seeks to certify are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that there are questions and answers of law or fact common to class members; (3) the claims of the representative Plaintiff Bennett are typical of the claims of the classes she seeks to represent; and (4) the representative Plaintiff Bennett and her counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rd4OVq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Ethan Litney, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19 th Floor San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org elitney@nicholaslaw.org - and - Eric A. LaGuardia, Esq. LAGUARDIA LAW, APC 402 West Broadway, Suite 2200 San Diego, California 92101 Telepohone: (619) 655-4322 Facsimile: (619) 655-4344 E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com OAK STREET: Faces Allison Suit Over 20% Decline of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- REGINALD T. ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK STREET HEALTH, INC., MICHAEL PYKOSZ, and TIMOTHY COOK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00149 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 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 about Oak Street's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Oak Street securities at artificially traded prices between August 6 2020, and November 8, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $9.75, or more than 20 percent, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9, 2021, damaging investors, says the suit. Oak Street Health, Inc. is an operator of primary care centers within the United States, with its principal executive offices located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com - and – Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com OAK STREET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH) between August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Oak Street Health securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street Health maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street Health was providing free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) these activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) as such, Oak Street Health was at heightened risk of investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) as a result, Oak Street Health was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) 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 join the Oak Street Health class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] ONE HOME BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Home Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. One Home Brands, Inc. doing business as: Blueland, Case No. 1:22-cv-00261 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. One Home Brands, Inc. doing business as Blueland -- https://www.blueland.com/ -- creates everyday eco-friendly cleaning products to save money and space, without any plastic waste.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com OPEN ACCESS: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPEN ACCESS INSURANCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00102 (N.D. Ill., January 7, 2022) seeks redress for the Defendant's illegal telemarketing that is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff and all members of the class, have allegedly been harmed by the telemarketing acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance. Open Access Insurance LLC is a national insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com OPENSKY PROJECT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opensky Project, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Opensky Project, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00294 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OpenSky Project, Inc. -- https://www.opensky.com/ -- operates an online e-commerce store.[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 OTHER HALF BREWING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Other Half Brewing Company, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Other Half Brewing Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00293 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other Half Brewing -- https://otherhalfbrewing.com/ -- resides as a beacon in the heart of New York City, Brooklyn, churning out incredible brews and an authentic New York City experience.[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 OVH GROUPE: 51 Int'l Companies Join Class Action Over Data Loss --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Judge, writing for DCD, reports that 51 international companies who lost data when OVHcloud's SBG2 data center in Strasbourg burnt down in March 2021, have joined a class action claiming 'up to €1.9 million' in damages. The legal action is being brought by Parisian legal firm Ziegler Associates, and is still open to new claimants, before an official letter goes to OVHcloud in March. The fire on March 10 destroyed the cloud operator's SBG2 data center, and crippled the SBG1 facility on the same site. Many international businesses suffered downtime and lost data. OVHcloud has still not given any official information on the cause of the fire, claiming it cannot do this until later this year, for legal reasons, although initial reports suggested the blaze started in UPS systems, and reports have alleged the company had inadequate fire prevention systems. Four arguments to shift the blame Ziegler announced its class action in November with seven companies, and 20 companies had signed up by early December. Now that number has expanded, with Ziegler saying its clients are "seeking justice and compensation for all the damages they may have suffered as a result of this fire". It says its goal is "to compensate companies that lost data during the fire at OVH's data center in Strasbourg." One of Ziegler's clients has shared OVHcloud's four legal arguments against compensation. These are; -- No fault would be attributable to OVH -- The disaster was "force majeure": (beyond OVHcloud's control) -- A limited liability clause in OVHcloud's contract OVHcloud's responsibility only includes direct damages -- the hosting service -- and does not include indirect damages such as loss of business Ziegler will be arguing against all these points, saying that OVHcloud was at fault for not taking specific additional security measures, and because it kept backups on the same site as original data: "OVH has the obligation to put in place all the necessary means to deal with a possible security failure, for example a fire," says Ziegler. "However, its data centers in Strasbourg were not equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. For some companies having taken the backup option, the backups were carried out in the same data center. They have de facto lost everything." The conditions for invoking force majeure were not met. Under clause 1218 of France's civil code, a force majeure defense requrires the event to have been unpredictable, irresistible, and outside the OVHcloud's control. Ziegler argues that because prevention measures were available, the damage was within OVHcloud's control. Ziegler says OVHccloud's limited liability defense is invalid, because it essentially claims it is not responsible to provide the basic service its clients expect, to have data hosted securely. "As soon as the limiting clauses generate a significant imbalance between the parties, the judge may consider these clauses as invalid," says Ziegler, adding that OVHcloud's limited liability argument dispenses with its own purpose which is to host data in a secure manner". Finally, Ziegler says OVHcloud is not legally able to limit its responsibility to direct damages only. The law firm says the judge should take into account other costs such as the cost of restoring and replacing data, loss of business, and even damage to an OVHcloud customer's brand image. According to a report in Le Journal Du Net, Ziegler intends to add further confidential arguments to its letter before it is filed. "The objective is to demonstrate that the situation of OVH is no longer tenable, and that it will have to go through an amicable discussion if it does not want a lost trial", says Jocelyn Ziegler, according to that report. OVHcloud has declined to comment on the Ziegler class action to DCD until the formal letter is received: "We cannot comment more, as the case is still not shared with the legal authorities nor with our lawyers/legal department who still have no access to its detailed elements," said an OVHcloud spokesperson, adding that OVHcloud has provided support and refunds for customers for impacted services. [GN] PERMIAN DUST: Ginkinger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------- GARY GINKINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN DUST STORM HAULERS, LLC, and GILBERT SAENZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00004 (W.D. Tex., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver in Midland, Texas from July 12, 2021 through October 4, 2021. Permian Dust Storm Haulers, LLC is a freight shipping and trucking company which maintains offices in Midland, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS-SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone (512) 474-7677 Facsimile (512) 474-5306 E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Candice Paschal and Pedro Zarazua Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Perry's Restaurants LTD d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and Christopher V. Perry, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex., January 11, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Paschal and Zarazua were employed by the Defendants to work as servers from January of 2020 until May of 2021 and from July of 2017 until July of 2021, respectively. Perry's Restaurants Ltd., d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille, engages in steak restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 PETRA LIVING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petra Living, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petra Living, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00292 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Petra Living, Inc. is located in San Francisco, California and is part of the Consumer Goods Rental Industry.[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 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS REMICK, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of persons who are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, consisting of: "All persons who are currently or will be in the future confined in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and are or will be subjected to unconstitutional and otherwise illegal conditions of confinement, including extended lockdowns; lack of out-of-cell time; denial of timely and adequate medical care; lack of protection from physical assaults; denial of access to the courts, to legal counsel, and to timely legal mail; lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings; lack of access to necessary exercise; inadequate sanitation, hygiene, quarantine, and separation practices and procedures to protect against COVID-19 infections." The Plaintiffs commenced this class action seeking relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement that existed at that time and which, absent judicial intervention, will continue to exist in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons ("PDP"). The Plaintiffs filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, on April 20, 2020, to compel Defendants City of Philadelphia and Commissioner Blanche Carney to protect individuals incarcerated in the PDP from the risks of serious harm they face from the twin dangers of COVID-19 and prolonged isolation in their cells. On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order requiring Defendants to ensure that conditions of confinement in PDP facilities complied with the then-current health and safety standards necessary to protect the Plaintiff class from the risks associated with COVID-19 and to provide humane conditions of confinement, including adequate out-of-cell time consistent with constitutional requirements. The parties reached a partial settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court and entered as a Consent Order on Partial Settlement Agreement on June 3, 2020. The Named Plaintiffs Thomas Remick, Nadiyah Walker, Jay Diaz, Michael Alejandro, Michael Dantzler, Robert Hinton, Joseph Weiss, Joseph Skinner, Saddam Abdullah, and James Bethea, were, at the time of the filing of the original Complaint and the related Motion for Class Certification, held in the PDP subject to the conditions alleged in the Complaint. The First Amended Complaint updated all relevant allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of those persons who currently are, or will in the future, be subject to such unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on January 7, 2022, added Clay Pizarro, Michael Flynn, Nasir Lewis, Dyquill Pledger, and Troy Harley as named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Clay Pizarro, Michael Flynn, Nasir Lewis, Dyquill Pledger, and Troy Harley, in addition to Michael Alejandro and Nadiyah Walker, are, as of the time of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint and the instant Amended Motion for Class Certification, held in the PDP subject to the conditions alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. The only difference between the First Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint are inclusion of additional named Plaintiffs and updated allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Defendant City of Philadelphia is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates and funds the Philadelphia Department of Prisons. The Defendant Blanche Carney is the Commissioner of the PDP. Defendants have actual knowledge of the challenged conditions of confinement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GuUAX1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Su Ming Yeh, Esq. Matthew A. Feldman, Esq. Grace Harris, Esq. Sarah Bleiberg, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch St., Suite 304S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215)-925-2966 E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org mfeldman@pailp.org gharris@pailp.org sbleiberg@pailp.org - and - Bret Grote, Esq. Nia Holston, Esq. Rupalee Rashatwar, Esq. ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER PO Box 31857 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 E-mail: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org nia@alcenter.org rupalee@alcenter.org - and - David Rudovsky, Esq. Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq. Susan M. Lin, Esq. KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING, FEINBERG, & LIN, LLP 718 Arch Street, Suite 501S Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com - and - Will W. Sachse, Esq. Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq. Mary H. Kim, Esq. Nicolas A. Novy, Esq. DECHERT LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808 Telephone: (215) 994-2496 E-mail: Will.Sachse@dechert.com Ben.Barnett@dechert.com Mary.Kim@dechert.com Nicolas.Novy@dechert.com PREVECEUTICAL MEDICAL: Settlement Reached in Tietz Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PreveCeutical Medical Inc. (CSE: PREV) (OTCQB: PRVCF) (FSE: 18H) (the "Company" or "PreveCeutical"), is pleased to announce the settlement of the proposed class action filed by Michael Tietz and Duane Loewen against the Company and many other parties in B.C. Supreme Court Action No. S197731, Vancouver Registry (the "Action"). PreveCeutical commenced its own action against some of the defendants to the Action claiming damages for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and other wrongs with respect to the same transactions which are the subject of the claims asserted in the Action (the "PreveCeutical Action"). The Company is pleased to announce that it has agreed to settle the claims made against it in the Action, without any admission of liability, in order to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and burden of this litigation, and any other present or future litigation arising out of the facts that gave rise to this litigation (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement requires the approval of the court, which is expected to be obtained early in 2022. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, PreveCeutical has agreed to make a payment of $350,000 and assign the PreveCeutical Action to the representative plaintiff and the class of plaintiffs, as defined in the Action, in exchange for a full and final release of Stephen Van Deventer, Shabira Ragan, and all current and former officers, directors, managers, employees, consultants and insurers of PreveCeutical; a covenant by the representative plaintiff and the proposed class of plaintiffs not to bring any proceedings or assist anyone to bring any proceedings against PreveCeutical and its associated companies, for any matter alleged in the plaintiffs' action, and an order of the court barring all claims for contributions and indemnity. PreveCeutical will not be required to incur any costs of pursuing the PreveCeutical Action, will be indemnified for any costs that might be awarded against it and is entitled to 25% of the amount recovered by the plaintiffs, less unrecovered legal costs. Stephen Van Deventer, PreveCeutical's Chief Executive Officer, commented, "Even though we would have preferred to have the Action dismissed on the merits, in consideration of the potential time and costs that the Company would incur if the Action continued, the Board of PreveCeutical decided that settlement of the Action was the best option for the Company. PreveCeutical expects that it will benefit from the end result of the PreveCeutical Action and takes satisfaction in knowing that the defendants to the PreveCeutical Action will be held accountable for the damage that they caused to the Company." About PreveCeutical PreveCeutical is a health sciences company that develops innovative options for preventive and curative therapies utilizing organic and nature identical products. The Company aims to be a leader in the preventive health sciences sector. With the completion of three of its research programs, the Company is actively working on the development, clinical trials, and commercialization of its products; and has filed a number of provisional patent applications to protect the intellectual property from its research programs. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suit Alleges Carcinogenic Aerosol Antiperspirants ------------------------------------------------------------------- A Lowcountry law firm has filed a South Carolina Class Action against Procter and Gamble for what it says are carcinogenic aerosol antiperspirants. Class action attorneys from Anastopoulo Law Firm have filed the class action on behalf of South Carolinians who purchased Procter & Gamble Company's Old Spice and Secret aerosol spray antiperspirants, as well as Old Spice Below Deck aerosol spray products. According to the suit, the products contained amounts of benzene that were dangerous to humans. Attorneys argue certain levels of exposure to the chemical can cause cancers and blood disorders. The lawsuit notes that Procter & Gamble notified retailers to remove the products, but that 18 known lots of the items had already been found to contain the chemical in dangerous amounts. "This is an important case for millions of consumers nationally. When people buy well known brands such as Secret and Old Spice aerosols they do not expect they may be exposed to poisonous chemicals by using them. We look forward to pursuing justice for the people" said Roy T. Willey IV, lead attorney on the case. Those with questions can contact Anastopoulo Law Firm's client services team at 800-777-7777. Those wishing to submit their experiences with the products listed above can do so online. Consumers who used the products with an an expiry through September 2023 are urged consult their health care provider if they experience any side effects. [GN] PROPER CLOTH: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proper Cloth, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Proper Cloth, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00296 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Proper Cloth -- https://propercloth.com/ -- enables customers to design and purchase custom dress shirts 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 QUALITY LIAISON: Faces Bernard Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- LEROY BERNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY LIAISON SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00015 (M.D. Tenn., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee. Quality Liaison Services of North America, Inc. is a provider of quality control services for suppliers in original equipment manufacturer plants across the United States, with its principal address located at 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd., Hendersonville, 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 QUANTUM GROUP: Ciofoletti Sues Over Illegal Usurious Loans' Losses ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELEANOR and ROCCO CIOFOLETTI and LARRY STOSPAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE QUANTUM GROUP USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00055-DWL (D. Ariz., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its alter ego/successor liability for Shurwest LLC's aiding and abetting of Securian Life Insurance Company's fiduciary breaches and/or Shurwest LLC's fiduciary breaches. The case arises from the Defendant's liability as successor-in-interest to Shurwest LLC, which marketed and sold the Minnesota Life Insurance Company (MLIC) or Securian Life Insurance Company (SLIC) indexed universal life (IUL) insurance policies linked to structured cash flow products from Future Income Payments, LLC (FIP Products). As early as 2015, state regulatory agencies had investigated the FIP Products and determined them to constitute illegal usurious loans. Shurwest, however, continued to sell FIP Products in conjunction with Securian IUL products through 2018. When FIP ceased operations in mid-2018 as a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class not only lost their investments in FIP Products, but also lost or were at risk of losing the life insurance policies purchased through the Securian Financial Network because, without the cash flows from the FIP Products, they could no longer pay for them or had to pay from sources other than the FIP products which were marketed and sold to them as premium finance investments, added the suit. The Quantum Group USA, LLC is a financial consulting firm doing business in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and – Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com - and – Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 424 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and – Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. Melinda J. Morales, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com kae@wexlerwallace.com RAY JONES: Back Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL BACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAY JONES TRUCKING, INC., TERESA JONES, GRANT JONES, and STEVE JONES, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00005-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated truck drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company, with its principal place of business at 3296 State Route 181 South, Greenville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com RB HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RB Health (US) LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00259 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RB Health (us) LLC -- http://www.reckitt.com/-- is located in Parsippany, New Jersey and is part of the Home Health Care Services Industry.[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 REXNORD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Machinists, Jordan Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ MYRON JORDAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00029-BHL (E.D. Wis., January 11, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of machinist working at Defendant's Milwaukee, Wisconsin location from August 2019 until December 8, 2021. Rexnord Industries, LLC is a manufacturer of motor, air, and power transmission parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Supreme Ct. Orders Review of Recession-Era Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- housingwire.com reports that the Supreme Court weighed in on a class action lawsuit against Quicken Loans, now Rocket Mortgage, regarding its appraisal practices during the financial crisis, delivering a procedural win for the mortgage lender. On Monday, the Supreme Court remanded the class action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reexamine its March decision in favor of borrowers. Rocket had requested the revision of the case last fall. The dispute involves a potential payment of $9.7 million stemming from allegedly tainted appraisals for 2,769 mortgage loans Quicken Loans originated from 2004 to 2009. Its affiliate appraisal company, Title Source, now Amrock, provided the appraisals, court records show. The lawsuit, filed in 2011 in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, claimed that the nonbank lender wrongly influenced home appraisal values during the financial crisis. Rocket, in a statement to HousingWire, said it is not surprised by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. "The facts of this case are clear, and demonstrate that our practices were compliant and that the refinance loans we provided benefited our West Virginia clients," a Rocket spokesperson said. The leading plaintiffs are two couples, Phillip and Sara Alig and Daniel and Roxanne Shea, who refinanced their mortgages in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The borrowers paid for the appraisals - $260 from the Aligs and $430 from the Sheas - and received their refinance loans. But they claim that Quicken Loans influenced appraisers to raise their home values and originate higher loans. Messages left with plaintiffs' attorneys were not returned. According to the lawsuit, the Aligs, for example, estimated their home was worth $129,000, and provided the information to Quicken Loans. Quicken Loans passed the value along to the appraisal company, which changed the home's valuation from $122,500 to $125,500, the couple claimed. The Aligs obtained a $113,000 loan, putting them underwater. Expert witnesses estimated the actual 2007 value of their home to be as much as $26,000 less than the appraised value. Rocket claimed that plaintiffs were not injured because they benefited from obtaining the loans. In a statement to HousingWire, the company defended its past practices, pointing out that a dissenting judge in the Fourth Circuit had said that providing relevant information to appraisers "was an industry-wide practice." According to the Fourth Circuit decision in March, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for conspiracy and unconscionable inducement, but not for the claim regarding breach of contract. "Plaintiffs paid an average of $350 for independent appraisals that, as we conclude below, they never received. Instead, they received appraisals that were tainted when Defendants exposed the appraisers to the borrowers' estimates of value and pressured them to reach those values," the Fourth Circuit judges wrote. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court wrote that the dispute needs to be analyzed by the Fourth Circuit in light of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In the case, concluded in June 2021, the Court stated that the law requires a concrete injury to grant a person the option to sue to vindicate a right. According to the case, "injury in law is not an injury in fact." The Fourth Circuit considered borrowers to have experienced financial harm when they paid for a home appraisal service influenced by Rocket. The company, however, said in the lawsuit the borrowers were uninjured, received the loans, and the Court needs to consider the level of harm suffered by each class member individually. Federal reforms following the 2008 financial crisis sought to put a firewall between lenders and appraisers. As a result of the changes, appraisal management companies came into wider use. Federal regulators, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are now focused on rooting out bias in appraisals, after a string of news stories and academic research suggesting bias may play a role in home valuations. A federal task force led by HUD is expected to make policy recommendations on appraisals in the early part of this year. Update: Title Source, now Amrock, is a subsidiary of Rocket Companies, not Rocket Mortgage. [GN] ROUND TABLE: Barker Sues Over Car Wreck Patients' Hospital Liens ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELAINE BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and violations of the Fraudulent Lien Statute and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant files illegal hospital lien against patients injured in car wrecks, including the Plaintiff. By filing these liens, the Defendant is trying to illegally profit off these injured patients and hold their injury claims hostage. The Defendant's illegal liens prevent these patients from negotiating and settling their personal injury claims, creating even more strain on an overworked legal system for those personal injury claims that enter litigation, says the suit. Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC is a physicians' group that employs doctors to provide medical services, located in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and – Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Earbuds Allergic Reactions --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Bloom, writing for SnackSafely.com, reports that two weeks ago, we published an article describing thousands of individuals who developed serious reactions to the Facebook/Meta Oculus Quest 2, a virtual reality headset used primarily for gaming. Now, thanks to Kurt Nielsen, Founder of the Anti Allergies, Asthma & Anaphylaxis Worldwide Facebook Group, we have word of another popular holiday gift that is causing allergic reactions and has spawned a class-action lawsuit. In Westerkamp v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc filed in August, the suit alleges a defect causes users of Galaxy Buds Pro to experience "itching, burning, redness, blistering, flaking, scabbing and/or fluid leaking from the ear" soon after they begin wearing the headphones. The only way to resolve the problems is to discontinue the use of the product. The "Pro" model of the earbuds sells for significantly more than its Galaxy Buds+ and Galaxy Buds Live stablemates. The suit alleges the reactions are caused by a defect in the product's material, workmanship, or manufacturing and puts users' health at serious risk. The suit also claims that Samsung knew about the alleged problems as soon as they began selling the earbuds in January 2021 but did not warn purchasers of the potential for developing allergic reactions. An excerpt of the complaint reads: Samsung's marketing techniques are false and misleading in that a reasonable consumer would believe that the Earbuds were of premium quality, are capable of being used as intended and would not result in health risks under ordinary use. But in reality, the Defect renders the Earbuds unsafe and useless, and result [sic] in significant health issues. The suit claims Samsung responded to reports of allergic reactions by either limiting its one-year warranty so as not to cover the defect or by replacing the earbuds with another pair "that contain[s] the exact same Defect." [GN] SAXX UNDERWEAR: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAXX Underwear (USA) Co. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAXX Underwear (USA) Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-00289 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SAXX Underwear -- https://www.saxxunderwear.com/ -- provides underwear that are built with a patented internal ballpark pouch, providing superior comfort.[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 SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Oddei Appeals Judgment in Contract Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nana Serwaah Oddei filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPTUM, INC., a Delaware corporation, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a California corporation, SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03974-SB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action case against Defendants on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts three causes of action. First, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants have violated California Evidence Code Section 1158 by charging members of the public 25 cents per page for copying medical records in violation of California's 10 cents per page cap. Second, Plaintiff alleges that ScanSTAT has violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Civil Code by engaging in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information, which provides for $1,000 in statutory damages per violation. Third, the Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants have violated California Business & Professions Code by virtue of their other alleged violations of California law. On May 11, 2021, Optum removed the matter under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand on June 9, 2021. On July 15, 2021, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion. On November 1, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's first amended complaint. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered December 3, 2021 Order and December 5, 2021 Judgment, granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order and judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Nana Serwaah Oddei v. ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 5, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei Mediation Questionnaire is due on January 12, 2022; -- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei opening brief is due on February 28, 2022; -- Appellee ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC answering brief is due on March 30, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bruce Thomas Murray, Esq. PIMENTEL LAW, PC 30 N Raymond Avenue, Suite 210 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 765-6505 E-mail: btm@pimentellaw.com Defendant-Appellee SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Kimberly D. Howatt, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 E-mail: khowatt@grsm.com SG GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SG Global Trade LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SG Global Trade LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00285 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SG Global Trade LLC is located in Edison, New Jersey and is part of the Apparel, Piece Goods, and Notions Merchant Wholesalers Industry.[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 SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Boone Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MERCEDES BOONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPB HOSPITALITY LLC and OLD CHICAGO TAPROOM II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061 (D. Colo., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Orders, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at an Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom restaurant located in Colorado Springs, Colorado from approximately September 5, 2018 through July 5, 2020. SPB Hospitality LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants under the trade name Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom in several states across the U.S., including in Colorado. Old Chicago Taproom II LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants under the trade name Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom in several states across the U.S., including in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 34555 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250 Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com - and – Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com SQUATTY POTTY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Squatty Potty, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Squatty Potty, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00271 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Squatty Potty -- https://www.squattypotty.com/ -- is the original toilet stool that positions your body in a natural, comfy squat.[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 STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Holder Sues Over Credit Reporting Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD T. HOLDER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00115-MLB-CMS (N.D. Ga., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false advice to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that their debts could be included on their credit reports more than seven years from the date the debts were first delinquent. Furthermore, the Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending the Plaintiff a collection letter with a wrong address for the property that allegedly secured the underlying debt and by failing to conduct reasonable investigations of the Plaintiff's credit reporting disputes. Statebridge Company, LLC is a debt collector based in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 Facsimile: (404) 301-2300 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and – J. Benjamin Finley, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 Facsimile: (706) 322-6221 STENGER & STENGER: Blum Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMMANUEL BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STENGER & STENGER, P.C.; LVNV FUNDING LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00141 (D.N.J., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from a debt collection letter sent by Defendant Stanger & Stanger to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant LVNV. The collection letter is allegedly false, deceptive and misleading because it failed to state that interest is accruing and waived on the judgment. As a result of the Defendants' confusing collection letter, the Plaintiff was therefore unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this debt, says the suit. Stenger & Stenger, P.C. is a debt collector based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. LVNV Funding LLC is a debt collector based in Albany, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@SteinSaksLegal.com TABCOM LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TABcom, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TABcom, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00280 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TABcom LLC operates as an internet company. The Company specializes in developing domains and websites offering products, social engagement, and interactive services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TALKSPACE INC: Faces Fraud Class Suit as Consumer Revenue Declines ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Torrence at fiercehealthcare.com reports that after losing its two founders and pushing out its chief operating officer last November, Talkspace's woes aren't over. The online therapy app now faces a securities fraud lawsuit. The digital health company, which connects patients with licensed therapists or psychiatrists for video or text conversations, has been accused of misleading investors before it went public last year by misrepresenting its financials and growth. Namely, the class-action suit filed Jan. 7 alleges Talkspace failed to disclose critical growth headwinds, including increased advertising and customer acquisition costs and worsening growth and gross margin trends, and overvalued its accounts receivable from certain health plan clients. In an email statement to Fierce Healthcare, the company said they "do not believe (the allegations) have any merit," and stated they are prepared to "defend the company vigorously." Talkspace's market value has plummeted in the last seven months since going public in a $1.4 billion deal with a blank check firm. That deal made Talkspace the first publicly traded virtual behavioral health company, providing it with $250 million in cash to be used as growth capital. But the company's stock has seen a steep decline since then, falling 82% since its first day of trading in late June, with a current market cap of approximately $248.3 million. The behavioral health company took several hits in November after its co-founder and CEO Oren Frank, as well as co-founder and head of clinical services Roni Frank, stepped down. A week later, President and COO Mark Hirschhorn was pushed out after an internal review of his conduct "in connection with a company offsite event that took place" the prior week. In seven days, the company's shares dropped more than 36%. Interim CEO Doug Braunstein said Thursday during the company's presentation at the all-virtual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference that while Talkspace's B2B business did see growth in the fourth quarter of 2021, consumer revenue fell compared to both the previous quarter and the previous year. According to Braunstein, changes in the company's advertising spend are largely to blame for that decrease—namely, he said, Talkspace cut down on advertising "as a purposeful way to begin the process of optimizing our returns in the B2C business." "While disappointed obviously in the revenue, we have seen some modest positive signs of stabilization in both our conversion and retention rate," he said. Multiple times throughout the presentation, he stressed that qualifier: "modest." Braunstein also said the company has significant cash resources, which they'll use to drive growth in the business. Talkspace now expects approximately $112 million in full-year 2021 revenue, down from previous projections of $125 million which the company withdrew after releasing third-quarter earnings. Braunstein didn't address the lawsuit in Thursday's presentation. However, he did field questions from investors about an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December, which reduced the number of covered lives listed in Talkspace's B2B business. According to Braunstein, Talkspace had conversations earlier in the year with "a very large payer" that provided their network access to the company's behavioral health offerings. Talkspace believed they had access to a large number of that payer's network and included them in the total number of covered lives, writing in their second- and third-quarter earnings that 75 million were eligible for Talkspace via the B2B business. "Subsequent conversations, it was clear that we did not have access to that payer's covered lives," he said. The company revised those numbers and now claims to have covered 69 million lives through the end of 2021. Demand for virtual behavioral health care remains even as offices reopened after the initial phase of the pandemic. Investors have taken notice, pooling billions into digital mental health startups last year. But significant concerns can arise with those investments, too, especially if a company appears to be sinking. Patients rely on the providers on these platforms to maintain their mental health, which could be devastating if those platforms disappear, wrote Hunter Walker, partner at HomeBrew, in a blog post last year. "This is my most significant concern about the wave of mental wellness startups being funded with venture dollars—what happens to the clients of the ones which fail?" he wrote. [GN] TOWER HILL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY and TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following class: -- The Settlement Class "All Medicare Advantage Plans that provided benefits under Medicare Part C in the United States of America and its territories and made accident-related payments on behalf of a Medicare beneficiary, who made a bodily injury claim against the Defendants' insurance policy that provided coverage for medical benefits within the last four years and 60 days from the filing of the complaint." This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any members of their immediate families. -- The No Fault Class "All Medicare Advantage Plans that provided benefits under Medicare Part C in the United States of America and its territories and made accident-related payments on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, who were provided no-fault medical payments coverage pursuant to the Defendants' insurance policies for medical benefits within the last four years and sixty days from the filing of the complaint." This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any members of their immediate families. The Defendants issue commercial and residential liability policies, which include coverage for medical expenses resulting from accidents (such as a slip and fall) which occurred on their insured's premises. Whenever the Defendants settle a bodily-injury claim with a Medicare beneficiary, that settlement obligates the Defendants to reimburse Medicare Advantage within 60 days, subject to a claim for double damages. The Defendants are liability insurers and primary payers under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) law. The class members are, essentially, private Medicare entities that "stand in the shoes" of Medicare and are entitled to the same rights and protections when it comes to their reimbursement rights. MSP Recovery is a Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer Act Recovery Specialist. Tower Hill operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KgzpdA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janpaul Portal, Esq. John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com jportal@msprecoverylawfirm.com serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. Brickell World Plaza 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 Facsimile (305) 379-6222 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jjr@ferrarolaw.com TRACFONE WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Barcomb Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARREN BARCOMB, GEORGETTE DELCAMBRE, SUZANNE DELGADO-DUBY, THOMAS EGAN, LISA WALKER, SAUNDRA WALKER and BRYNN CHASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20124 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violations of the Federal Communications Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer Records Act, the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former TracFone customers' confidential information from hackers. In or before December 2021, hackers gained access to the personally identifiable information (PII) and customer proprietary network information (CPNI) of thousands of TracFone customers and used that confidential information to engage in widespread port-out fraud. Even though TracFone is aware of the data breach, it has misled customers as to the nature of the data breach and fail to take reasonable steps to mitigate customers' damages, says the suit. TracFone Wireless, Inc. is an American mobile phone provider and wireless service, with a principal place of business in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: ccline@sirillp.com - and – Mason Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor New York, NY 10166 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com - and – Nicholas Armer, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: narmer@sirillp.com UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Options Strategy ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Welsch, writing for Barron's, reports that an investor is suing UBS over alleged misrepresentations with regard to a multi-billion-dollar options investment strategy that went awry in 2018. The lawsuit comes as the company faces dozens of arbitration cases with regard to the strategy. Christian Dumontet is seeking class action status on behalf of himself and 1,500 other clients who invested approximately $5.7 billion in the firm's Yield Enhancement Strategy, or YES, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Dec. 5 in federal court in New York. He is asking the court for damages, restitution, and disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains. UBS has not yet filed a legal response to the lawsuit. The company denies the allegations, according to a UBS spokesman. "The YES strategy is an appropriate strategy for experienced, wealthy investors, with a long, successful track record. UBS disclosed all relevant risks to investors," the spokesman said in a statement. "This new action is meritless and UBS intends to continue to defend it vigorously." Dumontet's lawsuit is the latest salvo in a series of legal battles over how the firm's Yield Enhancement Strategy was presented to clients and performed. The firm is still managing the strategy on behalf of participating clients, according to a person familiar with the matter. UBS says the risks were fully disclosed. Clients' attorneys dispute that, and say the strategy was implemented differently than advertised. "UBS promised one thing, but delivered something else," says Jeffrey Kaplan, a Miami-based attorney at law firm Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein who is representing investors in arbitration cases against UBS. He does not represent Dumontet. A mixed bag. Of the dozens of arbitration claims filed so far, arbitrators have issued rulings in 23 cases. UBS has prevailed in 13, and lost the other 10. In some of the cases UBS has lost, arbitrators did not award clients the full amount of damages requested. Last month, a Washington, D.C.-based arbitration panel found in favor of client Cheryl E. Amyx, awarding her approximately $300,000 of the $450,000 she requested. "We're happy with the award. It was not the entirety of what we requested, but it's a high percentage," says her attorney, W. Scott Greco of McLean, Virginia-based law firm Greco & Greco. In some arbitration cases, UBS has also requested arbitrators expunge client complaints from advisors' regulatory records (client complaints are visible on BrokerCheck, a public online database maintained by industry self-regulator Finra). Arbitrators have so far granted the requests eight times, and denied them 10 times, according to copies of the arbitration awards. Arbitrators are not required to provide explanations for their rulings, and none who awarded clients monetary damages or denied expungement requests did so. Several arbitrators who granted expungement requests wrote that the allegations were false, and said that the clients were sophisticated investors who understood the risks associated with YES. For instance, a Nashville-based arbitration panel wrote in November that it was "totally unreasonable" for a client suing UBS to pursue damages with regard to one investment when the client's overall portfolio grew. The panel denied the client's request for more than $1 million in damages and ordered the complaint removed from the client's advisors' regulatory records. While Dumontet's case seeks class action status, dozens more arbitration cases are moving forward. Kaplan, who does not represent Dumontet, has more than a dozen cases remaining, with arbitration hearings for one case scheduled to begin this week via Zoom on account of the pandemic. He says he finds it efficient and prefers to keep cases moving forward. "Time is not a friend to plaintiffs, in my opinion," Kaplan says. "Memory fades, people get sick, people die. So it's a risk." A complex strategy. UBS clients could invest in YES using margin accounts and the strategy relied on both call and put options. It incurred substantial losses starting in December 2018, reaching approximately 20% of the $5.7 billion in the YES accounts, or approximately $1.2 billion, according to Dumontet's lawsuit. A UBS spokesman declined to comment on the alleged losses. The company and its advisors "concealed the most material piece of information that UBS customers would have wanted to know before making an informed decision -- i.e., that the expected losses during regularly occurring market conditions would dwarf the expected returns," the lawsuit says. "YES was a money-losing account for UBS customers and none of them would have made the decision to choose a YES account and risk their existing portfolio assets had they known this fact." Dumontet's lawsuit says he invested in YES and suffered unspecified losses. The lawsuit does not say who his financial advisor was. Attorneys representing Dumontet did not respond to requests for comment. Four New York-based UBS advisors also named in the lawsuit --Matthew Buchsbaum, Scott Rosenberg, Gerard Costello and Sonia Attkiss -- did not respond to an email requesting comment. Reached by phone, Costello referred a reporter to UBS for comment. The four advisors allegedly developed YES while employed at Credit Suisse, and brought it with them when they moved to UBS in 2015, according to the lawsuit. A spokesman for Credit Suisse declined to comment on the matter. Other advisors at UBS were also able to invest client assets in YES, according to attorneys representing clients in arbitration cases with the company. Samuel B. Edwards is an attorney who has represented clients in two arbitration cases against UBS related to YES and won both. He does not represent Dumontet. "This is an actively managed options strategy that involves a lot of moving components and parts," says Edwards, who is with Houston-based law firm Shepherd, Smith, Edwards & Kantas. "You're getting into delta, thetas -- very few retail brokers know how that stuff works." [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Personal Vehicle Drivers, Yardley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CATHRYN YARDLEY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-MHC (N.D. Ga., January 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a personal vehicle driver in the Knoxville, Tennessee area within the past three years. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a logistics and supply chain management company in the business of delivering packages to residential and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Lee Parks, Jr., Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com jmays@pcwlawfirm.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, 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) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Seeks to Clarify Dec. 9, 2021 Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER I. SPIELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359-TJH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Lester Spielman asks the Court to enter an order clarifying that the class certified in the Court's December 9, 2021 Order does not include individuals who insured their vehicles with USAA Casualty Insurance Company, a Defendant that was previously dismissed from the case. In their First Amended Class Action Complaint, Mr. Spielman and Plaintiff Samantha Leitz named as Defendants both USAA Casualty and USAA. Mr. Spielman alleged that his vehicle was insured by USAA and put forth facts concerning only that entity. In contrast, Ms. Leitz alleged that her vehicle was insured by USAA Casualty and put forth facts only as to that company. On May 5, 2021, Ms. Leitz voluntarily dismissed all her claims in this action with prejudice. Because Mr. Spielman does not assert claims against USAA Casualty, Ms. Leitz's dismissal left USAA as the sole remaining Defendant in this suit. The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal inter-insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tBqVrc at no extra charge.[CC] Mr. Spielman is represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (213) 425-3657 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30 th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com UNIVERSAL YUMS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Yums LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Yums LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00258 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Universal Yums -- https://www.universalyums.com/ -- is a monthly snack subscription box featuring a different country each month.[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 UPTOWN HEALTHCARE: Time Extension for Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson, et al., v. Dean, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01891-LMA-JVM (E.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to move for class certification contained in Local Rule 23.1(B) which requires the Plaintiffs to move for class certification within 91 days of removal of a state court class action. The parties agree that good cause exists for the requested extension because plaintiffs contest the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, sought a Motion to Remand, and the Court has granted jurisdictional discovery prior to making its determination on the remand. The parties propose that in any action where the Court denies a motion to remand, the Plaintiff will have 60 days after the ruling denying remand to move for class certification. All parties join in this Motion and a Proposed Order is attached for the Court's convenience. The Plaintiffs include NANCY ANDERSON; JOY MANGUNO; JAYME SONGY, AS CURATOR FOR MALVINA SONGY; AND JANICE VERDIN, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF CATHERINE ROUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. The Defendants include BOB DEAN, JR.; UPTOWN HEALTHCARE CENTER, L.L.C.; PLACE HEALTHCARE, LLC; RACELAND MANOR NURSING HOME, INC.; MAISON DE'VILLE NURSING HOME, INC.; RIVER PALMS NURSING & REHAB, LLC; MAISON DE’VILLE NURSING HOME OF HARVEY, L.L.C.; ST. ELIZABETH'S CARING, L.L.C.; and BOB DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC. Uptown Healthcare Center is a nursing community offering person-centered rehabilitation and long-term care for individuals in Denver, Colorado. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gu5xIk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald C. Massey, Esq. Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq. COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC 3250 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 588-1288 E-mail: dmassey@couhigpartners.com WALGREENS CO: Pain Relieving Products' Label "Deceptive," Dang Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TAM DANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS CO. d/b/a WALGREENS, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00177 (N.D. Ill., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for FRAUD, unjust enrichment, and violations of the State Consumer Fraud Acts, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Pain Relieving Lidocaine Patch, Assorted Sizes Pain Relieving Lidocaine Patches, and Pain Relieving Cream + Lidocaine products. The Defendant labels its pain-relieving products as "Maximum Strength" despite the fact that they only contain 4 percent lidocaine. Moreover, the Defendant omitted from the products' labeling the fact that there are other prescription products available in the market that contain a higher percentage of lidocaine. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members were damaged because they would not have purchased the Defendant's products had they known the truth. Walgreens Co., doing business as Walgreens, is a pharmacy store chain operator, with its principal place of business and headquarters located at 200 Wilmot Rd., Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com jshub@shublawyers.com - and – Melissa K. Sims, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (815) 878-4674 E-mail: msims@milberg.com - and – Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and – Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com rbusch@milberg.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com WALMART INC: Hit With Proposed Suit Over Female Drivers' Uniforms ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walmart's (WMT) female truck drivers must either go to work wearing company-provided men's pants, or pay to buy and launder their own uniform-compliant garments, according to a new lawsuit filed in federal court in Alabama. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gave Alabama driver Diana Webb approval to file the proposed class action claiming sex discrimination against similarly situated female Walmart drivers, after the agency said it would not proceed further with its investigation. "I believe Walmart is discriminating against female truck drivers, and possibly other female employees who are required to wear uniforms," Webb wrote in her Oct. 5 complaint to the EEOC. "Walmart is providing and cleaning uniform bottoms for the men, while the women are expected to either wear men's bottoms, or purchase and clean women's bottoms on their own." Webb has worked for Walmart as a driver since July 20, 2020, the lawsuit states. According to the complaint, drivers on the job who fail to wear clothing authorized by the company's uniform policy can be fired right away. Walmart does provide its drivers with an entire uniform that includes pants and shirts, the suit states; however, the lawsuit says male pants are the only type of bottoms offered to drivers, regardless of their gender. "For female drivers, it is impossible to wear the men's pants provided by Walmart specifically made to fit only male employees due to anatomical differences between the sexes," the complaint states. "Female drivers are therefore required to either suffer discomfort, or purchase and launder their own pants, out of their own pocket, with no option for reimbursement, in order to fulfill Walmart's employment requirements." Webb also alleges that she requested that Walmart reimburse her for her out-of-pocket expenses to purchase multiple pairs of female pants and shorts to wear for work. Supervisors, she alleges, denied the request. Walmart will not launder any pants worn by female drivers that the company didn't provide, Webb adds, and therefore females, and not males, must incur the expense of washing their own uniform pants. In response to the lawsuit, Walmart's senior director of media relations, Randy Hargrove, issued a statement to Yahoo Finance. "Walmart is committed to providing our private fleet drivers with various clothing options to meet our guidelines. No associate, male or female, is required to wear company provided pants," the statement said. "Months before the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Webb was fitted for company provided pants which she now has. We continue to review our clothing offerings for male and female drivers. We take these allegations seriously and will respond in court as appropriate." Webb's claim says in treating male and female employees differently, Walmart is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits gender-based discrimination. In addition, the claim alleges that the company is unjustly enriching itself by sidestepping the expenses shouldered by its female drivers. As compensation, Webb is asking the court to disgorge Walmart of expenses it saved by allegedly discriminating against female drivers, to compensate drivers for their expenditures on purchasing and laundering their own uniform-compliant pants, and to award punitive damages.[GN] WALMART INC: McEnheimer Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MCENHEIMER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00046-WSH (W.D. Pa., January 7, 2022) is an individual and collective/class action under the Fair Labor Standards, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law to recover damages for non-payment of wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly associate and was assigned as an in-house delivery driver from December 2015 until May 15, 2021, working primarily from Defendant's West Mifflin, Pennsylvania store. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. First & Market Building Suite 650 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com WHATABRANDS LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whatabrands LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whatabrands LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00301 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whatabrands LLC doing business as Whataburger -- https://whataburger.com/ -- is an American regional fast food restaurant chain, headquartered and based in San Antonio, Texas, that specializes in hamburgers.[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 WHP MEZZ: Morel Balks at Superintendents' Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- RODOLFO MOREL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHP MEZZ BORROWER LLC, NIEUW AMSTERDAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, GALIL REALTY LLC, and BRAD HERSH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00267 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) is a putative collective action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against Defendants for willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and a collective of similarly situated persons' wages at the applicable overtime rates, failing to proffer wage notice and wage statements, and engaging retaliatory and discriminatory acts and practices. The Plaintiff began working in 1993 as a building superintendent for the Defendants' building located in Manhattan, New York until May 3, 2021 after Defendants terminated his employment. The Defendants are property management companies based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 233-3801 WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Sues Over Access of Customers' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- TOM HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILDERNESS SPORTS WAREHOUSE, LLC, d/b/a TACKLE WAREHOUSE; RUNNING WAREHOUSE, LLC; SPORTS WAREHOUSE, INC., d/b/a TENNIS WAREHOUSE; and SKATE WAREHOUSE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00006-CDL (M.D. Ga., January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected personally identifiable information (PII) of their customers following a data breach, failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII, and failure to provide adequate and prompt notice to the Plaintiff and other Class members that their PII had been accessed and compromised. As a result of the Defendants' alleged security failures, the Plaintiff and Class members now face a substantially increased risk of identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future. Wilderness Sports Warehouse, LLC, doing business as Tackle Warehouse, is an online retailer that conducts business in Georgia. Running Warehouse, LLC is an online retailer that conducts business in Georgia. Sports Warehouse, Inc., doing business as Tennis Warehouse, is an online retailer that conducts business in Georgia. Skate Warehouse, LLC is an online retailer that conducts business in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis C. Hargrove, Esq. MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 Facsimile: (706) 322-6221 E-mail: thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER A. SALVATORA and SANDRA E. SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P., HEASLEY'S NURSERIES, INC., and RODNEY L. LANG and BONITA A. LANG, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the "Marburger Class" for Count II of the Second Amended Complaint: "Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with Phillips covering oil and gas interests at any time during the period of limitations (a) who received one or more royalty payments from XTO based upon proceeds received from which charges for gathering and/or processing by Mountain Gathering were deducted; (b) whose oil and gas lease covered gas that was gathered on the Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel gathering segments of the Mountain Gathering system in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and (c) (i) who was either a member of the settlement class in Marburger v. XTO Energy Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-910-CRE (W.D. Pa.) ("Marburger"), or (ii) whose oil and gas lease based the royalty on a percentage of proceeds and contained a Market Enhancement Clause. The Marburger Class for Count II excludes: (i) any claims for any member of the settlement class in Marburger v. XTO Energy Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15- cv-00910-CRE (W.D. Pa.), for times before the effective date of the Marburger Final Order; (ii) the United States; (iii) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and (iv) all individuals and entities who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with Phillips where the royalty provision provided: To pay Lessor as a royalty, for the native gas, casing head gas, condensate, hydrocarbons or other gaseous substance, produced from said land and sold or used beyond the well or for the extraction of gasoline or other product, an amount equal to [a percentage] of the gross amount realized by Lessee computed at the wellhead from the sale of such substances from each and every well. Lessor's royalty will never bear any part of the costs or expenses of production, gathering, compression or transportation of the oil or gas produced from the lease premises; SAVE AND EXCEPT that, Lessor's royalty shall bear its proportionate share of all ad valorem taxes and production, severance, and other excise taxes and the actual, reasonable costs paid to or deducted by a non- affiliated third party to gather, transport, compress, process, stabilize or treat the production off the lease Premises or lands pooled therewith in order to make the production saleable, increase its value, or get the production to a market. (Such lease is an "ABC Lease");" and 2. certifying the "Market Enhancement Class" for Counts II and III of the Second Amended Complaint: "Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an oiland gas lease with Phillips covering oil and gas interests at any time during the period of limitations (a) who received one or more royalty payments from XTO; (b) whose oil and gas lease covered gas that was gathered by the Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel gathering segments in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and (c) whose oil and gas lease based the royalty on a percentage of proceeds and contained a Market Enhancement Clause or an essentially identical provision. A "Market Enhancement Clause means an oil and gas lease provision that states "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, it is agreed between the Lessor and Lessee that all oil and gas royalties accruing to the Lessor under this lease shall be net of Lessor's proportionate share of the cost of gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing, processing, transporting, and marketing the oil, gas or other products produced hereunder to transform the product into marketable form." or that uses substantially identical language and incudes the words "marketable form." The Market Enhancement Class excludes: (i) the United States; (ii) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and (iii) all individuals and entities who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an ABC Lease;" 3. appointing Roger A. Salvatora, Sandra E. Salvatora, D&M Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P., and Heasley's Nurseries, Inc. as Class Representatives of the Marburger Class; and 4. appointing Rodney L. Lang and Bonita A. Lang as Class Representatives of the Market Enhancement Class for claims under Counts II and III of the Second Amended Complaint. XTO Energy is an American energy company, principally operating in North America, specializing in the drilling and production of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyD6Yi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP 411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 [*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Certification Trends ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seyfarth Shaw LLP discusses Workplace Class Action Litigation Class Certification Trends. Seyfarth Synopsis: In its continuing coverage of the top trends found in Seyfarth's 2022 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, wage & hour litigation remained the sweet spot for the plaintiffs' class action bar over the past year. Based on sheer volume and statistical numbers, workers certified more class and collective actions in the wage & hour space in 2021 as compared to any other area of workplace. Complex workplace litigation remains one of the chief exposures driving corporate legal budgetary expenditures. Class actions and multi-plaintiff lawsuits, in particular, continue to provide a source of concern for companies. A prime component in that array of risks indisputably continues to include complex wage & hour litigation. Seyfarth provided a circuit-by-circuit analysis of this year's 332 class certification decisions in all varieties of workplace class action litigation, including wage & hour, employment discrimination, and ERISA. In 2021, complex wage & hour litigation under the FLSA drove more certification briefings and a greater number of certification decisions than other areas combined. Wage & Hour Certification Trends The ease with which plaintiffs have achieved first-stage certification in the FLSA wage & hour context surely has contributed to the number of filings in that area, and plaintiffs achieved a higher rate of success on initial certification motions in 2021 than in any other year of the past decade, indicating that wage & hour remains a sweet spot for the plaintiffs' bar. In 2021, wage & hour lawsuit filings in federal courts decreased for the sixth year in a row. That said, more FLSA lawsuits were filed during each of the preceding nine years -- during 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 -- than were filed in any year of the preceding several decades. Many of these cases remain in the pipeline within federal courts, and the result is a burgeoning case load of wage & hour issues. To be sure, the significant volume of FLSA filings over the past several years has caused the issuance of more certification rulings in the FLSA area than in any other substantive area of complex employment litigation. Despite the pandemic's continued impact on court operations and personnel, courts issued more rulings on wage & hour certification issues in 2021 than they issued in each of the past five years. In particular, federal courts issued 298 decisions on FLSA certification and decertification issues in 2021, an increase from the 286 certification rulings issued in 2020, the 267 certification rulings issued in 2019, the 273 certification rulings in 2018, and the 257 certification rulings in 2017. Of these rulings, 279 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of wage & hour collective actions under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), whereas 19 addressed second-stage motions for decertification. Plaintiffs historically have secured a higher rate of success on the former, while employers have secured a higher rate of success on the latter. In 2021, as noted above, plaintiffs achieved an exceptionally high rate of success on first stage conditional certification motions, equal to or higher than the rate they achieved in any year of the past decade aside from 2020. In 2021, Plaintiffs saw their rate of success at 81%, down slightly from their 2020 success rate of 84%, and the same as their 2019 success rate of 81%. Employers, on the other hand, saw their rate of success on decertification motions rise to 53% in 2021, up from 50% in 2020 and 58% in 2019. The analysis of these rulings -- discussed in Chapter V of this Report -- shows that plaintiffs filed a high predominance of cases against employers in "plaintiff-friendly" jurisdictions such as the judicial districts within the Second and Ninth Circuits. For the second time in a decade, however, rulings were equally or more voluminous out of the Sixth Circuit, which also tended to favor workers over employers in conditional certification rulings. The statistical underpinnings of this circuit-by-circuit analysis of FLSA certification rulings is telling in several respects. First, it substantiates that the district courts within the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are the epi-centers of wage & hour class actions and collective actions. More cases were prosecuted and conditionally certified -- 47 certification orders in the Second Circuit, 31 certification orders in the Ninth Circuit, and 50 certification orders in the Sixth Circuit -- in the district courts in those circuits than in any other areas of the country. For the second time in two years, the Sixth Circuit -- which encompass the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee -- had more rulings and certifications than either the Second or Ninth Circuits. Second, as the burdens of proof under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) suggest, plaintiffs won the overwhelming majority of "first stage" conditional certification motions (226 of 279 rulings or approximately 81%) in 2021, which was similar to the 2020 numbers (231 of 274 rulings or approximately 84%), the 2019 numbers (198 of 243 or approximately 81%), and the 2018 numbers (196 of 248 rulings or approximately 79%), which were themselves the highest percentages of plaintiff-side wins recorded in the last decade. Further, in terms of "second stage" decertification motions, employers won 53% (10 of 19 rulings) in 2021, which represented a slight rise from the 2020 numbers (6 of 12 rulings or approximately 50%) and the 2019 numbers (14 of 24 rulings or approximately 58%). Overall, these statistics show robust numbers for the plaintiffs' bar, as plaintiffs prevailed on "first stage" conditional certification motions at a high rate in 2021 and lost "second stage" decertification motions at a lower rate. The "first stage" conditional certification statistics for plaintiffs at 81% were nearly as favorable as the rate of success that workers obtained in 2020 (84%), as favorable as the rate of success that workers obtained in 2019, when plaintiffs won 81% of "first stage" conditional certification motions, and more favorable as the rate of success that workers obtained in 2018, when plaintiffs won 79% of "first stage" conditional certification motions. The "second stage" decertification statistics for employers at 53% in 2021 was more favorable to employers than the decertification statistics in 2020, when employers prevailed on 50% of such motions, in 2019, when employers prevailed on 58% of "second stage" decertification motions, in 2018, when employers won 52% of decertification rulings, and in 2017, when employers won 63% of decertification rulings. Third, these numbers reflect the ongoing migration of skilled plaintiffs' class action lawyers into the wage & hour litigation space. Experienced and able plaintiffs' class action counsel are apt to secure better results, and the case law that has developed under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) serves to attract such individuals. In light of the "lenient" standard that many courts apply at the initial conditional certification phase of a case, plaintiffs often can secure "first stage" conditional certification - and foist settlement pressure on an employer - fairly quickly (shortly after filing a case), with minimal monetary investment (e.g., without support from an expert), as compared to class certification in an employment discrimination class action or an ERISA class action, for instance, which typically requires additional discovery, evidentiary submissions, and expert testimony. As a result, to the extent that litigation of collective actions and class actions by plaintiffs' lawyers is viewed as an investment of time and money, prosecution of wage & hour lawsuits is a relatively low cost investment, without significant barriers to entry, and with the prospect of immediate returns as compared to other types of workplace class action litigation. Hence, as compared to employment discrimination and ERISA class actions, FLSA litigation is less difficult or protracted for the plaintiffs' bar, and more cost-effective and predictable. In terms of their "rate of return," the plaintiffs' bar can convert their case filings more readily into certification orders and create the conditions for opportunistic settlements over the short term. The certification statistics for 2021 confirm these factors. Despite the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lower rate of case filings, courts issued more certification rulings in 2021 and the plaintiffs' bar secured more certification victories in 2021 than in any other year of the past decade. The extent to which Epic Systems will continue to impact wage & hour certification trends remains uncertain. As 2021 reflected, the number of FLSA lawsuits filed in 2021 continued to fall as compared to prior years. Coupled with the settlements and the number of rulings discussed above, these statistics suggest that the plaintiffs' class action bar is not losing interest in these suits. To the contrary, the number of rulings issued by federal courts, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that plaintiffs' counsel are succeeding in obtaining rulings on motions for conditional certification at a higher rate than ever. These factors also indicate that arbitration agreements are not getting in the way of these motions and that, instead, plaintiffs are being more selective in filing their cases or in narrowing the groups of employees that they seek to represent. As discussed below, given the pro-worker policies of the Biden Administration, employers are seeing legislative efforts to overturn Epic Systems gain traction. Particularly if Democrats are able to retain control of the House and Senate during the remainder of President Biden's term, employers may see these legislative efforts to overturn Epic Systems succeed. As a result, employers could see substantial expansion of case filing numbers in the next few years. Employment Discrimination & ERISA Certification Trends Against the backdrop of wage & hour litigation, the rulings in Wal-Mart and Epic Systems continued to fuel more critical thinking and crafting of case theories in employment discrimination and ERISA class action filings in 2021. The Supreme Court's Rule 23 decisions forced the plaintiffs' bar to "re-boot" the architecture of their class action theories.[1] Hence, the playbook on Rule 23 strategies is undergoing a continuous process of evolution, and the plaintiffs' class action bar is continually testing ways to navigate around and to wear away the force of these precedents. As to Wal-Mart, one work-around has been the filing of "smaller" employment discrimination class actions. In the past 10 years, employers have seen more statewide or regional-type classes asserted than the type of nationwide mega-case that Wal-Mart discouraged. Plaintiffs' counsel have been more selective, strategic, and savvy relative to calibrating the focus of their cases and aligning the size of their proposed classes to the limits of Rule 23 certification theories. As to Epic Systems, at least in the employment discrimination area, Plaintiffs have seemed apt to file scaled-down class actions to test the prevalence of arbitration agreements among putative class members and, depending on the result, to move forward with one or more limited classes of non-signers or to use the threat of undermining the enforceability of the arbitration program to attempt to leverage a settlement prior to obtaining a ruling on the propriety or scope of certification. In 2021, the number of rulings on motions for class certification expanded as compared to 2020. In 2021, courts issued 18 rulings on motions for class certification in employment discrimination actions, compared with 12 rulings in 2020 and 15 rulings in 2019. Plaintiffs, however, prevailed on these motions at a higher rate. Plaintiffs prevailed in 13 of the 18 rulings, or 72%, in 2021, with four of those rulings emanating from the Ninth Circuit, compared to 5 of the 12 rulings, or 42%, in 2020, again with four of those rulings emanating from the Ninth Circuit. The rate of success of the plaintiffs' bar in 2021 on such motions was materially higher than its rate of success in recent years. In 2019, plaintiffs won 7 of the 11 rulings, or 63%, on motions for initial certification of class actions in employment discrimination cases, but plaintiffs lost 4 of 4 motions for decertification, for an overall success rate of 46.7%. By comparison, in 2018, plaintiffs won 3 of the 11 rulings on motions for class certification, or 27%, and, in 2017, plaintiffs won 7 of 11 rulings on such motions, or 64%. In terms of the ERISA class action litigation in 2021, the decisions show that employers had the best chance of defeating class certification in the context of ERISA class actions. Courts issued 16 rulings on class certification in 2021, with plaintiffs prevailing in 8 of 14 decisions, or 57%. As a result, 2021 marks plaintiffs' lowest rate of success in terms on certifying ERISA class action in recent years by a fair margin. In 2020, plaintiffs won 11 of 16 certification rulings, a success rate of 69%. In 2019, plaintiffs won 11 of 17 certification rulings, a success rate of 65%. By comparison, in 2018 plaintiffs won 11 of 17 certification rulings for a similar success rate of 65%, and, in 2017, plaintiffs prevailed in 17 of 22 certification rulings, for a success rate of 77%. Overall Trends So what conclusions overall can be drawn on class certification trends in 2021? In the areas of wage & hour and employment discrimination claims, in particular, the plaintiffs' bar is converting their case filings into certification of classes at a high rate. To the extent class certification aids the plaintiffs' bar in monetizing their lawsuit filings and converting them into class action settlements, the conversion rate is robust. While class certification rates in ERISA class actions took a nose dive in 2021 compared to prior years (8 motions granted and 6 motions denied in 2021, for a success rate of 57%), class certification for employment discrimination cases (13 motions granted and 5 motions denied in 2021) and conditional certification in wage & hour cases (226 motions granted and 53 motions denied in 2021) remained pronounced, with a success rate ranging from 71% to 81%. The win/loss percentages in each of these substantive areas are as follows: - a success rate of 57% for certification of ERISA class actions; - a success rate of 72% for certification of employment discrimination class actions (both Title VII and age discrimination cases); and - a success rate of 81% for conditional certification of wage & hour collective and class actions. The most certification activity in workplace class action litigation took place in the wage & hour space. The trend over the past five years in the wage & hour space reflects a steady success rate that ranged from a low of 73% to a high of 84% for the plaintiffs' bar. The positive results are more concentrated in plaintiff-friendly "magnet" jurisdictions where the case law favors workers and presents challenges to employers seeking to block certification. While each case is different, and no two class actions or collective actions are identical, these statistics paint the all-too familiar picture that employers have experienced over the past several years. Although case law precedents and defense approaches continue to evolve and generate many good outcomes for employers, courts continue to grant conditional certification motions at high rates. Whereas overall case filing numbers were down, the numbers of rulings issued in 2021 and the rate of success of the plaintiffs' bar in gaining conditional certification suggest that the plaintiffs' bar is exercising more selectivity and restraint when it comes to filing and seeking certification of narrower or more defined groups, thereby contributing to a higher success rate. The key bright spots in 2021 for employers were an increase in the odds of defeating certification in ERISA class actions, where employers succeeded in defeating class certification in nearly 43% of the rulings issued during 2021, and in the odds of prevailing on decertification of FLSA collective actions, where employers succeeded in obtaining decertification in 53% of the rulings issued during 2021. [GN] [*] U.S. Hiring, Retention Incentive Class Suits Expected to Spike ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesse R. Dill, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins disclosed that with the calendar having turned to 2022, it is time to look into the crystal ball and make a few predictions for the year ahead related to the wage and hour world. Class and Collective Actions Concerning Hiring and Retention Incentives Will Increase In 2021, many employers across the country experienced starkly increased competition for workforce talent. Whether it was convincing existing employees not to participate in the "Great Resignation" or persuading candidates with multiple job options to join the home team, companies often relied on financial bonuses to curry employment favor. The increased use of these financial incentives may lead to increased class and collective action lawsuits regarding these payments. Specifically, increased wage and hour litigation activity may address whether such enticements were nondiscretionary bonuses that needed to be included in the overtime rate calculations for nonexempt employees. Employers may want to consider auditing new types of payments they made over the past year for compliance with wage and hour law requirements. More Employers Will Receive Requests for Compensation in Cryptocurrency In many ways, 2021 could be described as the year of cryptocurrencies. Two of the most well-known cryptocurrencies reached all-time high values. Multiple celebrities began endorsing cryptocurrencies. Newly elected mayors in Miami and New York City even promoted taking paychecks in cryptocurrency. All of these headlines are sure to attract the attention of employees and lead to questions about potential cryptocurrency compensation. Employers that consider entertaining such inquiries may want to consider whether and how any payments may be regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or state laws. For example, several states require wages to be paid in United States currency, which could limit an employer's ability to pay in cryptocurrency. Wage and hour laws and regulations will be key to whether an employer can provide what may be a highly sought employee incentive in 2022. Fewer Multistate Collective Actions Just over halfway through 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that significantly limited what began as a multistate collective action lawsuit. The court held that a federal court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant with respect to the claims of nonresident opt-in plaintiffs who join an FLSA collective action when the claims are not connected to the defendant's activities in the forum state. A day later, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly excluded collective action claims with no connection to the state in which the action was filed. Since then, multiple district courts outside the Sixth and Eighth circuits have followed the reasoning of these decisions. This trend may continue with multistate employers citing these decisions to narrow the potential list of putative plaintiffs in collective actions. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***