/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220208.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 22
Headlines
A&A GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
A&P RESTAURANT: $450K Class Deal in Emeterio Suit Wins Final Nod
ABG HMX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACORN GROUP: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ACTION LAB: Comic Creators Sue for Fraud, Breach of Contract
ADITI CONSULTING: Console & Associates Explores Data Breach Suit
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Roe Suit Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
ALLSTAR PRODUCTS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM INC: Ex-Offender May Pursue Lawsuit Over Discrimination
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Robertson Sues Over Unfair Collection of Debts
ASSURANT INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Sapan Suit Transferred to S.D. California
BERETTA USA CORP: Kornegay Sues Over Shotgun Defect
BETTER MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Sheehan-Veal Says
BIG SPOON: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BKP INC: Response for Rule 23 Class Cert. Extended to Feb. 14
BLISTEX INC: Cleaning Sprays Contain Benzene, Santos Suit Says
CALMCO LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Niemczynski Balks at Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
CELEB LUXURY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Patient Data Breach
CHICKEN POUND: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COOKS VENTURE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CORIZON HEALTH: Smith Must File Class Status Bid by July 1
CP IV WATERFRONT: Lethgo Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
DEL TACO: Rosenfeld Challenges $575-MM Jack in the Box Merger Deal
DIGNITY HEALTH: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Hearing
DISH WIRELESS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DUFRESNE SPENCER GROUP: Pate Sues Over Robocalls
ECO LIPS INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: Deadline to Amend Complaint Extended to May 2
EVERBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
EXCELLIGENCE LEARNING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GATOS SILVER: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Violations
GC SERVICES: Pearson Sues Over Call Center Reps' Unpaid Overtime
GLYCOM INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME TRAINING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HONDA MOTOR: VTC Actuator Class Action Lawsuit Certified
JOHN BEL EDWARDS: Johnson Files Suit in M.D. Louisiana
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with NAB
JP MORGAN: Court Terminates Dennis Bid to Certify Class
KOREAN AIR LINES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Officials Defend $2.9M Lawsuit Over Confinement Policies
MADE WITH LOVE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAJESTIC CARE: Bid to Dismiss Wright Class Action Nixed as Moot
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 16
MDL 2785: Antitrust Suit Parties' Bids in Limine Partly Granted
MDL 2828: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. Intel Over Defective CPUs
MDL 2989: Robinhood Dismissed From Short Squeeze Trading Suit
MIMEDX GROUP: Motion to Reconsider Securities Suit Denied by Judge
NAVY FEDERAL: Second Amended Sched Order Entered in Hart Suit
NEEDHAM LANE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NISSIN FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Instant Noodles
NOBLE ENERGY: Galindo Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Tossed
NVR MORTGAGE: Cossaboom Bid for Collective Status Partly OK'd
O'NEIL INSURANCE: Parties Directed to Define Class Cert Discovery
ONEPOINTE SOLUTIONS: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OROA USA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAGE MCNAGHTEN: Straughen Seeks OT Pay for Engineering Technicians
PEPSICO INC: Stevens Sues Over Machine Operators' Unpaid Overtime
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended in Cidone
POP AND BOTTLE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POPULAR INC: Lipsett Sues Over Bank Overdraft Fees
PRATT & WHITNEY: Faces Tussey Suit Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REPRESENT HOLDINGS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REVLON CONSUMER: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gaffney Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement Deal
SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Huang Seeks More Time for Class Cert. Reply
SHATTUCK LABS: Viti Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
SOUTH DAKOTA: Julie Irvine Seeks Entry of Scheduling Order
SOUTH STATE BANK: Amended Conference & Sched Order Entered in Fludd
ST. CLAIR COUNTY ERS: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class Action
STATE FARM: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to April 7
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Parker Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
T-RUS-T ELECTRIC: Faces Pandashina Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Valdez Suit Over Share Price Drop
TD BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fee Practices
TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Crews Seeks Provisional Certification
UNITED STATES: Brigidaa Wins Bid for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement for UNNJ Enrollees
UNITED STATES: Extension of Deadlines to File Joint Report Sought
UNITED STATES: Patients Win Right to Appeal in Home Care Coverage
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Snyder Wins Class Certification Bid
VALSPAR CORP: Amended Case Mng't Sched. Order Entered in Cordova
VIZIO INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Kavehrad Class Action
WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE: Lynch Loses Bid to Refile Class Cert
WEBER FARHAT: Puello Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZIMMER BIOMET: Gluckstein Lawyers File Personal Injury Class Suit
[*] Opioid Class Action Lawsuit Reaches Settlement
*********
A&A GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&A Global Imports,
LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. A&A Global Imports, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00936 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A&A Global Imports -- https://www.aaglobalimports.com/ -- is a
premiere plastic manufacturer and plastic injection mold
manufacture.[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
A&P RESTAURANT: $450K Class Deal in Emeterio Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCO EMETERIO, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. A&P RESTAURANT
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-970 (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted:
(a) the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for:
* Certification of the Settlement Class;
* Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement; and
* Approval of the FLSA Settlement; and
(b) the Plaintiff's related and unopposed motions to approve
service awards, and attorneys' fees and costs.
I. Background
On Feb. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective Action
Complaint against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged the
Defendants violated various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA") and the New York Labor
Law Article 6, Sections 190 et seq., and Article 19, Sections 650
et seq., by failing to pay overtime, wages due to time-shaving,
spread of hours premium, improperly deducting meal credit and
failing to meet the NYLL's requirements on wage statements and
notices. The parties' proposed settlement resolves all claims in
the action.
The Defendants filed an Answer on May 20, 2020, disputing the
material allegations and denying any liability in the proposed
class and collective actions. On July 27, 2020, the parties
attended a settlement conference before Judge Parker. A settlement
was not reached.
On Jan. 12, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for
conditional collective certification and the proposed collective
action notice and consent to sue form. The Plaintiff mailed notice
to putative collective class members and seven individuals opted-in
by filing consents to sue.
On May 7, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against
Defendants A & P Restaurant Corp., Peter Giannopoulos, Anastasios
Giannopoulos and Modern Hospitality Group Corp. The Amended
Complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
and the other non-exempt employees the proper wages, including
overtime compensation, failed to pay spread of hours premium, and
failed to provide all non-exempt employees with proper wage
statements and wage notices. On May 21, 2021, the Defendants filed
their Answer to the Amended Complaint.
On June 24, 2021, the Parties engaged in a full-day mediation with
Martin F. Scheinman. During this mediation, the Parties reached a
settlement in principle and entered into a settlement term sheet,
and thereafter, continued negotiating the terms of the class
settlement, which were memorialized in a formal Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was fully executed on Aug. 11,
2021.
The class counsel then prepared and submitted a preliminary
approval motion that was approved by Judge Parker on Aug. 16, 2021.
This approval conditionally certified the settlement class,
preliminarily approved the collective settlement, authorized the
issuance of notice to the Class Members, and granted the parties'
plan of allocation.
The proposed Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as:
"Named Plaintiffs and all hourly non-exempt front and back of house
employees employed by Defendants, from Feb. 7, 2014 to Aug. 10,
2021."
Members of the Settlement Class will be entitled to a share of the
Gross Settlement Amount, that is $450,000. The Fund covers all of
the Defendants' obligations under the settlement (exclusive of
payroll taxes). This is not a claims-made settlement, meaning that
class members are not required to submit a claim form to receive a
payment. Every Class Member who does not opt out and returns a
valid tax form, as required by the administrator, will receive a
settlement check containing his or her settlement payment. After
the deduction of all court-approved service awards, attorneys' fees
and costs, and administration fees from the Settlement Fund,
individual settlement allocations will be computed based on the
number of weeks worked by the Class Members during the relevant
period.
In exchange for their share of the Gross Settlement Amount, the
members of the Settlement Class release: Every Class Member who
does not opt out will release Defendants from all New York wage and
hour claims. Every class member who cashes his or her check will
release Defendants from Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
In addition to the Settlement Class payments, the Settlement also
contemplates an award of the Plaintiffs' counsel fees in the amount
of 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Fund (i.e. $150,000), plus costs and
expenses; administration fees to be paid out of the Gross
Settlement Fund in the amount of $20,000 to Arden Claims Service
LLC; and service awards totaling $30,000 to the named Plaintiffs
and five opt-in Plaintiffs.
Judge Parker conducted a fairness hearing on Jan. 25, 2022. At the
fairness hearing, she heard oral argument on the overall fairness
of the proposed settlement agreement from both a procedural and
substantive standpoint, as well as argument about the application
for fees, costs, and service awards.
II. Discussion
I. Class Certification
For purposes of settlement, Judge Parker finds that the Class is
suitable for certification, in that it satisfies all applicable
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). She finds that
(i) the class comprises more than one hundred individuals -- 149
class members; (ii) the common questions of law and fact in the
case all relate to whether the Defendants failed to pay the Class
Members their proper regular and overtime wages due to the
Defendants' policy of taking invalid tip credit and time shaving,
as well as the Defendants' failure to provide accurate wage
statements and notices pursuant to New York Labor Law; (iii) the
claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class
Members; (iv) the named Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs are
adequate class representatives and do not have any interests that
are different from or adverse to the Class Members; and (v) the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated their commitment to this litigation by
retaining qualified and experienced counsel.
Judge Parker also finds that the Plaintiffs and Settlement Class
members suffered the same harm, albeit to different degrees,
because of the same alleged failure by the Defendants to properly
pay them. Further, there is no evidence that the putative class
members desire to bring separate individual actions, as there were
no objections and no opt-outs, and the Parties are unaware of any
individual litigation involving the same issues with these parties.
Accordingly, it is desirable to concentrate the claims in this
Court. Lastly, the request for class certification is only for
purposes of settlement, and the Court need not inquire as to
whether the case, if tried, would present management problems.
II. The Settlement is Fair In Light of Rule 23(e) and the Grinnell
Factors
Taking into consideration all of the parties' efforts, Judge Parker
concludes that the settlement is procedurally fair. She further
concludes that the Grinnell factors weigh in favor of approving the
settlement. The Grinnell factors are (1) the complexity, expense
and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the
class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the
amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing
liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of
maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of
the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible
recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement
fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of
litigation. The Settlement Agreement provides the Class Members
with reasonable and prompt relief as compared to what they may
receive at the conclusion of the litigation.
III. Approval of FLSA Settlement
Having considered the standards for approval of a collective
settlement, Judge Parker approves the FLSA settlement. She finds
that are significant bona fide factual disputes in the case, with
respect to the risks of proof faced by the Plaintiffs. She
therefore finds that the FLSA settlement was the result of
contested litigation and arms-length negotiation, and that the
settlement terms are fair and appropriate.
For all these reasons, Judge Parker certifies the case as a class
and collective action for settlement purposes on the condition that
the Defendants fully satisfy their payment obligations under the
settlement. The collective consists of "all employees of the
Defendants' New York City restaurants employed from Feb. 7, 2014 to
Aug. 10, 2021."
IV. Attorneys' Fees
Judge Parker finds the attorneys' fee award requested to be fair
and reasonable. She says, the amount sought by the Plaintiffs'
counsel is in line with amounts typically approved by courts in the
Circuit for collective actions such as the present case. The
counsel expended significant time in the case -- more than 451
hours -- and brought the litigation to a successful conclusion for
the Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
V. Costs
The Plaintiff's counsel seeks $8,481.19 in costs. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, the Class Counsel is also entitled to
reasonable, Court-approved costs in addition to the attorneys' fee
award. In the case, the Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses
include filing fees, service fees, notice printing and mailing
fees, deposition and translation fees, travel expenses, and fees
related to mediation. In light of the necessity of these
expenditures and the reasonableness of the amounts sought, Judge
Parker approves these costs and orders that $8,481.19 be deducted
from the Gross Settlement Fund.
VI. Service Awards
The Plaintiff also requests service awards totaling $30,000 as
follows: $10,000 for Francisco Emeterio, Lead Plaintiff, and $5,000
for each Opt-In Plaintiff: Florencio A. Mandarin, Ignacio Tula,
Jesus Borja. Service payments "are common in class action cases and
are important to compensate plaintiffs for the time and effort
expended in assisting the prosecution of the litigation, the risks
incurred by becoming and continuing as a litigant, and any other
burdens sustained by the plaintiff." Recognition payments are
"particularly appropriate in the employment context."
Judge Parker finds that throughout the litigation, the service
award recipients regularly communicated with the Class Counsel and
assisted with the preparation of the Complaint and with discovery.
The staggered nature of the service awards reflects the increased
amount of effort and risk expended by the individual Class
Representatives, and, in light of the total settlement amount, is
fair and reasonable.
Therefore, Judge Parker approves the proposed service awards of
$10,000 for Plaintiff Francisco Emeterio, and $5,000 each for
Opt-In Plaintiffs Florencio A. Mandarin, Ignacio Tula, Jesus Borja
and Pedro Delay, for a total of $30,000. The amount will be
deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund.
VII. Settlement Administrator Award
The Settlement Agreement provides for Arden Claims Service LLC to
receive $20,000 in administration fees, which are to be deducted
from the Gross Settlement Fund. Judge Parker finds this amount to
be reasonable and within the range charged by settlement
administrators in similar cases and therefore approves these fees
and costs and orders that $20,000 be deducted from the Gross
Settlement Fund.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Parker certified the Class and
Collective for purposes of settlement and approved the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement subject to it being fully
funded by the Defendants. The Gross Settlement Fund for payment to
Active Class Members is $450,000. The Plaintiff's requests for (1)
service awards totaling $30,000; (2) a payment in the amount of
$20,000 to Arden Claims Service LLC, the settlement administrator;
(3) $150,000 in attorneys' fees; and (4) $8,481.19 in costs are
granted. Thus, Judge Parker approved awards, totaling $208,481.19,
which are to be deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund amount of
$450,000.
The parties will proceed with the administration of the settlement
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court
will retain jurisdiction of this matter and the Court's final
approval will be deemed effective and the case dismissed upon the
Plaintiffs' counsel's confirmation to the Court that the Defendants
have satisfied their payment obligations under the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 26, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyfha65 from Leagle.com.
ABG HMX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABG HMX, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ABG HMX, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00951-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Authentic Brands Group LLC (ABG) is an American brand management
company headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
ACORN GROUP: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Acorn Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Acorn Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00614 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Acorn Group Inc. -- https://www.acorngroup.com/ -- was founded
in 1990. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
products by television, catalog, and mail-order.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ACTION LAB: Comic Creators Sue for Fraud, Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
TOM ROGERS, et al., on behalf of himself and the class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACTION LAB ENTERTAINMENT
and BRYAN SEATON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00159-CCC (M.D. Pa.,
Jan. 31, 2022) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated comic creators for the Defendants' alleged breach of
contract and fraud, seeking both monetary and punitive damages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants promised to print,
promote and market Plaintiff's and other comic creators' works,
report quarterly sales and income numbers, properly maintain social
media accounts, and generally make a reasonable effort to sell
comics, yet the company has done none of these things and even
failed to inform creators when its office shut down without reason.
Action Lab president Bryan Seaton allegedly left the company in
late 2019 without informing the creators, leaving co-founder Shawn
Pryor in control of day-to-day operations. The Action Lab offices
were then closed without reason during which time content creators
were not paid and no marketing was done, says the suit.
Action Lab Entertainment is a publishing company that claims to
have thousands of creators, including Plaintiff, who have signed
contracts to work with them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Katz, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH, LLP
214 Flynn Avenue
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Telephone: (856) 273-8500
Facsimile: (856) 273-8502
E-mail: mkatz@lopezmchugh.com
ADITI CONSULTING: Console & Associates Explores Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In recent data-breach news, the law firm of Console & Associates,
P.C. announced that it will be opening an investigation into the
recent Aditi Consulting data breach to determine what, if any,
legal remedies those impacted by the breach have against the
company. If evidence emerges that Aditi Consulting was negligent in
the storage of consumer data or otherwise mishandled information
entrusted to the company, it may be financially liable through a
data breach class action lawsuit.
This is not the first data breach to make headlines over the past
couple of months. However, few consumers fully understand the risks
these cyber-security events pose. A data breach occurs when a
hacker or other unauthorized party gains access to a company's
computer systems, usually with the intent of obtaining consumer
data located on the network. While there are many ways in which
unauthorized parties can orchestrate a data breach, they often
involve a person hacking into a company's network and then either
removing data or installing harmful software on the network.
News surrounding the Aditi Consulting data breach is developing,
and an investigation into the breach is still in its early stages.
However, the situation raises legitimate concerns about Aditi
Consulting's efforts to keep consumer data secure. If it turns out
that the company failed to implement an adequate system to protect
consumer privacy, those whose information was compromised may be
eligible for financial compensation.
Attorney Richard Console explains, "It's easy to place all the
blame for a data breach on the person who hacks into an
organization's system; however, this ignores the legal and moral
obligation that these companies owe to consumers. When someone
gives an organization their information, they trust that the
organization will ensure the information remains private-and out of
the hands of criminals. While protecting consumer data requires an
organization to undergo some effort and expense, in our current
environment of widespread hacking, this is a cost of doing business
that all organizations must take seriously."
According to the most recent news release issued by Aditi
Consulting, on December 14, 2021, the company noticed suspicious
activity on some of its computer systems. Aditi Consulting
investigated the activity, confirming that the company's network
was the subject of a "sophisticated cyber-attack." As a result of
the breach, the names and Social Security numbers of 5,216 current
and former employees and consultants were accessible to the
unauthorized party on December 9, 2021.
Subsequently, Aditi Consulting began sending out written notice of
the breach to all affected parties. In these letters, the company
describes what occurred and lays out a few steps employees and
consultants can take to protect themselves. While Aditi Consulting
cannot confirm that any of the compromised information was used by
the unauthorized party, the company encourages those who received a
data breach letter to keep a lookout for any signs of identity
theft, fraud, or other unauthorized activity.
Those receiving a data breach letter from Aditi Consulting should
take the following steps to protect themselves:
-- Carefully review the letter sent by Aditi Consulting;
-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by Aditi
Consulting;
-- Change all passwords and security questions to online accounts;
-- Frequently review all credit card and bank account statements
for any signs of fraud or unauthorized activity;
-- Monitor credit reports for any unexpected changes or signs of
identity theft;
-- Contact a credit bureau to request a temporary fraud alert; and
-- Notify all banks and credit card companies of the data breach.
To learn more about this data breach, please visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/data-breach-alert-aditi-consulting/.
Console & Associates P.C. is committed to protecting consumers'
privacy interests from the ever-present threat of cyberattacks. The
firm investigates all types of data breaches, ransomware attacks
and other network intrusions to determine the legal rights of
consumers who trusted corporations with their personal data.
Consumers can reach Console & Associates, P.C. through the firm's
website at
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/consumer-privacy-data-breach-lawyers/.
[GN]
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Roe Suit Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING
GROUP, LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC., and RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY DIVISION, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00178 (D. Conn.,
Jan. 31, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal
conspiracy to restrain competition in the labor market and reduce
compensation for engineers and other skilled laborers beginning in
2011 and continuing through at least 2019, seeking damages and
injunctive relief for violations of the Section 1 of the Sherman
Act and the antitrust laws of the United States.
According to the complaint, Pratt & Whitney and the supplier
Defendants entered into a series of agreements with each other
through which they conspired to retrain competition in the
aerospace engineering market by agreeing not to hire engineers
employed by (or working as an independent contractor for)
co-conspirator supplier Defendants for P&W projects and statements
of work in the United States and its territories.
Allegedly, the Defendants were motivated to enter into the No-Poach
Agreement because it would reduce their labor costs and thus
increase their profits. For example, in one communication between
Defendants, it was argued that adhering to the No-Poach Agreement
was essential to "pre[v]ent poaching and price war," notes the
complaint.
Plaintiff Roe II is a current P&W employee engineer who, during the
class period, was employed by Belcan Engineering in Ontario as an
engineer prior to being hired by P&W in Ontario.
P&W is one of the largest aerospace engine design, manufacture, and
service companies in North America, employing over 36,000 people
worldwide, 6,000 of whom are in Canada, including thousands of
engineers and skilled workers. When demand dictates, supplier
Defendants provide P&W with additional engineers to work alongside
P&W employees on P&W projects.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Golub, Esq.
Jonathan M. Levine, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square - 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
jlevine@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
ALLSTAR PRODUCTS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstar Products
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstar Products
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00942 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Allstar Products Group -- https://allstarmg.com/ -- is a leading
consumer brands company that has introduced some of today's top
selling brands including the Snuggie and other innovative product
offerings.[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
AMAZON.COM INC: Ex-Offender May Pursue Lawsuit Over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2022, a federal judge in a U.S. District Court in
New York City said a convicted murderer who served 23 years in
prison may pursue a proposed class action lawsuit against
Amazon.com Inc. and its Whole Foods unit after he was turned down
for a grocery delivery job, according to a news report from
Reuters.
Reuters reported that U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni said the
plaintiff ex-offender had "adequately alleged that he is
rehabilitated and no longer poses a threat to the public" but she
was also "sympathetic to defendants' likely position that they do
not want a convicted murderer delivering groceries to their
customers' homes."
Amazon ran a background check on the ex-offender - who was
convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 and paroled in 2018 - and
found he had lied on his job application when asked if he had a
criminal record, and Amazon and Whole Foods argued the lie was
reason enough to turn him down for the job, Reuters reported.
However, the Fair Chance Act (FCA) prohibits employers in New York
City from rejecting job applicants based on their criminal history
unless there is a direct relationship between the crime and the job
or employing them poses a risk to people. Judge Caproni said the
defendants failed to show either exception applied, Reuters
reported.
The class action lawsuit is Franklin v. Whole Foods Market Group
Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
20-04935. The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of Amazon
and Whole Foods job applicants in New York state and New York City
with criminal records. The Reuters article is available here.
The FCA was added to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) in
October 2015 because even though New York City required that
employers must fairly assess job candidates under Article 23-A of
the Correction Law, many employers were disregarding candidates who
disclosed criminal histories early in the hiring process.
In January 2021, the New York City Council amended the FCA to
extend employment protections for individuals with pending
adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACDs) and convictions
for violations prior to sealing by adding both to the category of
dispositions that may not be considered for employment-related
decisions.
The law also prohibits discrimination in licensing against
applicants with convictions for violations, even prior to sealing,
and would clarify protections for applicants and employees with
pending criminal cases by requiring an employer to make an
individualized assessment of the relationship between the charged
conduct and the job.
The amended FCA requires that employers who revoke a conditional
job offer demonstrate that they would not have made the offer
regardless of the applicant's criminal history, and provides
numerous additional protections for ex-offenders. To help employers
comply, the NYCHRL has issued compliance guidance on the FCA.
Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) - a service offering of
ClearStar, a leading provider of Human Capital Integrity(TM)
technology-based services - offers a white paper about "Ten
Critical Steps for Ex-Offenders to Get Back into the Workforce" for
job applicants with criminal records. To learn more, contact ESR
today.
NOTE: Employment Screening Resources (ESR) - a service offering of
ClearStar - reminds readers that allegations made in class action
lawsuits are not proof a business or individual violated any law,
rule, or regulation since they are in the pleading stage with no
factual adjudications yet.
NOTE: Employment Screening Resources (ESR) - a service offering of
ClearStar - does not provide or offer legal services or legal
advice of any kind or nature. Any information on this website is
for educational purposes only.
(c) 2022 Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) - A Service
Offering of ClearStar - Making copies of or using any part of the
ESR News Blog or ESR website for any purpose other than your own
personal use is prohibited unless written authorization is first
obtained from ESR. [GN]
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Robertson Sues Over Unfair Collection of Debts
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRADECA ROBERTSON and MICHAEL GUNN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN MUNICIPAL
SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00018-DMB-DAS
(N.D. Miss., Feb. 1, 2022) is a class action seeking statutory
damages due to Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in
third-party collection of municipal debts, including court fines,
traffic tickets, parking citations, fines for ordinance violations,
and debts relating to emergency medical services, utility bills,
and other city services in numerous states, including Alabama,
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The complaint challenges the illegal conduct of the Defendant in
the collection of debts from Mississippi consumers, including
Plaintiffs, using the mail and telephone. The Defendant has a
standard policy and practice of using false, deceptive or
misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of any debt, the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs allegedly owed separate fines which they denied for
a misdemeanor offense to the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
W. HOWARD GUNN ATTORNEY AT LAW
310 South Hickory Street
Post Office Box 157
Aberdeen, MS 39730
Telephone: (662) 369-8533
E-mail: whgunn@bellsouth.net
ASSURANT INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assurant, Inc. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Assurant, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00606
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Assurant, Inc. -- https://www.assurant.com/ -- is a global provider
of risk management products and services with headquarters in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Sapan Suit Transferred to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Sapan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. formerly
known as: Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., National Congress of
Employers, Inc., Donisi Jax, Inc. also known as: Nationwide Health
Advisors, Helping Hand Health Group, Inc., Respondents, Case No.
8:21-cv-00783 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 2, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00150-BTM-WVG to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Benefytt Technologies, Inc. -- https://benefytt.com/ -- provides
software and insurance solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J Reichman, Esq.
Justin Prato, Esq.
PRATO AND REICHMAN APC
8555 Aero Drive Suite 303
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (619) 683-7971
Fax: (619) 241-8309
The Respondents are represented by:
Michael Dietz Roth, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Fax: (213) 443-4310
- and -
Danielle Chattin, Esq.
David L. Balser, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Email: dchattin@kslaw.com
dbalser@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
- and -
Barton Hull Hegeler, Esq.
Cassandra Rose Dougherty, Esq.
Storm P Anderson, Esq.
Keshav Suresh Nair, Esq.
HEGELER AND ANDERSON APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 670
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (858) 597-9975
Fax: (858) 452-1491
Email: knair@hegeler-anderson.com
- and -
Elizabeth Kimball Key, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street Floor 34
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 218-6982
Fax: (916) 442-0382
- and -
Jennifer L. Meeker, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 612-7863
Fax: (213) 612-7801
Email: jmeeker@nossaman.com
BERETTA USA CORP: Kornegay Sues Over Shotgun Defect
---------------------------------------------------
Glenn A. Kornegay, individually and as representative of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Beretta USA Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00124 (N.D. Ala., January 31, 2022),
seeks compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
payment of costs of suit, both pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded, punitive damages, payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees as may be allowable
under applicable law, and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranties, negligence
and/or wantonness.
Beretta is a preeminent manufacturer and distributor of firearms
headquartered in Prince George's County, Maryland.
Kornegay claims that Berretta' shotguns and rifles are assembled
with synthetic stocks and/or synthetic fore-ends that are inlaid
with degrading rubberized carbonaceous composite material that
become extremely sticky or tacky to the touch, which impedes and
diminishes the ability of the shooter to use his firearm in a
manner reasonably expected. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
Mark R. Ekonen, Esq.
Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 326-3336
Email: william@hgdlawfirm.com
mark@hgdlawfirm.com
chood@hgdlawfirm.com
BETTER MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Sheehan-Veal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALIE SHEEHAN-VEAL, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION
d/b/a BETTER.COM, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00255 (M.D. Fla.,
Jan. 31, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
appropriate overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this as a collective action on behalf of all
other similarly situated mortgage underwriters, current and former,
of Defendant who worked in Florida, at any time during the
three-year period before this complaint was filed up to the
present.
Better Mortgage Corporation operates as an online mortgage lender.
The Company offers mortgage and refinance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
BIG SPOON: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Spoon Roasters
LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Big Spoon Roasters LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00926 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big Spoon Roasters -- https://bigspoonroasters.com/ -- makes
handcrafted nut butters and wholesome snack bars from scratch in
Durham, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
BKP INC: Response for Rule 23 Class Cert. Extended to Feb. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miles v. BKP Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01212 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer
entered an order granting the portion of defendants' motion
requesting an extension of time to respond to motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and appointment of class counsel
Under Rule 23(g).
The Defendants may respond on or before February 14, 2022. The
portion of defendants' motion seeking an extension of time to
comply with Order is referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E.
Hegarty.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
BLISTEX INC: Cleaning Sprays Contain Benzene, Santos Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLISTEX INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00806 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant for the manufacture and sale of Odor-Eaters
Spray Powder and Odor-Eaters Stink Stoppers Spray products, which
were defective because they allegedly contain benzene, a
carcinogenic chemical impurity that has been linked to leukemia and
other cancers.
The complaint asserts that the products are anti-fungal and foot
odor reducing drug products regulated by the United States Food &
Drug Administration pursuant to the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act. However, the alleged presence of benzene in the
products renders them adulterated and misbranded. As a result, the
products are illegal to sell under federal law and therefore are
worthless, says the suit.
In April or May of 2020, Mr. Santos purchased Defendant's
Odor-Eaters Stink Stoppers Spray from a CVS location in New York.
Blistex Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes lip
care products. The Company offers products to clinics, hospitals,
medical stores, retail stores and health care centers. Blistex
serves its clients throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
CALMCO LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calmco LLC. The case
is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Calmco LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00946 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CalmCo -- https://www.calmco.com/ -- have fast acting solutions to
relieve symptoms of colic, gas, and reflux, in addition to products
that support and maintain overall gut biome.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Niemczynski Balks at Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANA NIEMCZYNSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC. and
WISCONSIN ILLINOIS SENIOR HOUSING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-127 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 1, 2022) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Law, seeking relief for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or
agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of activities assistant working
at Defendants' "Ingleside" location in the State of Wisconsin. She
also performed compensable work as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee in the positions of certified nursing assistant, dietary
aide, and cook.
Carriage Healthcare Companies, Inc. owns, operates, and manages
skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities,
rehabilitation facilities, and residential care apartments in
multiple States across the county, including but not limited to the
states of Illinois, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.[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
CELEB LUXURY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Celeb Luxury LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Celeb Luxury LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00931 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Celeb -- https://www.celebluxury.com/ -- offers salon professional
semi-permanent color depositing shampoos and conditioners.[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
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Patient Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A potential class-action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston
Area Medical Center related to a data breach by one of its
employees.
The named plaintiff, identified only as K.J.P., filed the complaint
in Kanawha Circuit Court against CAMC.
According to the complaint, the case arises out of "personal and
sensitive medical information being access by an employee of the
defendant who did not have a business need to do so."
Attorney Troy Giatras, who is representing the plaintiff, said he
isn't sure just how many people could be involved in this class
action, but he suspects its around 40 or so patients.
"Privacy of medical records and sensitive information has never
been more important," Giatras told The West Virginia Record. "My
firm is on the frontlines every day protecting the privacy of West
Virginians when unfair breaches of private information occur.
"This was a case where CAMC left our client's medical information
in a vulnerable and exposed manner to be viewed for a non-business
purpose and a non-authorized purpose. It wasn't for medical
treatment. Surprisingly, this happens very frequently."
Because this incident didn't involve more than 500 individuals,
Giatras said CAMC wasn't required to post about the data breach
online. Letters were sent to those affected.
"You get people wanting to be nosy, and the systems in place don't
lock down the medical records and information for current and past
patients," Giatras said. "At the end of the day, it's cheaper for
companies to worry about getting caught rather than to implement a
system-wide program.
"These types of things happen regularly, probably on a daily basis
around the country and even in the state of West Virginia. There is
too much unfettered, unauthorized access to medical records."
In this case, the plaintiff says he received a letter from CAMC on
November 8 saying an employee accessed his "medical records without
a business need." The employee accessed medical and sensitive
personal information, such as full name, Social Security number,
date of birth, home address, account number, sensitive medical
diagnoses, private treatment information and other legally
protected information.
"It is apparent that the defendant failed to monitor its employees'
conduct and any systems it has in place to safeguard K.J.P. and the
putative class members' personal sensitive information entrusted to
it for protection," the complaint states.
The complaint accuses CAMC of a breach of the duty of
confidentiality, unjust enrichment, prima facia negligence, breach
of contract, negligent supervision and negligence.
K.J.P. and the other potential class members will seek an order
providing consumer credit protection and monitoring services,
maintenance of consumer credit insurance to provide coverage for
unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' personal information, relief
requesting that CAMC establish a specific device encryption
security program to protect against such actions again.
The plaintiffs also will seek compensatory damages, punitive
damages, interest, attorney fees, court costs and restitution.
The plaintiffs are being represented by Giatras and Matthew
Stonestreet of The Giatras Law Firm in Charleston as well as by
William Pepper and Daniel T. Lattanzi of Pepper & Nason in
Charleston. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Maryclaire
Akers.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 21-C-1136 [GN]
CHICKEN POUND: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Chicken Pound
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Chicken Pound LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00924-AT (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Chicken Pound -- https://thechickenpound.com/ -- offers
simplified meal prep.[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
COOKS VENTURE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooks Venture, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cooks Venture, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00925 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cooks Venture, Inc. -- https://cooksventure.com/ -- operates as an
agricultural company..[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
CORIZON HEALTH: Smith Must File Class Status Bid by July 1
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA SMITH, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON,
SHAWN BREWER, in their individual capacity, and CORIZON HEALTH,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-10771 (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order that an extension of five months to
both the deadline to file motions for class certification and to
the deadline to complete discovery is both reasonable and necessary
in this case:
1. The Plaintiff shall file a motion July 1, 2022
for class certification by no later
than:
2. The parties shall complete discovery Feb. 7, 2023
by:
3. The upcoming status conferences Feb. 15, 2022 &
scheduled for: May 12, 2022
Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately
held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uuBDk5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorney for Plaintiff Smith, is:
Daniel Randazzo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL
RANDAZZO
2731 South Adams Rd., Ste. 100
Rochester Hills, MI 48309
Telephone: (248) 853-1003
Attyrandaz@aol.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Bush,
McKee, Fisher, Gulick, Sherry,
Brewer, Johnson, Osterhout
and Washington, are:
Kristin M. Heyse, Esq.
Joshua S. Smith, Esq.
Michael R. Dean, Esq.
John L. Thurber, Esq.
Zachary A. Zurek, Esq.
Sara E. Trudgeon, Esq.
Jennifer Foster, Esq.
Keith G. Clark, Esq.
MI DEP'T OF ATTORNEY GEN.
MDOC Division
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: (517) 335-3055
The Attorneys for the Defendants
Corizon, Papendick, Lacy,
Hutchinson, and Bomber, are:
Ronald W. Chapman, Sr., Esq.
CHAPMAN LAW GROUP
1441 West Long Lake Rd, Suite 310
Troy, MI 48098
Telephone: (248) 644-6326
E-mail: rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com
CP IV WATERFRONT: Lethgo Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andra Lethgo, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated v. CP IV Waterfront, LLC dba Kapilina Beach
Homes, Grep Southwest, LLC, Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No.
1CCV-22-0000005 was removed from the First Circuit Court, State of
Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on
Feb. 2, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00052-JAO-WRP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
CP IV Waterfront, LLC doing business as Kapilina Beach Homes --
https://kapilinabeachhomes.com/ -- is an apartment rental agency in
Iroquois Point, Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James William Rooney, Esq.
Terrance M. Revere, Esq.
REVERE & ASSOCIATES, LLLC
970 N Kalaheo Ave A301
Kailua, HI 96734
Phone: (808) 228-9386
Email: James@revereandassociates.com
terry@revereandassociates.com
- and -
Michael Jay Green, Esq.
841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201
Honolulu, Hi 96813
Phone: 521-3336
Email: michael@michaeljaygreen.com
- and -
Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KYLE SMITH
604 Ilimano Street
Honolulu, HI 96734
Phone: (808) 799-5175
Email: kyle@smithlawhawaii.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa Katherine Swartzfager, Esq.
Mallory T. Martin, Esq.
Michael L. Hoke, Esq.
Calvert G. Chipchase, IV, Esq.
CASE SCHUTTE LLP
1000 Bishop Street, Ste. 1200
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 521-9205
Fax: (808) 521-9210
Email: lswartzfager@cades.com
mmartin@cades.com
mhoke@cades.com
cchipchase@cades.com
DEL TACO: Rosenfeld Challenges $575-MM Jack in the Box Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZAHAVA ROSENFELD, Plaintiff v. DEL TACO RESTAURANTS, INC., JOSEPH
STEIN, VALERIE L. INSIGNARES, ARI B. LEVY, R.J. MELMAN, JOHN D.
CAPPASOLA, JR., LAWRENCE F. LEVY, EILEEN APTMAN, and KAREN L. LUEY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00718 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2022) is an
action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated stockholders, against Del Taco Restaurants and
the members of Del Taco's Board of Directors for their violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, and to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Del
Taco will be acquired by Jack in the Box Inc. through Jack in the
Box's subsidiary, Epic Merger Sub Inc.
On December 6, 2021, Del Taco and Jack in the Box issued a joint
press release announcing that they had entered into an agreement
and plan of merger dated December 5, 2021, to sell Del Taco to Jack
in the Box. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Del Taco
stockholders will receive $12.51 in cash for each share of Del Taco
common stock they own. The proposed transaction is valued at
approximately $575 million.
On January 28, 2022, Del Taco filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Del Taco stockholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction,
allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things: (i) the background of the proposed transaction;
and (ii) financial advisor Piper Sandler & Co.'s potential
conflicts of interest.
According to the complaint, Del Taco's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed
transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the proposed transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured.
Del Taco develops, franchises, owns, and operates Del Taco
quick-service Mexican-American restaurants in the United
States.[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
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
DIGNITY HEALTH: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMERY DARLING and ANA
JARA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, v. DIGNITY HEALTH; DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE; DIGNITY
HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:20-cv-06043-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to continue
hearing on motion for FRCP 23 Class certification.
The hearing on the motion for class certification presently
scheduled for Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. be continued
to Tuesday March 8, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as is
convenient for the Court.
Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Feb. 2, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulH4Sc at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Dr.
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
The Defendants are represented by:
Tyler J. Johnson, Esq.
Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
Nora K. Stilestein, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
DISH WIRELESS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dish Wireless, LLC.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Dish Wireless, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00608 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dish Wireless LLC -- https://www.dishwireless.com/ -- is an
American wireless network provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
DUFRESNE SPENCER GROUP: Pate Sues Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------
Kevin Pate, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Dufresne Spencer Group, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00308, (S.D. Tex., January 31, 2022), seeks damages and
remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Dufresne Spencer Group operates as Ashley Furniture HomeStore with
a retail location in Houston, Texas. Pate incurred one transaction
with Ashley Furniture where he returned a chair he bought. After
said transaction was consummated, he still got over 75 calls from
November 2020 through January 2021 from the Defendant's artificial
or prerecorded voice messages to his voicemail. Said calls were
about the same transaction which was already settled. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
400 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (561) 826-5477
Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Austin B. Whitten, Esq.
PITTMAN DUTTON HELLUMS BRADLEY & MANN PC
2001 Park Place North, #1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 322-8880
Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com
ECO LIPS INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eco Lips, Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Eco Lips, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00933
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eco Lips, Inc. -- https://ecolips.com/ -- offers the highest
quality certified organic, fair trade, cruelty free and non-gmo lip
care products made locally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[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
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edgewell Personal
Care, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edgewell Personal
Care, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00943 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Edgewell Personal Care Company -- https://edgewell.com/ -- is
an American multinational consumer products company headquartered
in Shelton, Connecticut.[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
ENERGY TRANSFER: Deadline to Amend Complaint Extended to May 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE
CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, DENVER
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, and IOWA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN,
THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL MCCREA, and MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHug
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline for amending the Complaint shall
move from January 21, 2022 to May 2, 2022;
2. The Defendants' deadline to substantially complete their
production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' first set
of requests for production of documents shall move from
February 15, 2022 to May 13, 2022;
3. The Defendants' deadline to produce a privilege log to
the Plaintiffs shall move from March 15, 2022 to June 13,
2022;
4. The deadline for Parties to submit a discovery schedule for
experts on non-class certification issues shall move from
April 15, 2022 to August 15, 2022;
5. The deadline for interrogatories shall move from May 1,
2022 to August 1, 2022.
6. The deadline for all requests for admission and
interrogatories shall move from May 1, 2022 to August 31,
2022; and
7. The deadline for the completion of all fact discovery shall
move from August 16, 2022 to December 16, 2022.
Energy Transfer is a company engaged in natural gas and propane
pipeline transport.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gjYO8n at no extra charge.[CC]
EVERBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 26
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Everbridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVBG) resulting from
allegations that Everbridge may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Everbridge securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2244.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 9, 2021, Everbridge disclosed that
on December 6, 2021, David Meredith, Everbridge's Chief Executive
Officer and a member of the Company's Board of Directors, informed
the Company of his intention to resign from his roles at Everbridge
effective January 30, 2022 and that on December 8, 2021,
Everbridge's Board of Directors accepted Mr. Meredith's
resignation.
On this news, Everbridge's stock price fell $52.37 per share, or
45.39%, to close at $63.00 per share on December 10, 2021.
On January 24, 2022, asset management firm Baron Funds ("Baron")
published its "Baron Discovery Fund" fourth quarter 2021 investor
letter. Baron's investor letter discussed the firm's decision to
dispose of its Everbridge shares, noting, in relevant part, that
"[s]hares of Everbridge declined in the fourth quarter after the
company announced the resignation of its CEO and guided for a
slowdown in organic growth."
On this news, Everbridge's stock price fell $3.69 per share, or
7.19%, to close at $47.60 per share on January 25, 2022.
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.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EXCELLIGENCE LEARNING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Excelligence Learning
Corporation. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Excelligence Learning
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00916 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Excelligence Learning Corporation -- https://www.excelligence.com/
-- is the world's leading tech-enabled platform company in early
childhood and elementary education.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Cooperative.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Frontier Cooperative, Case No.
1:22-cv-00945 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frontier Co-Op -- https://www.frontiercoop.com/ -- provide a
variety of natural spices and organic herbs all around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
GATOS SILVER: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by Gatos
Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO) ("Gatos Silver" or the "Company").
On January 25, 2022, Gatos Silver provided a resource and reserve
update for the Los Gatos Joint Venture, which included a detailed
reconciliation of recent production performance. Stating, "the
Company concluded that there were errors in the technical report
entitled "Los Gatos Project, Chihuahua, Mexico" with an effective
date of July 1, 2020 (the '2020 Technical Report'), as well as
indications that there is an overestimation in the existing
resource model." On a preliminary basis, the Company estimates a
potential reduction of the metal content of CLG's mineral reserve
ranging from 30% to 50% of the metal content remaining after
depletion."
Following this news, Gatos Silver stock was trading down 46% in
pre-market trading on January 26, 2022.
If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or a Gatos Silver shareholder
interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact
Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can go to:
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/GatosSilverInc or [Click
here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
GC SERVICES: Pearson Sues Over Call Center Reps' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY PEARSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GC SERVICES, LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00333 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2022) is a collective action
instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's alleged
practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt
employees wages for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the West Virginia
Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a call center
representative at one of Defendant's call centers in Huntington,
West Virginia from approximately February 6, 2021 through November
17, 2021.
GC Services, LP is a business process outsourcing solutions
provider that operates approximately 28 call centers across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard, 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
GLYCOM INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glycom Inc. The case
is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Glycom Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00948
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Glycom -- https://www.glycom.com/ -- is the world's leading
supplier in the Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMO) market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
HOME TRAINING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Training Tools,
LTD. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Home Training Tools, LTD., Case
No. 1:22-cv-00919 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Home Training Tools Ltd. -- https://www.homesciencetools.com/ --
retails scientific supplies and products. The Company offers a
range of microscopes, laboratory equipments, chemistry kits,
glassswares, chemicals, animal books, biology supplies, anatomy
books and charts, telescopes, batteries, motors, alternative energy
kits, and motion books.[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
HONDA MOTOR: VTC Actuator Class Action Lawsuit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Honda VTC actuator class action
lawsuit has been certified in two states (California and Illinois)
after owners complained their vehicles rattled a few seconds on
cold starts.
According to the plaintiffs, Honda injured them by failing to tell
them about defective variable valve timing control (VTC) actuator
14310-R44-A01 in these models.
2012 Honda Accord (L4 engine)
2012-2014 Honda CR-V (2.4-liter engine)
2012-2015 Honda Crosstour (L4 engine)
In 2012, plaintiff Mary Quackenbush purchased a new 2012 Honda CR-V
from a California dealer. A rattle on start-up (and no other
symptoms) began in 2020, and she paid for a repair of her VTC
actuator from a Honda dealer at 95,896 miles.
California plaintiff Anne Pellettieri purchased a new 2014 Honda
CR-V from a dealer in 2014 and allegedly first heard a rattle one
to two years after purchase. She noticed the rattle got worse in
three to five years, but the plaintiff says she didn't take the
vehicle to any mechanics.
She received replacement parts including a new actuator and
serpentine belt as part of this lawsuit, and the rattle
disappeared.
Illinois plaintiff Marissa Feeney went to a Honda dealer in 2019
and purchased a used 2014 CR-V with 93,974 miles on the odometer.
Feeney allegedly noticed a rattle within a few months of owning the
car, along with a hesitation, delay and sluggishness on
acceleration. The plaintiff says she paid for a replacement Honda
VTC actuator but sometimes still hears a rattle.
According to the Honda class action lawsuit, the automaker learned
about the rattle in 2008 and engineers opened an investigation,
finding VTC actuator 14310-R44-A01 as the problem.
Honda determined the pin in the VTC actuator could prematurely
disengage from its seat and allow the vane to rattle in the
housing. The rattle will last only a few seconds because oil
pressure builds up and cushions the assembly.
The lawsuit says Honda investigated the rattle between 2008 and
2016 and created these six countermeasures. The final repair
involved replacing VTC actuator 14310-R44-A01.
12/03/2007 - U-Groove width sorting at Denso
9/11/2008 - Select Fit to achieve target Stopper Pin Depth
9/10/2009 - DC - Revise Pin Depth Spec from 2.02mm-5.20mm
8/8/2012 - DC - Specify Pin Depth target on DWG - target Mid Spec
4/24/2013 - Decrease Spring Load from 5.78 to 3.64N
9/24/2015 - Design Change A1508259 issued for 14310-R5A-305
Some Honda vehicles received countermeasures one, two and three,
while other vehicles received countermeasure four and some received
countermeasure numbers four and five.
Honda VTC Actuator Class Action Lawsuit Certified
The Honda class action lawsuit has been certified for the following
customers and locations.
Plaintiff Anne Pellettieri will represent a California class of new
and used purchasers of vehicles equipped with VTC actuator
14310-R44-A01 from California Honda dealers, and former owners who
resold or traded in to California Honda dealers.
Plaintiff Mary Quackenbush will represent a California repair class
of consumers who purchased new or used Honda vehicles equipped with
VTC actuator 14310-R44-A01 from California Honda dealers, and who
paid to have their VTC actuator repaired by California Honda
dealers.
Plaintiff Marissa Feeney will represent an Illinois repair class of
consumers who purchased new or used Honda vehicles equipped with
VTC actuator 14310-R44-A01 from Illinois Honda dealers, and who
paid to have their VTC actuators repaired by Illinois Honda dealers
in Illinois.
The Honda VTC actuator class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California:
Quackenbush, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al.
[GN]
JOHN BEL EDWARDS: Johnson Files Suit in M.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Bel Edwards, et
al. The case is styled as Donald Johnson, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals v. John Bel Edwards, in his
official capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana; James
LeBlanc, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections; Gerald A. Turlich, in his official
capacity as Sheriff; Denise Narcisse, Warden, Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center in her official capacity; Byron Williams, Major,
Warden, Plaquemines Parish Detention Center in his official
capacity, Case No. 3:22-cv-00077-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., Feb. 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Conditions for Prisoner
Civil Rights.
John Bel Edwards is an American politician and attorney serving as
the 56th governor of Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JP MORGAN: Court Grants Class Cert. for Settlement with NAB
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case
No.1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting conditional class certification for
purposes of class action settlement with National Australia Bank
Limited ("NAB").
1. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies a Settlement
Class consisting of:
"all Persons (including both natural persons and entities)
who purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded, or otherwise
had any interest in, BBSW-Based Derivatives during the
period January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), provided that, if
Representative Plaintiffs expand the putative or certified
class in this Action in or through any subsequent amended
complaint, class motion, or Other Settlement,
the defined Settlement Class in this Order and the
Settlement Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government. Investment
Vehicles are not to be excluded from the Settlement Class
solely on the basis of being deemed to be Defendants or
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or agents of Defendants
or controlled by Defendants or affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents or agents of Defendants. However, to the extent
that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate, subsidiary, parent or agent thereof (i)
managed or advised, and (ii) directly or indirectly held a
beneficial interest in, said Investment Vehicle during the
Settlement Class Period, that beneficial interest in the
Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to such
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement.
3. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for
purposes of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the
establishment of the Settlement Fund as qualified
settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
4. The Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and OCERS will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of
the Settlement.
5. The timing, plan, and forms of the Class Notice to the
Settlement Class and the date of the Fairness Hearing
before this Court to consider any member(s) of the
Settlement Class's objections to final approval of the
Settlement and to consider the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and Settlement
Agreement shall all be determined by separate order of
this Court.
6. At a later date, Class Counsel shall submit for the
Court's approval a proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Funds.
7. All proceedings in the Action as to NAB, other than
proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed
Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, are hereby stayed and suspended until further
order of this Court. Pending determination of whether the
Settlement should be approved, Representative Plaintiffs,
Class Counsel and Settlement Class Members are barred and
enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any Released
Claims against any of the Released Persons.
8. The Court hereby orders NAB to produce documents to the
Representative Plaintiffs consistent with and solely to
the extent of its cooperation obligations provided in
Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
This action comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Motion for Conditional Class Certification and on the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement as to Defendant National Australia Bank
Limited dated December 10, 2021 entered into by Representative
Plaintiffs and NAB in the above-entitled action.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING
GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC, AUSTRALIA,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLE'TT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gjDsIi at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Court Terminates Dennis Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis, et al., v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06496 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order terminating motion to
certify class.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation (monopolizing
trade).
JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.
JPMorgan Chase is incorporated in Delaware.[CC]
KOREAN AIR LINES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Korean Air Lines Co.,
Ltd. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00611-RPK-PK (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Korean Air Co., Ltd., operating as Korean Air --
https://www.koreanair.com/ -- is the largest airline and flag
carrier of South Korea based on fleet size, international
destinations and international flights.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeshore Equipment
Company. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lakeshore Equipment Company,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00918-PAE-OTW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lakeshore Equipment Company Inc., doing business as Lakeshore
Learning Materials -- https://www.lakeshorelearning.com/ -- owns
and operates a network of retail stores that sell educational
material.[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
LOUISIANA: Officials Defend $2.9M Lawsuit Over Confinement Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll at louisianarecord.com reports that the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety & Corrections is defending the
estimated $2.9 million the state is spending to defend against a
lawsuit alleging that confinement policies at a prison in Claiborne
Parish violate the Eighth Amendment.
The federal case brought by Bruce Charles and other inmates at the
David Wade Correctional Center was originally filed in 2018 in the
Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs allege that the
center's lack of adequate mental health care facilities and long
periods of solitary confinement violate the Constitution's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
"This prolonged period of time on lockdown in the punitive and
harsh conditions . . . . and without access to a functioning mental
health care system operate independently and in combination to
create a substantial risk of harm to the men at David Wade," a
plaintiffs' motion filed last year in the legal proceedings
states.
A description of conditions at the prison by the Louisiana ACLU,
which is supporting the litigation, says hundreds of inmates have
been held in their cells for about 23 hours per day, with little to
no contact with others.
"The prolonged confinement and sensory deprivation causes and
exacerbates serious mental illness," the ACLU description says.
Although the corrections department declined to comment on the
details of the case, state officials have indicated that the
spending on private attorneys to defend against the class-action
lawsuit was necessary.
"Prisoner civil rights law is a highly specialized area of
litigation, and few attorneys have the requisite expertise required
to defend these types of cases - especially large-scale
class-action proceedings such as this matter which involve multiple
expert witnesses and millions of pages of documents," Ken
Pastorick, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety &
Corrections, told the Louisiana Record in an email.
The department lacked the needed legal experts and resources to
manage the lawsuit, Pastorick said.
"Thus, it was necessary to hire well-qualified and experienced
counsel with consultation and approval from the attorney general,"
he said. "The chosen firm has the requisite skill, knowledge and
expertise to produce a positive outcome for the state of
Louisiana."
A bench trial examining the plaintiffs' allegations is currently
under way. Assisting the department's general counsel in its
defense against the allegations are four Butler Snow attorneys from
the law firm's Baton Rouge office, according to court documents
describing the Zoom trial's proceedings. [GN]
MADE WITH LOVE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Made With Love
Wellness, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Made With Love
Wellness, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00929 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Made With Love Wellness -- https://lovewellness.com/ -- is a 1-stop
shop for the best women's wellness and personal care products
available.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
MAJESTIC CARE: Bid to Dismiss Wright Class Action Nixed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WRIGHT, et al., v.
MAJESTIC CARE STAFF LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order denying as moot the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court said, "This matter came before the Court on February 2,
2022 for a telephonic status conference. Counsel for all parties
appeared and participated in the conference. As discussed more
fully during the conference, the Plaintiffs will file their motion
for conditional class certification, or the parties will file an
agreed motion for conditional class certification by February 18,
2022. The parties will file a revised Rule 26(f) Report by February
25, 2022. The Defendants agree that the filing of the Amended
Complaint renders their Motion to Dismiss moot.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34zxiAT at no extra charge.[CC]
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD FLYNN et al., v.
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, a.k.a. M&T Bank, Case No.
2:17-cv-04806-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone, J.
entered an order that the Parties are directed to file new briefing
on the Motion for Class Certification using the class definitions
supplied in Plaintiffs' Sur-sur-reply brief.
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Feb. 16, 2022
Certification shall be filed no
later than:
-- The Defendant shall file its Brief March 2, 2022
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
by:
-- The Plaintiffs may file a Reply in March 16, 2022
Support of their Motion no later
than:
The Plaintiffs' instant Motion for Class Certification and their
Motion for Leave to File a Sur-sur-reply brief are therefore denied
as moot, says Judge Beetlestone
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5Ucz5 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2785: Antitrust Suit Parties' Bids in Limine Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing,
Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. (This Document Applies to
Consumer Class Cases), MDL No. 2785, Case No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ
(D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the
parties' Motions in Limine, consistent with the Order.
I. Introduction
The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Motions in
Limine. The Court plans to convene a jury trial beginning on Feb.
22, 2022, to try the Plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims against
the Defendants. The Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine that
seeks an order excluding arguments or evidence about 17 topics. The
Defendants have followed a similar path, filing a Motion in Limine
that asks the court to exclude argument or evidence about 14
topics.
On Jan. 10, 2022, Judge Crabtree held a hearing on the parties
Motions in Limine. During that hearing, he provided oral rulings on
most of the arguments raised by the parties' Motions in Limine. The
Order memorializes those rulings, and decides the four topics that
it took under advisement
II. Analysis
A. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine
The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine seeks an order excluding argument
or evidence about 17 topics.
1. The Collateral Source Rule
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to bar the Defendants from presenting
argument or evidence that a consumer's insurance paid some amount
of a consumer's overcharge because, they argue, the collateral
source rule bars such evidence and argument. The Defendants respond
that the collateral source rule shouldn't apply where, as in the
present case, the class consists of individual consumers and third
party payors (TPPs). They argue they deserve the opportunity to
establish that some members of the class have no Article III
standing because they never paid any overcharges, and thus, aren't
injured.
Judge Crabtree denies this part of the motion in limine. Because
the Plaintiffs have built their theory of damages around facts that
involve health insurance arrangements, he finds that the Defendants
deserve some room to challenge the Plaintiffs' damages model with
evidence. So, Judge Crabtree won't preclude the Defendants from
introducing evidence about insurance coverage or arguing that
certain class members haven't sustained an injury because their
insurance providers paid the alleged EpiPen overcharges.
But, the ruling doesn't leave the Defendants a completely open
field to introduce this evidence and make arguments about it. Judge
Crabtree won't prohibit the Defendants from introducing evidence
about insurance payments altogether because that evidence is
relevant to the question whether each class member has sustained
injury, and thus, has "Article III standing in order to recover
individual damages" in the case.
2. Defendants' (Including Pfizer Entities) Internal Assessments
about Patent Strength
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to preclude the Defendants, in limine,
from (1) introducing evidence or making argument about the
Defendants' own internal assessment of patent strength or their
likelihood of success in patent litigation, and (2) arguing that
the Plaintiffs' expert failed to consider the Defendants' internal
assessment of patent strength when forming his opinion.
The Defendants respond, but slightly modify the issue when they do.
They report that they don't plan to offer any privileged material
discussing patent strength or litigation probabilities. But, the
Defendants assert, they are entitled to, and do intend to introduce
non-privileged material on these topics.
Judge Crabtree grants part of the relief sought by the motion but
denies the remainder. He excludes any assessments of patent
strength that are protected by the Defendants' attorney-client
privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. This ruling
extends to any materials within the privilege owned by the Pfizer
entities. He also excludes any cross-examination of Prof. Elhauge
that inquires whether he considered privileged subjective
assessments. Mylan (and Pfizer) deprived him of any opportunity to
consider privileged assessments -- as was their right -- but they
can't attack his opinions because he didn't. Judge Crabtree does
not exclude any cross-examination of Prof. Elhauge that asks about
his underlying assumptions when forming his opinions and inquires
whether he considered non-privileged evidence when making those
assumptions.
3. Adverse Effect of a Verdict on Defendants' Businesses
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should preclude defendants from
presenting any argument or evidence about the adverse effects that
a jury verdict may have on the Defendants, including lay-offs and
their ability to compete in the market. The Defendants respond that
they don't object to a limine order barring argument or evidence
about the effect a jury verdict might have on their businesses,
financial condition, revenues, or profitability. But, they contend,
the Plaintiffs' motion, as drafted, is too broad and would permit
the Plaintiffs to argue that Mylan is a big company that could
afford to pay a large judgment. Arguments like that have no place
in this trial.
Judge Crabtree thus grants this aspect of the motion in limine in
large measure. He bars the parties from arguing or suggesting that
a jury verdict might have adverse effects on the Defendants'
businesses, financial condition, revenues, and profitability. At
the same time, he prohibits any party from arguing that Mylan (or
any other defendant) is a big or wealthy company who can pay a
large judgment.
4. No Government or Regulatory Action
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit the Defendants from making
any reference to the fact that the government hasn't taken any
action against the Defendants based on the allegations in the
lawsuit. The Defendants respond, arguing that the Plaintiffs'
request is too broad. Instead, they ask the Court to wait and see
what the evidence is and why a party is offering it.
Judge Crabtree grants this part of the motion in limine. The fact
that the government hasn't taken action based on the conduct
alleged in the lawsuit is not a "fact of consequence in
determining" the issues in the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Thus, the
evidence is not relevant, and it's inadmissible. But, even if
admissible, Judge Crabtree excludes the evidence under Fed. R.
Evid. 403 because any "probative value is substantially outweighed
by a danger of undue delay" and "wasting time." Finally, the
Plaintiffs could reopen the door to this evidence. If the
Defendants contend the Plaintiffs have done so, the Defendant may
raise the issue again outside the hearing of the jury.
5. The Fact that Defendants Factor Lawsuits into Costs of
Pharmaceuticals
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to bar evidence that defendants factor
the costs of litigation into the costs of pharmaceuticals because
it's not relevant and it's prejudicial. Defendants don't oppose
this aspect of the motion in limine.
Judge Crabtree grants the motion and excludes evidence and argument
on this topic. He agrees with the Plaintiffs. This evidence isn't
relevant, and it's thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402. And,
even if admissible, he excludes the evidence under Fed. R. Evid.
403 because any probative value "is substantially outweighed by a
danger of unfair prejudice."
6. Defendants' Philanthropy or Good Deeds
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude evidence about the
Defendants' good deeds -- such as making EpiPens more available to
the public or donating them to schools. The Defendants respond that
this evidence is relevant and admissible, arguing that this
evidence shows what Mylan actually was doing in the market and why.
And, they contend, this evidence rebuts the Plaintiffs' arguments
that the Defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to reduce
competition and increase prices.
Judge Crabtree denies this part of the motion in limine, but
without prejudice. At trial, the Court is likely to sustain an
objection to evidence or argument about the Defendants'
philanthropy or good deeds. But also, it can imagine how evidence
of good deeds in the market might qualify as relevant and
admissible evidence. So, Judge Crabtree will deny the motion for
now. But, he notes that if the Defendants offer this type of
evidence simply to ingratiate themselves with the jury, he will
exclude it.
7. Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine and Defendants' Involvement in
Pandemic-Response Assistance
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to bar evidence about Pfizer's
COVID-19 vaccine or the Defendants' response to the pandemic
because that evidence isn't relevant to the issues in the EpiPen
case. And, the Plaintiffs contend, the evidence will prejudice
them. The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs' request to
exclude this evidence is too sweeping. And, they argue that other
courts have allowed parties to explain to juries what they do,
including work related to the pandemic. They contend this evidence
is relevant here because it describes who Mylan is as a company.
Judge Crabtree t denies the motion for the same reasons discussed
for Topic No. 6. Whether the Court will allow evidence of this type
is a question of scale. As long as the evidence is brief and
offered only to provide background, the Court will allow some
reference to the Defendants' work involving COVID-19. But, the
Court prohibits the Defendants from arguing that their response to
the pandemic is relevant to how the jury should decide the issues
in the case. Also, the Plaintiffs retain the right to request a
limiting instruction.
8. The Parties' Fee and Expense Agreements With Counsel
The Plaintiffs argue that evidence of the parties' fee and expense
arrangements with the counsel isn't relevant to the issue in the
case. Also, they contend, even if relevant, that kind of evidence
is prejudicial. The Defendants respond, arguing that the
Plaintiffs' request is too broad. Instead, the Defendants argue,
courts routinely allow evidence of a class representative's fee
arrangement because such evidence goes to issues of bias and shows
the motivation for filing suit.
Judge Crabtree denies this part of the motion in limine, but he
does so without prejudice. He declines to enter a blanket order
banning any evidence about fee arrangements. At the motions
hearing, the Court cautioned the Defendants, however, to tread
carefully. It can envision how questioning about fee arrangements
on cross-examination might open the door on redirect to evidence
and argument that the Defendants would rather avoid.
9. Circumstances of Plaintiffs' Hiring of Counsel and Any Referral
Agreements between Plaintiffs' Counsel and Other Counsel
Similar to the above request, the Plaintiffs seek an order barring
evidence about their engagement of counsel or referral agreements.
Mylan responds with the same arguments that this evidence is
relevant to show the Plaintiffs' motivation for bringing suit, and
also, it raises issues of bias.
Judge Crabtree grants the motion in part. He precludes the
Defendants from introducing argument or evidence about attorney
advertisements and referral agreements. But he won't enter a
blanket prohibition against argument or evidence about fee
arrangements. Thus, Judge Crabtree excludes argument or evidence
about referral agreements or how a particular Plaintiff may have
formed an attorney-client relationship with counsel through
advertising.
10. Experts Who Should Be Precluded Based on Prior Court Rulings,
Not Testifying in this Litigation, or Retained in Other Cases
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should limit the testimony of
Mylan's expert, Dr. Steven Weisman. They assert that he is not
qualified to testify about technical and manufacturing issues that
Teva experienced with its EAI for the same reasons that the Court
concluded on summary judgment that the Plaintiff's expert -- James
Bruno -- wasn't qualified to offer expert testimony.
The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs' request s an untimely
Daubert motion that the Court should deny. They agree with the
Plaintiffs' request to preclude references to other experts to the
extent it is intended to limit the experts who may testify at trial
only to those experts who properly were disclosed in the case.
Judge Crabtree denies the first aspect of this motion in limine
topic. He says, it's untimely. The Plaintiffs are making, in
substance, a Daubert gate-keeper motion that challenges Dr.
Weisman's qualification to testify. The deadline for raising such a
pretrial challenge passed long ago. Plaintiff may renew the
substance of this motion at trial, but if they do, they must raise
the issue outside the presence of the jury.
Judge Crabtree grants the second aspect of the motion. He precludes
the parties from referring to experts who were not disclosed in the
case, and thus, aren't testifying as experts in this trial.
11. "Lawyer-Driven" Lawsuit
The Plaintiffs asks the Court to prohibit the Defendants from
arguing that the case is a "lawyer-driven" lawsuit. They assert
that Judge Vratil granted a similar request in Gust v. Wireless
Vision, LLC, No. 15-2646-KHV, 2017 WL 4236636, at *7 (D. Kan. Sept.
25, 2017). The Defendants say the Court should deny this request,
arguing that evidence that counsel drove the filing of the lawsuit
is relevant to the representative Plaintiffs' motives and
credibility.
Judge Crabtree denies this motion in limine topic. He agrees with
Judge Lungstrum's reasoning in Marshall v. BNSF Railway, Co.
Evidence about the integrity, motivation, and conduct of the
Plaintiffs may have relevance so long as that evidence is tied to
an issue in the case and not merely a generalized attack on
character. So, he denies this topic but without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs reasserting it at trial.
12. Any Plaintiff's Criminal History
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to bar evidence about any Plaintiff's
criminal history. They argue that the evidence is not relevant, and
thus, inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402. And, even if relevant,
the Plaintiffs say the Court should exclude it under Fed. R. Evid.
403 because it is unduly prejudicial. The Defendants ask the Court
to defer ruling this motion until trial when the Court will have
sufficient evidence to determine whether Fed. R. Evid. 609's
requirements are satisfied to allow introducing impeachment
evidence.
Judge Crabtree denies this motion in limine topic without
prejudice. He will defer ruling whether evidence of criminal
history is admissible. But, he directs the Defendants to raise the
issue to the court, outside the jury's presence, before seeking to
introduce evidence of criminal history.
13. Defendants' Expert Charles E. Clemens and '827 and '035
Patents
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit the Defendants' expert,
Charles E. Clemens, from testifying that the Teva generic infringed
the '827 patent or that the Teva EAI couldn't have launched without
infringing the EpiPen patents. They argue that this evidence isn't
relevant because it doesn't account for the but-for scenario. Also,
plaintiffs say such testimony will confuse the jury. The Defendants
respond that this testimony goes to several relevant issues the
jury must consider, including causation and injury, the but-for
generic entry date, and the procompetitive benefits of the
settlement.
Judge Crabtree denies this aspect of the motion for two,
independent reasons. First, Prof. Elhauge's view is the only
correct view of the but-for world. So, he won't deprive the
Defendants of an opportunity to persuade the jury that Prof.
Elhauge's view is incorrect because their expert has a different
view. Second, he won't bar evidence relevant to that issue which
would include Mr. Clemens' opinions about the '827 and '035
Patents.
14. Plaintiffs' Alleged Failure to Mitigate Damages
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to bar evidence of the Plaintiffs'
failure to mitigate. They say that mitigation doesn't apply in an
antitrust price-fixing case, and also, it shouldn't apply to the
antitrust claims at issue.
Judge Crabtree denies this motion in limine topic. It's an untimely
dispositive motion against one of the Defendants' asserted
defenses. The Plaintiffs concede that defendants have preserved
this defense. And they didn't move for summary judgment against it.
Judge Crabtree won't allow the Plaintiffs to move to assert an
untimely dispositive motion, which is what their current motion
tries to do.
15. Plaintiffs' Choice of Insurance
The Plaintiffs argue that a consumer's choice of insurance isn't
relevant to the issues remaining for trial. The Defendants respond
that this evidence is highly probative, and thus relevant to
showing whether a plaintiff was injured -- i.e., whether a
plaintiff paid an overcharge or the insurer paid it.
Judge Crabtree denies the motion for the same reason it denies
Topic No. 14, above. Also, he finds that this evidence might become
relevant to the Plaintiffs' damages model. Also, he doesn't find on
the current record that the evidence poses a danger of unfair
prejudice that might warrant excluding it under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
16. Referring to Mylan's Expert, Former Judge David Folsom, as
"Judge" or "Your Honor"
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit the Defendants from
referring to their expert, David Folsom, who is a retired U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, as "Judge" or
"Your Honor." The Defendants don't object to this motion to the
extent the limine ruling prohibits referring to the expert as "Your
Honor" or "Judge." But, they assert, they are entitled to provide
Mr. Folsom's background and experience to the jury so that the jury
can assess his qualifications and consider his opinions in light of
his background and experience. The Defendants explain that
background and experience necessarily includes Mr. Folsom's service
as a federal judge.
Judge Crabtree grants this aspect of the motion in part and denies
it part. He grants the request to preclude referring to Mr. Folsom
as "Judge" or "Your Honor." The Defendants agree they won't refer
to Mr. Folsom by these titles. But, Judge Crabtree denies the
request to preclude any mention of Mr. Folsom's service as a
federal district judge.He has reviewed that submission, and it
finds that none of the Plaintiffs' cited authority prohibits a
retired judge, who is testifying as an expert witness, from
referring to his or her judicial service as background
information.
17. Expert Testimony on the Absence of an Agreement or Conspiracy
(i.e., an "ultimate issue")
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' expert, Jonathan Orszag,
plans to testify that there is "'no factual evidence' of a quid pro
quo agreement between Mylan and Teva to exchange delayed generic
entries in the EpiPen and Nuvigil markets." The Defendants respond,
arguing that the Plaintiffs' request is another untimely Daubert
motion. They argue that Mr. Orszag's testimony here is based on his
economic analysis that concludes there is no evidence of a quid pro
quo agreement.
Judge Crabtree grants this aspect of the motion. Mr. Orszag's
opinion that there is no "factual evidence" of an agreement goes
too far. His opinion tells the jury what decision to make. Such
opinion testimony is prohibited under Fed. R. Evid. 704's advisory
committee notes. And Mr. Orszag isn't more experienced or skilled
in factual assessments than the members of the jury.
But, the ruling on this topic doesn't exclude Mr. Orszag's opinion
that there is no economic evidence of a quid pro quo agreement to
delay generic entry. Mr. Orszag is qualified to opine about
economics and the economic characteristics of that transaction.
And, his opinion may prove helpful to the jury to decide the
ultimate issue. So, Fed. R. Evid. 704 doesn't preclude that
testimony.
Last, Judge Crabtree addresses the Plaintiffs' argument that Mr.
Orszag impermissibly testified that certain factual evidence wasn't
"reliable." To the extent the Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to
exclude this testimony, he denies that request. The Court doesn't
read Mr. Orszag's deposition testimony on this topic as one
invading the Court's role as gatekeeper for experts or otherwise
impermissibly assessing an expert's reliability.
B. Defendants' Motion in Limine
Now, Judge Crabtree turns to the Defendants' Motion in Limine. The
Defendants' motion asks the court to exclude argument and evidence
about 14 topics.
1. Dismissed or Abandoned Claims and Theories
The Defendants argue that the Court should exclude evidence
pertaining to dismissed or abandoned claims. They argue such
evidence includes: (a) Heather Bresch's testimony to Congress in
2016; (b) Auvi-Q competition; and (c) expert testimony about
dismissed claims. Plaintiffs respond, arguing that each of these
topics is relevant to antitrust issues that still remain in the
case, including market power and abuse of monopoly power. Thus, the
Plaintiffs argue, the Court shouldn't exclude this evidence
categorically.
For the first topic -- (a) Ms. Bresch's Congressional testimony --
Judge Crabtree denies the motion. The Defendants may re-raise this
issue at trial once the parties have developed this issue with more
acuity. And, Judge Crabtree directs the Plaintiffs to identify any
statements that they intend to introduce and raise them with the
court outside the jury's presence.
For the second topic -- (b) Auvi-Q competitive efforts -- Judge
Crabtree grants the motion in part. However, his ruling doesn't
exclude statements that manifest an intent to monopolize.
For the third topic -- (c) expert testimony about dismissed
claims-- Judge Crabtree grants the motion, but only in part. He
agrees that evidence about the EpiPen 2-Pak isn't relevant to the
claims remaining for trial. So, he won't permit the Defendant's
expert, Dr. Portney, to testify about the 2-Pak. But, the court
doesn't exclude Dr. Potney's testimony in its entirety. He will
permit him to testify about other topics relevant as background
information, e.g., anaphylaxis, its treatment, and products
available in the EAI market.
2. Prof. Rosenthal's Theories
The Defendants move to exclude Prof. Rosenthal's damage opinions
for certain states arguing that she miscalculated the damages. The
Plaintiffs respond that the Defendants are asserting an untimely
Daubert challenge to Prof. Rosenthal's opinions. And, even if
timely, they explain why her theories are sound.
Judge Crabtree holds that the Court already addressed some of the
Defendants' arguments in its Order ruling their Motion to
Decertify. To the extent the Plaintiffs accurately describe the
content and capability of Prof. Rosenthal's model, Judge Crabtree
will allow Prof. Rosenthal to testify about her damages model using
an "actual damages" calculation for the New Hampshire antitrust
overcharge damages to perform her damages analysis. But, he
prohibits her from using the $1,000 statutory damages figure
because that comes from the New Hampshire consumer protection
statute and plaintiffs don't bring antitrust claims under that law.
Instead, the Plaintiffs only can recover "actual damages" for
antitrust violations under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 356:11.
Thus, Judge Crabtree grants in part this portion of the Defendants'
motion in limine and also denies it in part.
3. Other Lawsuits, Investigations, and Matters
The Defendants seek to exclude evidence about other lawsuits or
matters unrelated to EpiPen, arguing that the Court should exclude
such evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 404 because
the evidence is irrelevant to the antitrust issues in this lawsuit
and also prejudicial. The Plaintiffs' response and the parties'
arguments at the motions hearing focused this dispute on two
matters: (1) the Intelliject settlement, and (2) Pfizer's
divestiture of the Adrenaclick AG.
And, as a consequence, Judge Crabtree grants the Defendants' motion
to exclude the other matters raised in its motion in limine because
the Plaintiffs didn't respond to the Defendants' request to exclude
those matters. Also, he agrees with the Defendants that these
matters aren't relevant to the antitrust claims remaining for
trial. These matters include: (1) the litigation brought by direct
purchasers of the EpiPen, (2) securities litigation involving
EpiPen, (3) a lawsuit the Plaintiffs filed in March 2020, and later
dismissed, about EpiPen expiration dates, (4) the 2017 FDA warning
letter sent to Meridian about EpiPen and a related recall, (5) the
"birthday party" advertisement, and (6) related state-AG
investigations.
In contrast, Judge Crabtree denies the Defendants' request to
exclude evidence about the Intelliject settlement, finding that it
is relevant to the jury's consideration of whether a reverse
payment settlement occurred. The Court will revisit this ruling if
the Intelliject evidence threatens to inject confusion or undue
delay of the trial.
But Judge Crabtree grants the Defendants' request to exclude
evidence about Pfizer's divestiture of Adrenaclick AG. He agrees
with the Defendants: Evidence about Pfizer's divestiture of the
Adrenaclick AG is not probative of the generic delay antitrust
issues remaining for trial. Thus, it is not relevant evidence under
Fed. R. Evid. 401. As a consequence, Judge Crabtree excludes
evidence about the Adrenaclick AG's divesture under Fed. R. Evid.
402 because it's irrelevant.
4. Prejudicial, Inflammatory, or Inaccurate Language
The Defendants seek an order precluding the use of prejudicial or
inflammatory language to describe the Defendants and their alleged
conduct. The Plaintiffs argue that this request is too broad. And,
they argue, in some instances, the evidence might support using the
terms to which the Defendants object.
Judge Crabtree denies this aspect of the Defendants' motion in
limine. He declines to police language used at the trial. But, the
ruling doesn't permit the Plaintiffs to argue that the Defendants
are liable for the claims asserted simply because they are big or
wealthy corporations. It also doesn't permit the Plaintiffs to use
language describing them as poor.
5. Executive Compensation and Corporate Profits
The Defendants assert that the Court should exclude evidence about
executive compensation and corporate profits because it isn't
relevant to the antitrust issues in the case. Also, they argue,
such evidence is prejudicial. The Plaintiffs respond, arguing that
the evidence is highly probative to showing what Mylan did with the
profits from its EpiPen overcharges and to rebut any contention by
Mylan that it reinvested profits into its products.
Judge Crabtree grants the motion in part. He prohibits the
Plaintiffs from offering evidence or argument, generally, about a
party's wealth. Our Circuit expressly prohibits "reference to the
wealth or poverty of either party, or reflection on financial
disparity" because it is "improper argument." So, he won't allow
that type of argument or evidence.
But, Judge Crabtree agrees with the Plaintiffs that evidence about
compensation may go to issues of motive. So, he won't impose a
blanket prohibition on evidence about compensation. But, to qualify
as admissible evidence, the Plaintiffs must provide a sufficient
foundation linking compensation to motive, thereby showing that the
evidence is relevant to the issues at trial. Judge Crabtree won't
permit the Plaintiffs to introduce evidence of profits unless they
lay a sufficient foundation connecting the evidence to a relevant
issue in the case. In sum, Judge Crabtree grants in part this
aspect of the motion in limine and denies it in part.
6. Ms. Bresch's MBA Degree and Familial Connections
The Defendants seek an order prohibiting the Plaintiffs from
introducing evidence about (1) Heather Bresch's MBA from West
Virginia, (2) the fact she is Senator Joe Manchin's daughter, and
(3) her mother, Gayle Manchin's, role in encouraging states to buy
EpiPens when she served as President of the National Association of
State Boards of Education.
Judge Crabtree grants this part of the motion in limine. The
Plaintiffs haven't identified the relevance of any of the three
topics. Thus, the evidence is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
But, even if admissible, Judge Crabtree excludes it under Fed. R.
Evid. 403 because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed
by a danger of unfair prejudice, undue delay, and wasting time.
7. Inappropriate Arguments by Counsel
The Defendants seek an order prohibiting counsel from: (1) invoking
the "golden rule," (2) discussing personal opinions, (3) referring
to personal background, (4) claiming to have knowledge of prior
witness testimony, and (5) commenting about defendants' corporate
representatives. Defendants say all of these arguments are
improper, and thus, the court should exclude them.
First, the Plaintiffs agree that their counsel won't invoke the
"golden rule." So, Judge Crabtree grants this aspect of the motion.
Second, he grants the request to forbid discussing personal
opinions. He prohibits all counsel from expressing a personal
opinion about the witnesses, evidence, or anything else of that
nature. Third, Judge Crabtree denies in part the request to
prohibit counsel from referring to personal background. He permits
the lawyers to use background information to develop rapport with
the jurors. But, he won't allow a lawyer to try to bolster himself
or herself with statements about religion or the role that an
attorney (or any other person) might occupy in a church. So, he
prohibits references on that subject.
Fourth, Judge Crabtree denies the request to exclude references to
prior witness testimony. He can't rule the request in advance. He
can imagine a time when prior testimony by a witness might become
relevant. So, he won't impose a blanket exclusion at this stage.
Fifth, and last, Judge Crabtree denies the request to prohibit
comment about the Defendants' corporate representatives. He
recognizes that there are times when it is proper to refer to a
corporate representative. So, he won't enter an order categorically
excluding references to corporate representatives.
In sum, Judge Crabtree grants in part the requests made by the
Defendants' Topic No. 7 and also denies them in part, as
described.
8. Inflammatory Drawings and Other Handwritten Exhibits Created by
Plaintiffs' Counsel
The Defendants seek an order prohibiting counsel from creating or
introducing hand-drawn exhibits at trial. They assert that the
Plaintiffs' trial counsel has a history of making his own
hand-drawn exhibits that are improper testimony as well as
inflammatory and misleading. The Plaintiffs respond, arguing that
the Defendants are making a blanket request to prohibit the use of
demonstratives which isn't proper or warranted.
Judge Crabtree grants in part this motion. The court will not allow
counsel to show a cartoon to the jury, like the one presented in
Exhibit D attached to the Defendants' motion. But, he declines to
enter a blanket order prohibiting use of all demonstratives or flip
charts. He directs the counsel, though, that all demonstratives,
including flip charts, must reflect witness testimony accurately,
and not merely display an attorney's words. And, the witness must
confirm the accuracy of the words reflected on the flip chart so
that there is no dispute later about what a witness said or didn't
say during testimony.
Also, Judge Crabtree will require an explicit foundation before it
will allow counsel to create a demonstrative by writing something
on a flip chart. Any other practice poses a danger for counsel to
start testifying in a way that the Federal Rules of Evidence don't
permit.
Last, the Court reserves ruling whether the Plaintiffs' Trial
Exhibit 185 is admissible. He will permit the Plaintiffs to lay the
foundation to support the exhibit's admission at trial. And, he
won't admit the exhibit at trial without that proper foundation.
But, he declines to rule the exhibit's admissibility before trial.
9. Newspaper Articles, Media Reporting, and Non-Scientific
Publications Regarding Mylan, Other Pharmaceutical Companies, or
the Pharmaceutical Industry
The Defendants move to exclude various media articles that contain,
they say, inflammatory or incorrect information about Mylan. They
argue that the evidence is hearsay, and thus, it is inadmissible.
The Plaintiffs respond, arguing that the Defendants' request is too
broad. And, they argue that some exhibits fall within certain
hearsay exceptions such as admissions by a party opponent or
evidence of intent.
Judge Crabtree denies the motion but without prejudice. Het will
enforce the Federal Rules of Evidence at trial. And, if the
Plaintiffs want to introduce these articles into evidence, they
will have to show that they are admissible under one of those
rules. He directs the parties that they must approach the bench
before they refer to a statement contained in a news article.
Ideally, the counsel would raise the issue at the beginning or end
of the trial day so that the court can provide a ruling on the
evidence's admissibility without delaying the evidence.
10. Plaintiffs' Settlement with Pfizer
The Defendants seek an order excluding evidence about Pfizer's
pretrial settlement discussions and agreements with the Plaintiffs
under Fed. R. Evid. 408. The Plaintiffs respond, arguing that the
Rules of Evidence don't bar the fact of the settlement. And, they
assert, evidence of that fact may be necessary to prevent juror
confusion and speculation.
Judge Crabtree grants the motion. He agrees that Fed. R. Evid. 408
allows room for use of settlement evidence in some instances. But
in the case, Pfizer's absence isn't a conspicuous one requiring an
explanation to the jury. The Court will allow the Plaintiffs to
re-raise the issue at trial if necessary. But, for now, the Court
grants this aspect of the motion in limine.
11. Arguments Based on Any Party or Non-Party's Invocation of
Privilege or Privilege Log
The Defendants ask the Court to prohibit the Plaintiffs from
presenting any evidence or argument about the Defendants' privilege
log. The Plaintiffs respond, contending that the privilege logs are
relevant to showing timing and circumstances of Mylan's involvement
in the Teva settlement. Also, they argue that they may seek to use
the privilege logs to refresh a witness' recollection or for
impeachment.
Judge Crabtree grants this motion. He sees this motion as raising
two issues: (1) whether the privilege logs are admissible evidence,
and (2) whether the Court will require a witness to invoke the
privilege in front of the jury. For the first issue, he grants the
motion to exclude the privilege logs because the Plaintiffs have
not made any showing at this stage that the privilege logs are
relevant. For the second issue, he agrees with Judge Lungstrum's
sound reasoning in Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 464
F.Supp.2d 1100, 1108 (D. Kan. 2006), that requiring a witness to
invoke the privilege in the jury's presence has harmful
consequences that penalize the party for invoking a right provided
by our laws. So, he grants this second aspect of the motion in
limine and precludes the Plaintiffs from asking questions that are
designed to require defendants to invoke the attorney-client
privilege.
12. Effect of Price Increases on Insurance Premiums
The Defendants ask the court to prohibit the Plaintiffs from
introducing evidence about any alleged effect that EpiPen price
increases had on insurance premiums. The Plaintiffs argue that
evidence about insurance premiums provides important contextual and
background information. And, they argue, this evidence shows what
motivated some class members to make certain purchases.
Judge Crabtree grants this aspect of the motion in limine. He
prohibits the Plaintiffs from making this argument without a
qualified witness or evidence to support it. Naturally, if the
Defendants open the door to this topic at trial, the Plaintiffs may
re-raise the issue but they must do so outside of the jury's
presence.
13. Mylan's Corporate Transactions Unrelated to the Claims and Time
Period at Issue
The Defendants seek to exclude evidence about (1) the creation of
Mylan, N.V. in 2015, and (2) the 2020 combination of Mylan N.V. and
Pfizer's Upjohn business. They argue that these two corporate
transactions are irrelevant to the claims at issue for trial. The
Plaintiffs argue that this evidence provides important background
information and will explain to the jury why certain employees now
work for a company called Viatris. They say that the court should
not issue a blanket ruling on this topic. Instead, the Plaintiffs
ask the court to wait until the evidence is presented at trial.
Judge Crabtree denies the motion. He prohibits the Plaintiffs from
offering argument or evidence about tax issues or the tax reasons
for the transactions, if any.
14. International Sales
The Defendants ask the Court to exclude evidence about pricing or
packaging of EpiPens in other countries, arguing that this evidence
is irrelevant because other countries have different regulatory
systems that control drug prices. Also, the Defendants assert, even
if relevant, this evidence is unfairly prejudicial.
Judge Crabtree denies the motion. He can't determine from the
current record that all evidence about international sales is
irrelevant to the issues remaining for trial. So, he declines to
enter a blanket order excluding all evidence of international
sales. But, this ruling doesn't change the Court's threshold ruling
on the 2-Pak evidence. The ruling stands that the Plaintiffs can't
introduce evidence on that topic because, as the Court already has
determined, that topic isn't relevant to the Plaintiffs' antitrust
claims.
C. Motions for Leave to File Under Seal
Both sides have moved to file under seal certain portions of their
Motions in Limine and supporting briefs, as well as some exhibits
attached to those motions.
1. Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to File Under Seal
First, the Plaintiffs' renewed motion seeks leave to file under
seal Exhibit D (Expert Report of Jonathan M. Orszag) and to file
publicly a redacted version of Exhibit D consistent with the
court's previous ruling on a motion for leave to file this same
document under seal. Also, they seek leave to file under seal
certain portions of its Memorandum of Law and certain portions of
Exhibit E (deposition transcript of Dr. Steven Weisman) because,
Teva asserts, certain excerpts in these documents contain
confidential information about the specific reasons that caused the
delay of Teva's ADNA. Mylan doesn't ask the Court for leave to file
the Memorandum of Law and Exhibit E under seal, and plaintiff
objects to filing these documents under seal.
Judge Crabtree denies as moot the preliminary motion seeking leave
to file under seal. And, het grants in part the renewed motion
seeking leave to file under seal, but also denies it in part. He
grants the request to file a redacted version of Exhibit D,
consistent with the Court's previous rulings on the parties'
sealing requests. He denies the request (by Teva) for leave to file
under seal certain portions of the Memorandum of Law and Exhibit E
because, he finds, references to Teva manufacturing issues don't
qualify for sealing for at least two reasons. So, he denies the
request for leave to file under seal certain portions of the
Memorandum of Law and Exhibit E.
Judge Crabtree, thus, orders the Plaintiffs to file publicly: (1)
Their Memorandum of Law in Support of Omnibus Motions in Limine;
(2) Exhibits A, B, C, E, & F; and (3) a redacted version of Exhibit
D, consistent with the court's previous ruling on the parties'
sealing requests. And, he grants the Plaintiffs leave to file under
seal an unredacted version of Exhibit D.
Next, the Plaintiffs' renewed motion seeks leave to file under seal
certain portions of Exhibit G (Second Supplemental Expert Report of
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal) because Mylan asserts that these portions
contain confidential and commercially sensitive pricing and
rebating data.
Judge Crabtree denies as moot the preliminary motion seeking leave
to file under seal. And, he grants the renewed motion seeking leave
to file under seal portions of Exhibit G . Mylan asks the Court to
preclude public access to limited portions of Dr. Rosenthal's
Expert Report. It has shouldered its burden, explaining adequately
that these limited portions qualify for sealing because they
contain commercially sensitive pricing and rebating information
that, if disclosed, could harm Mylan's proper commercial interests.
Thus, Judge Crabtree grants the Plaintiffs leave to file publicly a
redacted version of Exhibit G and to file under seal an unredacted
version of Exhibit G.
Thus, he directs the Plaintiffs to file publicly: (1) the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Mylan
Defendants' Omnibus Motions in Limine; (2) supporting Exhibits H-N
& S-U; and (3) a redacted version of Exhibit G. Also, Judge
Crabtree grants the Plaintiffs leave to file under seal an
unredacted version of Exhibit G.
2. Defendants' Motions for Leave to File Under Seal
Now, Judge Crabtree turns to the Defendants' Motions for Leave to
File Under Seal. First, the Defendants filed a "Motion for Leave to
Preliminary File Under Seal the Omnibus Motions in Limine." It
seeks leave to file under seal preliminarily the Defendants'
Omnibus Motions in Limine and Exhibit B. JUdge Crabtree can -- and
does -- deny as moot the Defendants' preliminary motion.
Next, the Defendants filed a "Renewed Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal the Response to Class Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motions in
Limine." The motion seeks leave to file under seal certain portions
of the Response and Exhibit C (the deposition transcript of Dr.
Steven Weisman). The Defendants make this request on behalf of
Teva, who asserts that certain portions of the Response and Exhibit
C discuss non-public information about the reasons for Teva's delay
in securing approval of its ADNA.
Judge Crabtree denies as moot the preliminary motion seeking leave
to file under seal. And, for the same reasons already discussed, he
denies the renewed motion seeking leave to file under seal portions
of defendants' Response and Exhibit C. The information that Teva
asks the Court to seal doesn't qualify for sealed treatment because
(1) it's stale, and (2) the Court discussed some of the same
information in its publicly-filed Memoranda and Orders deciding the
parties' Daubert and summary judgment motions.
Thus, Judge Crabtree denies the Defendants' renewed motion for
leave to file under seal. He directs the Defendants to file
publicly: (1) its Response to Class Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motions in
Limine: and (2) supporting Exhibits A-D.
III. Conclusion
Judge Crabtree granted in part and denied in part (i) the
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine and (ii) the Defendants' Motion in
Limine, consistent with the Order.
He denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to
Provisionally File Under Seal the Memorandum of Law in Support of
Omnibus Motions in Limine.
He also granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion to File Under Seal Their Memorandum of Law in Support of
Omnibus Motions in Limine.
He also denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave
to Provisionally File Under Seal Their Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to the Mylan Defendants' Omnibus Motions in Limine.
Judge Crabtree granted the Plaintiffs' Renewed Unopposed Motion to
File Under Seal Exhibit G to Their Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to the Mylan Defendants' Omnibus Motions in Limine.
He denied as moot (i) the Defendants' "Motion for Leave to
Preliminary File Under Seal the Omnibus Motions in Limine" and (ii)
their "Motion for Leave to Preliminarily File Under Seal the
Response to Class Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motions in Limine."
Judge Crabtree denied the Defendants' "Renewed Motion for Leave to
File Under Seal the Response to Class Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motions
in Limine."
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 26, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3srykh from Leagle.com.
MDL 2828: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. Intel Over Defective CPUs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: INTEL CORP. CPU MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All
Actions, Case No. 3:18-md-2828-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an
Opinion and Order:
-- granting in part Intel's motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint;
-- dismissing with prejudice all claims based on Intel's
alleged conduct before Sept. 1, 2017; and
-- denying Intel's motion for the Plaintiffs, who purchased
devices with Intel processors after Sept. 1, 2017.
I. Background
In this multidistrict proceeding, the Plaintiffs bring a putative
nationwide class action against Defendant Intel relating to certain
security vulnerabilities in Intel's microprocessors. The Plaintiffs
allege that Intel knew for decades about alleged design defects in
its microprocessors that created security vulnerabilities and that
Intel failed to disclose or mitigate these vulnerabilities. They
also allege that the ways in which these security vulnerabilities
could be exploited became publicly known beginning in January 2018,
with new ways continuing to be discovered and publicized. These
forms of exploit have become generally known as "Spectre,"
"Meltdown," "Foreshadow," "ZombieLoad," "SwapGS," "RIDL," "LazyFP,"
"CacheOut," and "Vector Register Sampling," among others. They
contend that until Intel fixes the alleged defects at the hardware
level, additional ways to exploit these security vulnerabilities
will likely continue to be discovered.
The Plaintiffs allege that Intel's processors have two primary
design defects. First, the design of the processors heightens the
risk of unauthorized access to protected memory secrets. Second,
the design does not completely delete, or undo, the memory's recent
retrieval of those secrets, also increasing the risk of
unauthorized access. They contend that these design defects create
security vulnerabilities that could lead to a breach of
confidential data. They also allege that Intel cannot fix these
defects after-the-fact, and that the software patches created or
distributed by Intel to mitigate these defects substantially
diminish the speed of Intel's processors.
Intel has twice previously moved to dismiss the action. The Court
granted the first motion with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs then
filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Allegation Complaint.
That complaint asserted the following nationwide class claims: (1)
fraud by concealment or omission; (2) breach of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750,
et seq.; (3) breach of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (4) breach of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17500, et seq.; and (5) unjust enrichment, or
quasi-contract. The Plaintiffs also asserted separate state
subclass claims for each state except California, Kentucky, and
Massachusetts, plus the District of Columbia, under each
jurisdiction's deceptive or unfair trade practices act or consumer
protection law. They sought both money damages and injunctive
relief.
The Court granted Intel's second motion to dismiss. It gave the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their nationwide claim under California's
UCL alleging unfair conduct, their nationwide claim for unjust
enrichment, and their state subclass claims. The Court dismissed
all other claims with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Allegation Complaint. It asserts the two nationwide claims for
which the Court granted leave to replead--breach of California's
UCL for unfair conduct and unjust enrichment. It also alleges the
same states' subclass claims under each jurisdiction's deceptive or
unfair trade practices act or consumer protection law. Intel moves
to dismiss, with prejudice, all of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Against the Second Amended Complaint, Intel challenges the
Plaintiffs' nationwide class claims, which Intel argues under
California law. It argues that the Plaintiffs' unfair conduct claim
is coextensive with their fraud claim under the UCL and thus should
be dismissed, and that the Plaintiffs fail to allege a material
omission or otherwise allege how Intel's conduct was unfair under
the UCL. Intel also argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim for unjust enrichment. Intel further argues that the
Plaintiffs may not pursue these equitable claims because the
Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. Finally, Intel
challenges the Plaintiffs' state subclass claims. Intel argues that
the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for any of the six bellwether
state counts that the parties agreed to litigate in the pending
motion.
II. Discussion
A. Nationwide Claims
1. UCL Unfair Business Practice
Intel moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for unfair conduct
under the UCL, arguing that this claim is coextensive with the
Plaintiffs' dismissed fraud claim under the UCL, that the
Plaintiffs fail to identify an omission, and that the Plaintiffs
identify no unfair conduct without an underlying omission. The
Plaintiffs dispute these contentions, largely relying on Intel's
alleged conduct after the security exploits became known in 2017.
First, Judge Simon finds that based on the allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint, and as argued by the Plaintiffs, the only
conduct alleged in support of this claim that is unrelated to the
alleged omission of the Unauthorized Access defect relates to
Intel's alleged conduct after the discovery of Spectre and Meltdown
by Google Project Zero. He agrees that this conduct does not
entirely overlap with the Plaintiffs' UCL claim based on fraud.
There are other concerns, however, with basing a claim solely on
post-2017 conduct.
Second, Judge Simon holds that failure to disclose a defect of
which Intel was not aware is not unfair conduct. Thus, regardless
of whether the technical materials disclose Unauthorized Access,
the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim that Intel engaged in an
unfair practice under the UCL based on an omission.
Third, based on the Plaintiffs' allegations, Judge Simon opines
that it is not clear that Intel had a countervailing business
interest other than profit for delaying disclosure for as long as
it did (through the holiday season), for downplaying the negative
effects of the mitigation, for suppressing the effects of the
mitigation, and for continuing to embargo further security exploits
that affect only Intel processors. For the seven Plaintiffs who
purchased computers after Sept. 1, 2017, they have alleged enough
facts at this stage of the proceedings to survive Intel's motion to
dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim.
2. Nationwide Claim - Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment
Intel argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust
enrichment because without an actionable omission, there is no
allegation that Intel retained a benefit that was unjust. As
previously discussed, Judge Simon agrees as to all the Plaintiffs
except the seven Plaintiffs who purchased devices with Intel
processors after Sept. 1, 2017. The Plaintiffs' allegations that
Intel manipulated the embargo period, delayed disclosure to past
the holiday season to make more profit, misrepresented that the
exploits affected all processors when most of them allegedly only
affect Intel's processors, mispresented the negative effects of the
mitigation, and intentionally suppressed testing and dissemination
of test results of the effects of the mitigation are sufficient at
this stage of the litigation plausibly to state a claim that
Intel's conduct after the discovery of the exploits resulted in an
unjust retention of benefits.
3. Equitable Claims - Adequate Legal Remedy
Intel argues that the Plaintiffs' allegation that they may not have
an adequate legal remedy is insufficient under Sonner v. Premier
Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), and both the
Plaintiffs' UCL and unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed. In
resolving Intel's second motion to dismiss, the Court held that
under Sonner (then recently decided), the Plaintiffs needed to
allege, even when pleading in the alternative, that they did not
have an adequate remedy at law to request equitable relief.
Judge Simon finds that the conduct on which the Court has allowed
the Plaintiffs' claim of unfair conduct under the UCL and unjust
enrichment claims to proceed -- Intel's alleged conduct after
Google Project Zero discovered the exploits in 2017 -- is not the
same factual conduct on which the Plaintiffs based their legal
claims. He says, those claims relied on Intel's conduct before the
exploits were discovered, mainly from Intel's design choices in
2006. The equitable claims that the Court is not dismissing also
rely extensively on alleged ongoing conduct by Intel, such as
manipulating the embargo process and making ongoing
misrepresentations about security exploits and their effects as
they continue to be discovered, and the effects of mitigation. The
Plaintiffs allege this conduct will dissuade them from making
future purchases. Such conduct is not amenable to future money
damages. Additionally, this conduct makes calculating future money
damages difficult. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the
Plaintiffs plausibly have alleged that legal damages may not be as
prompt and efficient as equitable restitution. Judge Simon declines
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL and unjust enrichment claims under
Sonner at this time.
B. State Subclass Claims
Intel argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the
state subclass claims, which are brought under the consumer
protection laws of all states but California, Kentucky, and
Massachusetts, plus the District of Columbia. The parties agreed to
litigate in the pending motion six bellwether counts under the
consumer protection laws of Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, and Texas.
First, Judge Simon finds that the Second Amended Complaint suffers
from the same deficiency. As discussed, the allegations about what
every Named Plaintiff saw or heard are still only general
statements about speed or performance, statements that are vague,
or statements that are mere puffery. They are not actionable as a
misrepresentation.
Second, the Plaintiffs' state subclass deceptive practices claims
based on omissions fail for the same reason the UCL unfairness
claim based on an omission fails, even if it did not have other
deficiencies. If the technical articles, white papers, product
manuals, and patent applications disclose Unauthorized Access, then
there is no omission. If those materials do not disclose
Unauthorized Access, then the Plaintiffs fail sufficiently to
allege Intel's knowledge of Unauthorized Access, a required element
of an omission claim. Thus, the Plaintiffs' fail to state any state
claim based on an omission.
Third, Judge Simon dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for unfair
conduct under state law, except for claims based on Intel's alleged
conduct after Sept. 1, 2017. He finds that after both alleged
defects became widely known in 2018, average consumers still could
do nothing to mitigate them other than download the provided
patches. Any degradation in performance or other negative
repercussions caused by those patches are beyond the control of the
average consumer. As more security exploits of the alleged defects
are discovered, the average consumer remains powerless to avoid any
potential harm. Additionally, consumers remain unable to mitigate
any harm caused by Intel's alleged continuing misstatements. The
accurate information about new exploits continues to remain within
Intel's knowledge, as does the comprehensive picture about the
negative effects of the mitigation efforts. Thus, the Plaintiffs
could not reasonably have avoided their injuries.
Last, Judge Simon finds that the Plaintiffs allege that after
Google Project Zero discovered Spectre and then Meltdown, Intel
knew about its processors' unique defects that caused its
processors to be susceptible to more exploits than other
processors, knew that its processors would require mitigation that
would slow down the processors, continued to market its processors
as safe and fast, intentionally delayed disclosure of the exploits,
including until after the 2017 holiday season, made
misrepresentations about the effect of the security exploits and
the effect of the mitigation, and actively suppressed testing and
public disclosure of the effects of the mitigation. At this stage
of the litigation, these allegations are enough to show that Intel
took advantage of consumers' lack of knowledge such that the
resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete,
and unmitigated.
Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings and given the current
posture of the motion with the litigation of a bellwether
jurisdiction, Judge Simon denies Intel's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim for state law unconscionable practices based on
Intel's conduct after Sept. 1, 2017. He, however, grants this
aspect of Intel's motion to dismiss relating to conduct that
occurred before Sept. 1, 2017.
III. Conclusion
Judge Simon granted in part Intel's Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. He dismissed with prejudice all claims except
those alleged by Plaintiffs Carlo Garcia, Joseph Phillips, Kenneth
Woolsey, City of New Castle, James Bradshaw, Andrew Montoya, and
Kathleen Greer for alleged conduct by Intel occurring on or after
Sept. 1, 2017.
Judge Simon also dismissed the claims of these seven Plaintiffs
other than: (a) their nationwide claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law alleging unfair conduct; (b) their nationwide claim
alleging unjust enrichment; (c) their state subclass claim alleging
unfair conduct; and (d) their state subclass claim alleging
unconscionable conduct. In short, he dismissed with prejudice all
claims based on Intel's alleged conduct occurring before Sept. 1,
2017.
Judge Simon directed the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this
Opinion and Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 26, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzbnjjh from Leagle.com.
Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS
LLP, 55 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660; Rosemary M.
Rivas, GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP, 505 14th Street, Suite 1110, Oakland,
CA 94612; Steve D. Larson and Jennifer S. Wagner, STOLL STOLL BERNE
LOKTING & SHLACHTER PC, 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR
97204; Gayle M. Blatt -- webcontact@cglaw.com -- CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP, 110 Laurel Street, San Diego, CA
92101; Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, 120
East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432; Melissa R.
Emert, STULL, STULL, & BRODY, 6 East 45th Street, New York City, NY
10017; Richard M. Hagstrom, HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC, 8050 West 78th
Street, Edina, MN 55439; Jennifer L. Joost -- jjoost@ktmc.com --
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP, One Sansome Street, Suite 1850,
San Francisco, CA 94104; Adam J. Levitt, DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER,
Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602; and
Charles E. Schaffer , LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP, 510 Walnut Street,
Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106, of Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.
Daniel F. Katz -- dkatz@wc.com -- David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen --
dkurtzer@wc.com -- David Krinsky, and Samuel Bryant Davidoff,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, 725 Twelfth Street NW, Washington, D.C.
20005; and Steven T. Lovett and Rachel C. Lee, STOEL RIVES LLP, 760
SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205, of Attorneys for
the Defendant.
MDL 2989: Robinhood Dismissed From Short Squeeze Trading Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to the Robinhood Tranche, Case No.
21-02989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres (S.D. Fla.), Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Robinhood Tranche
Complaint.
I. Background
The cause came before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss the
Robinhood Tranche Complaint filed by Defendants Robinhood Markets,
Inc.; Robinhood Financial LLC; and Robinhood Securities, LLC
(collectively, "Defendants" or "Robinhood") on Oct. 15, 2021. The
Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition, and the Defendants filed
a Reply. Judge Altonaga has carefully considered the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the parties' written
submissions, the record, and applicable law.
The case is about meme stocks. In January 2021, scores of retail
investors rushed to purchase stocks that hedge funds and
institutional investors had bet would decline in value, causing a
dramatic increase in those stocks' share prices. The mass rush to
purchase these "meme stocks" led to a highly volatile securities
trading market, with the prices of certain stocks varying wildly by
the hour.
For securities brokers who execute investor trades, the regulatory
environment became correspondingly unpredictable. In the securities
trading industry, registered clearing brokers must meet daily
deposit requirements set by self-regulatory organizations. The
amount clearing brokers must deposit each day depends on the level
of volatility in the securities they trade. The purpose of deposit
requirements is to stabilize the marketplace and reduce the risk
that market participants will prove unable to meet financial
obligations related to securities trades.
When meme stock share prices took off in January 2021, regulators
reacted. In a span of three days, Robinhood Securities, a clearing
broker, incurred both a deposit surplus of $11 million and a
deposit deficit of over $3 billion. These oscillating collateral
requirements were driven primarily by Robinhood customers'
concentrated positions in meme stocks. Robinhood Securities proved
able to meet its daily deposit requirements each day up to January
28, 2021.
Still, it and its affiliates -- parent company Robinhood Markets
and introducing broker Robinhood Financial -- grew concerned about
the rapidly changing circumstances. It then made the fateful
decision to restrict purchases of the meme stocks on the Robinhood
platform for a week. That decision helped fix Robinhood's
compliance quandary. But, Robinhood customers say, it also forced
share prices of the meme stocks into a steep decline.
Several of those customers sued Robinhood, and their suits were
consolidated into the Multi-District Litigation. The Plaintiffs
filed an initial Complaint on July 27, 2021. After the Defendants
moved to dismiss it, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on
Sept. 21, 2021. Focusing on the PCO restrictions that Robinhood
placed on customer accounts between January 28 and Feb. 5, 2021,
the Amended Complaint asserts seven causes of action on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and a putative class.
In Counts I and II, the Plaintiffs allege negligence and gross
negligence, respectively, against all three Defendants. Count III
claims that Robinhood Securities and Robinhood Financial breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs. Counts IV and V assert
breaches of certain implied covenants against Robinhood Securities
and Robinhood Financial. Count VI alleges that Robinhood Markets
tortiously interfered with the Plaintiffs' business relationships
with the other Defendants. Finally, Count VII seeks to hold all
three Defendants liable for civil conspiracy.
Robinhood now moves to dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss challenges
whether any of the Plaintiffs' seven claims is viable. The
Defendants argue that their duties to the Plaintiffs are defined by
the Customer Agreement rather than by tort law. And because the
Customer Agreement permitted Robinhood to restrict customers'
abilities to trade, the Defendants assert that their decision to
impose the PCO restrictions did not transgress their obligations
under the Agreement.
II. Discussion
Judge Altonaga finds that the result in the case comes down to a
simple truth: Both California and Florida law require courts to
respect and enforce the terms of valid contracts, even when one
party to a contract boasts greater bargaining power. She says, the
Plaintiffs have not argued or alleged that the Customer Agreement
is unenforceable. Thus, both California and Florida law require
holding the Plaintiffs to the Agreement's terms. Those terms
permitted the Defendants to do precisely what they did.
The Plaintiffs' request to enlarge the Defendants' obligations
beyond those contained in the Agreement is understandable but
misguided. California and Florida law each carve out a vital
gatekeeping function for courts faced with novel tort claims.
Indeed, both California and Florida recognize that tort law is an
imperfect -- and often, an undesirable -- mechanism for allocating
financial risk and responsibility. Unlike contract law, which
encourages parties to allocate risks related to future events, tort
law concerns itself with after-the-fact determinations of fault.
Expanding tort law at contract law's expense may cause uncertainty.
And the uncertain threat of ruinous tort liability can discourage
behavior that benefits society. That is why California, Florida,
and virtually every other state in the nation make a point of
setting "meaningful limits" on tort liability. One of those limits
is a healthy skepticism of tort claims better suited for resolution
by contract law -- for example, claims for purely economic losses,
like those asserted by the Plaintiffs.
Judge Altonaga holds that no doubt, the Plaintiffs were gravely
disappointed when Robinhood suspended purchases of the meme stocks
and their holdings declined in value. But the law does not afford
relief to every unfulfilled expectation. Sometimes, it requires
"denying recovery in negligence cases like this one even though
purely economic losses inflict real pain." The Plaintiffs' claims
fail because entertaining them would sanction a departure from the
parties' own agreement and California and Florida tort-law
principles. For that reason, the Amended Complaint must be
dismissed.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Altonaga granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Robinhood Tranche Complaint. She dismissed the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6kfc489 from Leagle.com.
MIMEDX GROUP: Motion to Reconsider Securities Suit Denied by Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: MDXG) ("MIMEDX" or the "Company"), a
transformational placental biologics company, announced that a
federal court in Georgia has denied a motion to reconsider the
dismissal of Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois' ("CPFI") putative
class action lawsuit claiming that the Company violated the federal
securities laws.
Today, U.S. District Judge William Ray II, a federal judge in the
Northern District of Georgia, dismissed CPFI's lawsuit. Judge Ray
ruled that he would not reconsider his decision; CPFI's lawsuit
will remain dismissed and is not subject to amendment. It remains
to be seen whether the Plaintiffs will appeal.
In commenting on the ruling, William "Butch" Hulse, MIMEDX
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, said, "We are pleased
with the Court's ruling and find it to be consistent with the law
as set forth in our Motion to Dismiss. MIMEDX continues to focus on
our future and the patients who benefit from our transformative
products." [GN]
NAVY FEDERAL: Second Amended Sched Order Entered in Hart Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA HART and TRACEE LE
FLORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00044-RMG (D.S.C.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered a second amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff shall file and serve a May 16, 2022
motion for class certification,
along with any expert report in
support of her motion no later than:
2. The Plaintiff shall complete discovery June 9, 2022
as to class certification, including
the deposition of any of Plaintiff’s
experts mo later than:
3. The Defendant shall file and serve June 30, 2022
any opposition to class certification,
along with any expert report in
support of its opposition no later
than:
4. The Defendant shall complete discovery July 21, 2022
as to class certification, including
the deposition of any of Defendant’s
experts no later than:
5. The Plaintiff shall file and serve Aug. 8, 2022
any reply in support of class
certification no later than:
6. Motions to join other parties and Sept. 13, 2022
amend the pleadings shall be filed
no later than:
7. The Parties shall file and serve a
document identifying by full name,
address, and telephone number each
person whom they expect to call as
an expert at trial and certifying
that a written report prepared and
signed by the expert including all
information required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to
the parties by the following dates:
Plaintiff: Oct. 20, 2022
Defendant: Nov. 20, 2022
8. Discovery shall be completed no Dec. 20, 2022
later than:
9. The Parties shall engage in and Jan. 20, 2023
complete mediation no later than:
Navy Federal Credit Union is a global credit union headquartered in
Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of
the National Credit Union Administration.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IW42mS at no extra charge.[CC]
NEEDHAM LANE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Needham Lane Ltd. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Needham Lane Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-00947
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Needham Lane Ltd. -- https://www.needhamlane.com/ -- offer
high-quality, colorful printed sleepwear, apparel and accessories
with an easy, classic aesthetic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
NISSIN FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Instant Noodles
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action claims several instant noodle products sold
by Nissin Foods are misleadingly labeled as containing "No Added
MSG" even though they're made with ingredients that contain
monosodium glutamate (MSG) and equivalent free glutamates.
According to the 31-page case, Nissin Foods' claim that its Cup
Noodles, Top Ramen, Hot & Spicy and Chow Mein foods contain no MSG
is "false, misleading, and unlawful" because several ingredients
used in the products, such as autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed
corn protein, hydrolyzed soy protein and maltodextrin, are sources
of free glutamates, one of which is MSG.
Moreover, the lawsuit claims the defendant adds these ingredients
merely because they include a "substantial amount" of free
glutamates and thus provide the umami taste associated with MSG.
Per the suit, the defendant's packaging and labeling of its instant
noodle products violates food labeling regulations and misleads
reasonable consumers.
According to the case, Nissin Foods has charged more for the "No
Added MSG" products than it otherwise would have been able to had
their packaging been truthful.
The lawsuit explains that MSG is the most popular type of free
glutamate and is added to foods to improve taste by lending an
"umami" or savory flavor. The suit relays, however, that many
consumers attempt to avoid foods containing MSG or other free
glutamates because they've been associated with adverse health
effects such as headaches, increased blood pressure, obesity and
psychiatric illness. Other consumers are sensitive or allergic to
free glutamates and experience negative reactions when eating foods
that contain them, the case adds.
Per the lawsuit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
found that consumers use the term "MSG" to refer to all free
glutamates and would understand a food labeled as containing "No
MSG" or "No added MSG" to mean that the product does not contain
free glutamates. Indeed, MSG is "chemically indistinguishable" from
other free glutamates, according to the complaint. For this reason,
the FDA has advised that labeling a food containing any form of
free glutamate as "No MSG" or "No added MSG" violates the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The lawsuit claims Nissin Foods' products, including its Cup
Noodles, Hot & Spicy noodles, Chow Mein and Top Ramen, are
prominently labeled "No added MSG" despite the fact that they
contain ingredients that contain free glutamates. Per the case,
although the defendant includes a disclaimer "in small lettering
designed to blend into the background" that the food "contains
small amounts of naturally occurring glutamates," this statement is
merely "an illegal-and ineffective-attempt to side-step FDA rules."
The complaint claims that reasonable consumers would either not
notice the qualifying statement or wrongly interpret it to mean
that the "naturally occurring glutamates" are not MSG and would
thus not cause the same health problems associated with MSG.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased one of the
defendant's products labeled as containing no MSG in the U.S.
within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
NOBLE ENERGY: Galindo Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE GALINDO and DAVID WALSH, Individually and
For All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID L. STOVER,
JEFFREY L. BERENSON, JAMES E. CRADDOCK, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, THOMAS
J. EDELMAN, HOLLI C. LADHANI, SCOTT D. URBAN, WILLIAM T. VAN KLEEF,
and MARTHA B. WYRSCH, Defendants, C.A. No. 2021-0031-SG (Ch. Del.),
Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Verified
Class Action Complaint.
I. Background
The matter is a damages action by former stockholders of Noble
Energy, Inc. resulting from a stock-for-stock merger with Chevron
Corp. in late 2020. The Defendants were directors and officers of
Noble at that time. Noble, an oil and gas exploration and
production company, merged with Chevron in October 2020, after the
emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs in the action received information from a
"confidential informant" regarding an alternative proposal to
acquire assets of Noble made in mid-2018. Because this information,
and certain other information regarding executive change-of-control
payments, is not disclosed in the definitive merger proxy Noble
filed prior to the closing of the Merger, the Plaintiffs contend
that the stockholder vote approving the Merger was not fully
informed. The Plaintiffs additionally challenge the Merger on the
basis that the price was unfair, the process was unfair, and that
Noble management was conflicted in ignoring transaction
opportunities that would not have paid out change-of-control
benefits to executives. Their theory is that a change-of-control
transaction was preferred so that executives could recoup losses
experienced in the stock market as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic's effects on Noble's stock price.
The Plaintiffs allege the vote was not fully informed, precluding
the application of the Corwin cleansing doctrine. They posit two
ways in which the applicable proxy was insufficient. First, the
Plaintiffs point out that the proxy did not disclose an
over-the-transom proposal to acquire certain company assets, made
two years before the Merger. Next, they point to the fact that, at
the beginning of the novel coronavirus crisis, the Noble officers
took a cut in salary, and that the board of directors of Noble
subsequently amended a company severance plan to provide those
officers with change-in-control benefits that reflected their
pre-COVID-19-pandemic, pre-reduction salaries.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, styling the action a class
action on behalf of all other holders of Noble common stock harmed
by the Defendants' actions, on Jan. 12, 2021. They bring three
total direct claims: (1) breach of "fiduciary duties" against the
Defendants (which duties is not specified); (2) breach of fiduciary
"duties of disclosure" against the Defendants; and (3) breach of
fiduciary duty of care against Defendant Stover alone. The
Complaint includes language regarding both an unfair process and an
unfair price, and alleges (though not in a specific count) that the
Board owed stockholders a "duty of care, loyalty, good faith,
candor, and independence."
The Defendants bring a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim with respect to each count of the Plaintiff's complaint. The
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2021. They
point out that the Merger was approved by a majority of the Noble
stockholders, and that, as a result, they are entitled to
application of the business judgment rule, resulting in dismissal
of the action for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
II. Analysis
The motion to dismiss comes before the Court under Rule 12(b)(6).
The applicable legal standard requires dismissal of the Complaint
in the event the Plaintiffs cannot recover under any "reasonably
conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof." In
assessing the facts, all well-pled factual allegations are to be
accepted as true, and the Court must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the non-moving party, in the case, the Plaintiffs.
The Complaint's Count I does not specify which fiduciary duties the
Board has, in the Plaintiffs' view, breached. To JUdge Glasscock's
mind, each of the Counts pled in the Complaint can be resolved by
undertaking a Corwin analysis. Corwin stands for the general
proposition that where a transaction has been approved by a fully
informed, uncoerced majority of disinterested stockholders, the
business judgment rule applies.
For Corwin to be applied, the stockholder approval in question must
not have been coerced. Such coercion is presumptively present where
a "looming conflicted controller" engages in a conflicted
transaction. If a plaintiff does not plead a conflicted controller
engaging in the transaction, allegations of breach of a duty of
loyalty will not preclude the application of Corwin, and (presuming
the doctrine is otherwise satisfied) will be adjudged to have been
cleansed such that the business judgment rule applies.
Although not expressly pled in response to a Corwin argument, the
Plaintiffs assert certain facts regarding the change-of-control
payments to be made under the Amended Plan, suggesting that Noble
management engaged in self-dealing and that the Noble Board either
turned a blind eye or "acquiesced and supported management's
misconduct." Without passing on the sufficiency of these
allegations, precedent indicates that these facts do not prevent
the application of the Corwin doctrine in the case. It is not pled
that there is any conflicted controller associated with the Merger
(indeed, the Plaintiffs do not plead coercion at all), and
therefore Corwin may be applicable in the event a fully informed,
uncoerced vote of the stockholders indeed occurred.
To attain the business judgment rule standard of review under
Corwin, the stockholder vote in question must be fully informed. IN
the case, the Plaintiffs argue that the vote was not fully informed
on two bases. Because Judge Glasscock finds that none of the
omitted information was required to be disclosed in the Merger
Proxy, he concludes that the stockholder vote was fully informed.
Judge Glasscock points out that the Complaint pleads that the Noble
stockholders' vote was less than fully informed due to lack of
disclosure regarding the Cynergy proposal as well as the executive
change-of-control payments per the Amended Plan. He has found that
it is not reasonably conceivable that either of these two items
were material such that they needed to be disclosed to
stockholders, and the Plaintiffs plead no other basis which might
find the stockholder vote to have been less than fully informed.
The Plaintiffs also do not plead coercion of the Noble
stockholders. Judge Glasscock finds that Corwin applies.
Given that Corwin applies to the Merger, the business judgment rule
is the appropriate standard of review for assessing the
transaction. It follows that the only kind of claim that can
survive the cleansing effect of the stockholder vote is a claim of
waste. The Plaintiffs do not plead waste. Count I, which alleges a
general breach of fiduciary duty against the Noble Board, must
therefore fail, as does Count II (alleging breach of duty regarding
disclosures by the Defendants, discussed at length above) and Count
III, alleging a breach of the duty of care against Defendant
Stover.
III. Conclusion
Judge Glasscock first concludes that in light of the facts that
Noble never responded to that proposal, that the proposal did not
contemplate a merger, and that the proposal was remote in time and
circumstances to the Merger which the stockholders were asked to
approve, the proposal was not material. It was not required to be
disclosed to invoke Corwin, therefore.
Second, he concludes that while the timing and rationale for the
Board action were not themselves disclosed, the amended severance
plan was, and the precise payments that named executive officers
would receive if the stockholders approved the Merger were set
forth in the definitive merger proxy. In light of the mix of
circumstances in the case, Judge Glasscock concludes that the
timing and rationale for the payments was not material.
For these reasons, Judge Glasscock granted the Defendants' motion
and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 26, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/23fw3avc from Leagle.com.
Blake A. Bennett -- bbennett@coochtaylor.com -- of COOCH AND
TAYLOR, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Juan E.
Monteverde, of MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC, in New York City,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stephanie Galindo and David Walsh.
Kenneth J. Nachbar -- knachbar@morrisnichols.com -- and Alexandra
M. Cumings -- acumings@morrisnichols.com -- of MORRIS, NICHOLS,
ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Robert S.
Harrell, Charles S. Kelley, Joseph De Simone, and Michael Rayfield,
of MAYER BROWN LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants
David L. Stover, Jeffrey L. Berenson, James E. Craddock, Barbara J.
Duganier, Thomas J. Edelman, Holli C. Ladhani, Scott D. Urban,
William T. Van Kleef, and Martha B. Wyrsch.
NVR MORTGAGE: Cossaboom Bid for Collective Status Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA COSSABOOM et al.,
v. NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC. and NVR, INC., Case No.
9:21-cv-80627-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon
entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
certification;
2. conditionally certifying the following FLSA collectives as
follows:
"All Loan Officers who are or were employed by NVR, Inc.
and/or NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. in Florida at any time
from March 31, 2018, until the expiration of the Notice
period;" and
"All Loan Processors who are or were employed by NVR, Inc.
and/or NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. in Florida at any time
from April 9, 2018, until the expiration of the Notice
period;"
3. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the
name, last-known address, cell-phone number, and last-
known personal email of everyone in the FLSA collectives
on or before February 18, 2022;
4. directing the Plaintiffs, following conferral with
Defendants, to revise the proposed Notice in conformance
with this Order and submit it to the Court for approval no
later than February 8, 2022;
5. scheduling notice period of 60 days and sending reminder
Notice after 30 days via mail and e-mail;
6. directing the putative class members to electronically
execute their consent forms.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs argue that they have carried their
burden at this stage to show that other employees
desire to opt in and that those employees are similarly situated.
The Defendants disagree on both points. As to the actual-interest
prong, the Defendants say that the Plaintiffs have not provided
sufficient evidence that other plaintiffs actually wish to join
this suit, relying instead on "speculative, vague, and conclusory"
statements from both the Named Plaintiffs and the existing Opt-In
Plaintiffs. As to the "similarly situated" assessment of putative
plaintiffs, Defendants respond that conditional certification is
inappropriate, because resolution of Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
overtime wages will require individualized consideration of
managers' approaches to recording overtime and employees'
particular payments and compensation. The Defendants further argue
that Plaintiffs and the putative plaintiffs potentially will be
subject to three separate overtime exemptions under the FLSA: the
outside sales, administrative, and highly compensated exemptions."
According to the Defendants, the "potential application of this
array of exemptions increases the complexity of this litigation and
would frustrate the Court's capacity to conclude that any two Loan
Officers or Loan Processors are similarly situated with respect to
the core legal issue: whether they were entitled to overtime pay."
Although the question is close, Plaintiffs have satisfied the Court
at this stage that conditional certification is warranted, the
Court adds.
NVR Mortgage was founded in 1991. The Company's line of business
includes originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage mortgage
loans to permanent investors, and servicing loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GhPyMp at no extra charge.[CC]
O'NEIL INSURANCE: Parties Directed to Define Class Cert Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY L. CLEMONS v.
O'NEIL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00678-SRC (E.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark entered an order directing
the parties to meet and confer, that is, actually speak with one
another, and attempt to define the difference between merits and
class-certification discovery.
The parties must file their agreed-on parameters with the Court. If
the parties cannot agree, each party must submit proposed
parameters to the Court, and the Court will adopt one or the other
parameters in full, i.e. baseball arbitration. The parties must
submit their agreed-on parameters (or, in the absence of agreement,
their own proposed parameters) no later than February 4, 2022, says
Judge Clark.
Clemons notified the Court that the parties anticipate
"disagreement as to a bright-line between merits and class
certification discovery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0JPyf at no extra charge.[CC]
ONEPOINTE SOLUTIONS: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Onepointe Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00019 (S.D. Tex., January 31, 2022), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas Common
Law.
OnePointe is a provider of technology solutions to businesses for
laboratory, industrial and commercial furniture. Ramirez was an
installer for OnePointe from approximately November 2019 until
April 2020, then as manager from approximately April 2020 until
November 2021. He claims to be misclassified by OnePointe as exempt
from receiving overtime thus denied overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON2X, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optronic
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Optronic
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00921 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Optronic Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2005. The company's line
of business includes the retail sale of products by television,
catalog, and mail-order.[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
OROA USA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oroa USA, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oroa USA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00920
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OROA -- https://oroa.com/ -- is the #1 online retailer of the Dutch
luxury furniture, lighting & decor brand Eichholtz.[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
PAGE MCNAGHTEN: Straughen Seeks OT Pay for Engineering Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVIS STRAUGHEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAGE MCNAGHTEN ASSOCIATES, INC.
(d/b/a PMA ENGINEERING), Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02046 (D.
Kan., Feb. 1, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act due to unlawful misclassification
of pay status.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant willfully violated the
FLSA by knowingly or recklessly misclassifying Plaintiff and the
members of the collective action as exempt from overtime
compensation and failing to pay them one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an engineering technician
from March 16, 2017 to August 28, 2020.
Page McNaghten Associates, Inc. is a privately owned structural
consulting engineering company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lara K. Pabst, Esq.
Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
KRIGEL & KRIGEL, P.C.
4520 Main Street, Suite 700
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 756-5800
Facsimile: (816) 756-1999
E-mail: lpabst@krigelandkrigel.com
sjmoore@krigelandkrigel.com
PEPSICO INC: Stevens Sues Over Machine Operators' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUELE STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO INC., BOTTLING GROUP, LLC,
and CB MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. Defendants, Case No.
7:22-cv-00802 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022) arises from the Defendants'
alleged conduct of not paying Plaintiff and class members proper
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
wage-and-hour statutes of the State of Ohio.
According to the complaint, in mid-December 2021, the Defendants'
payroll provider, Ultimate Kronos Group, was subject to a purported
cybersecurity incident. By failing to keep accurate records of
hours worked, notwithstanding Defendants' enumerated obligations
under the FLSA, Ohio law, and other state laws, the Defendants have
not recorded or paid all overtime hours worked to their hourly
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other members of the
FLSA Collective and Ohio Class, in violation of the FLSA and Ohio
law following the outset of the Kronos cybersecurity incident.
Plaintiff Emanuele Stevens has been employed by the Defendants from
approximately October 2021 to the present as a machine operator.
PepsiCo Inc. operates beverage, snack and food businesses
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Discovery & PTO Deadlines Extended in Cidone
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cidone v. Pinnacle
Property Management Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01133
(D. Or.), the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order granting
the parties' joint motion for extension of Discovery & PTO
Deadlines:
-- 1. Fact Discovery is to be July 11, 2022
completed by:
-- 2. Motion for ClassCertification Aug. 12, 2022
and appointment of Class
Counsel and Class Representative
to be filed by:
-- 3. Responses to Motion for Class Sept. 12, 2022
Certification and Appointment
of Class Counsel and Class
Representative due by:
-- 4. Replies to Motion for Class Sept. 26, 2022
Certification and Appointment
of Class Counsel and Class
Representative due by:
The nature of suit states real property -- all other real
property.
Pinnacle is a property management company in Torrance,
California.[CC]
POP AND BOTTLE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pop and Bottle, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Pop and Bottle, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00932 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pop and Bottle, Inc. -- https://www.popandbottle.com/ -- make pure,
organic almond and oat lattes using wholesome, simple ingredients
and nothing else.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey St, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
POPULAR INC: Lipsett Sues Over Bank Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Frankie Lipsett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Popular, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00811 (S.D. N.Y., January 31, 2022), seeks monetary damages,
restitution and declaratory relief from the unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees on
accounts that were never actually overdrawn, in breach of
contract.
Popular, Inc. operates as "Banco Popular," providing retail banking
services to consumers throughout the United States and is
headquartered in New York.
Banco Popular issues debit cards to its checking account customers
which allows its customers to have electronic access to their
checking accounts for purchases, payments, withdrawals and other
electronic debit transactions. Lipsett alleges that Banco Popular
charges fees for debit card transactions that purportedly result in
an overdraft. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielplic.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
PRATT & WHITNEY: Faces Tussey Suit Over Illegal No Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN TUSSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., BELCAN
ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.,
AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., MAHESH PATEL, ROBERT HARVEY, HARPREET
WASAN, STEVEN HOUGHTALING, THOMAS EDWARDS, and GARY PRUS,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00186-SRU (D. Conn., Feb. 1, 2022) is
a class action under the Sherman Act which challenges an illegal
conspiracy among the Defendants to restrict the hiring and
recruiting of engineers and other skilled laborers working on
aerospace projects among their respective companies.
According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and
maintained the no-poach agreement at least as early as 2011 and
continued it until at least 2019. Throughout this time, and indeed
until just recently when indictments against several of the
Individual Defendants were unsealed, Defendants concealed their
no-poach agreement from their employees and independent
contractors.
The Defendants allegedly monitored each other's compliance with the
unlawful no-poach agreement and communicated to enforce compliance.
For instance, Defendants repeatedly reported perceived rule
breaking by their co-conspirators to Defendant Mahesh Patel, the
former director of Global Engineering Sourcing at Pratt & Whitney.
And as Patel had the ability to punish violators by withholding
future lucrative work from the violator, he was integral in
ensuring that any violations of the no-poach agreement cease
forthwith, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that the no-poach agreement is, thus, a per
se unlawful restraint of trade under the federal antitrust laws and
injured him and the members of the Class.
Mr. Tussey was employed as an engineer for Parametric Solutions
beginning in February 2017 and continuing through November 2021,
working on P&W projects during the 2017-2019 time period.
Pratt & Whitney is one of the largest aerospace engine design,
manufacture, and service companies in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP
1010 Washington Boulevard, Suite 800
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 358-0800
Facsimile: (203) 348-2321
E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
Lonnie A. Browne, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
bomara@rgrdlaw.com
sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
lbrowne@rgrdlaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00941 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
REPRESENT HOLDINGS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Represent Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Represent Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00940-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Represent Holdings LLC -- https://represent.com/ -- operates as a
holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes
arts, music, films, and sports products.[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
REVLON CONSUMER: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revlon Consumer
Products Corporation. The case is styled as Robert Weekes,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00944-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Revlon Consumer Products Corporation -- https://www.revloninc.com/
-- produces and distributes cosmetics.[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
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gaffney Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA GAFFNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-12233-BRM-MAH
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
final approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement, on
behalf of the following class:
"All consumers with properties in New Jersey who were 30 or
more days past due on their mortgage loans when SPS began
servicing their loans, and to whom SPS sent monthly mortgage
statements from July 31, 2017 through December 31, 2019,
after a foreclosure judgment was entered with respect to
their loans, and where the note rate in the monthly
statements was in excess of the then-applicable post-judgment
interest rate under New Jersey R. 4:42-11."
Select Portfolio operates as a mortgage servicing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35BXBad
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Deutsch, Esq.
NORTHEAST LAW GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 60717
Longmeadow, MA 01116
Telephone: (413) 285-3646
E-mail: adam@northeastlawgroup.com
- and -
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Huang Seeks More Time for Class Cert. Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Huang, et al., v. Shanghai
City Corp., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07702-LJL-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the due date
of their reply to the Defendants' Opposition filed on January 31,
2022 to Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification from
February 05, 2022 to February 18, 2022.
The Plaintiffs' counsel say that this is Plaintiffs' first request
for extension in this matter.The basis for the extension is that
the leading attorney in charge of briefing the Motion for Rule 23
Class Classification, Mr. Aaron Schweitzer is preoccupied with
pre-scheduled five depositions sessions starting from January 31,
2022 to February 04, 2022 in other matters. Besides, Mr. Aaron
Schweitzer will attend two consecutive and prolonged jury trials
starting from February 07, 2022 and they will last no less than two
weeks, the counsel adds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3upKnYG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
SHATTUCK LABS: Viti Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
ANDREA VITI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHATTUCK LABS, INC., TAYLOR SCHREIBER,
ANDREW NEILL, JOSIAH HORNBLOWER, HELEN M. BOUDREAU, NEIL GIBSON,
GEORGE GOLUMBESKI, MICHAEL LEE, TYLER BROUS, VICTOR STONE,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, EVERCORE
GROUP L.L.C., AND NEEDHAM AND COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00560 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022) is a class action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Shattuck securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with Shattuck's October 2020
initial public offering; and/or between October 9, 2020 and
November 9, 2021, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
On September 18, 2020, Shattuck filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form S-1, which in combination with subsequent
amendments on Forms S-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), are
collectively referred to as the Registration Statement and issued
in connection with the IPO.
On October 13, 2020, Shattuck filed with the SEC the final
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, Shattuck sold 13,664,704 shares
at $17.00 per share.
Allegedly, the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and,
as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing its preparation.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's shares trade
significantly below the IPO price, thereby damaging investors, says
the suit.
Shattuck Labs, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage biotechnology
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
SOUTH DAKOTA: Julie Irvine Seeks Entry of Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Irvine, guardian ad
litem of Juan Alvarez, Aubrey Archambeau, and Joseph Baker, as
named plaintiffs on behalf of a class, v. Jeremy Johnson,
Administrator, South Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his
official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES (D.S.D.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a scheduling order, and
authorization to take not more than five depositions relevant to
class certification before the parties confer.
The South Dakota Human Services Center (HSC) is a specialty
hospital and the state's only public psychiatric hospital.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s6MZYF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James D. Leach, Esq.
SOUTH DAKOTA JUSTICE
1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
Rapid City, SD 57702
Telephone: (605) 341-4400
E-mail: jim@southdakotajustice.
SOUTH STATE BANK: Amended Conference & Sched Order Entered in Fludd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATOYA LASHAY FLUDD AND
WANDA SUE BUTCHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SOUTH STATE BANK and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-01959-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks
entered an amended conference and scheduling order as follows:
1. A conference of the parties Jan. 12, 2022
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)
shall be held no later than:
2. The required initial disclosures Feb. 4, 2022
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)
shall be made no later than:
3. The parties shall file a Rule Jan. 28, 2022
26(f) Report to this order
no later than:
4. Motions to join other parties April 26, 2022
and amend the pleadings
shall be filed no later than:
5. For class certification, the Feb. 17, 2023
parties agree that pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2),
reports from Plaintiffs'
retained expert(s), if any,
will be due no later than:
Supplementation under Rule 26(e) March 31, 2023
will be due no later than:
Depositions of any designated April 28, 2023
experts will be completed no
later than:
6. For class certification, the March 17, 2023
parties agree that pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2),
reports from Defendant's
retained expert(s), if any,
will be due no later than:
Supplementation under Rule March 31,2023
26(e) will be due no later than:
Depositions of any designated April 28, 2023
experts will be completed by:
7. Discovery shall be completed Jan. 27, 2023
no later than:
8. Mediation shall be completed April 14, 2023
in this case on or before:
9. Any class certification motion May 26, 2023
should be filed no later than:
10. The Parties anticipate briefing May 26, 2023
on class certification. The
Plaintiff's brief shall be due
by:
Defendant's opposition will be June 27, 2023
due by:
South State Bank, based in Columbia, South Carolina, is the largest
bank based in South Carolina and a subsidiary of South State
Corporation, a bank holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32WkyUM at no extra charge.[CC]
ST. CLAIR COUNTY ERS: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. CLAIR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00988 (M.D. Tenn.), the Lead Plaintiffs
Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund and New
York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. approving their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Class Counsel.
St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System offers pension,
retirement plans and various other benefits to its participants.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ruayM1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
T. Alex B. Folkerth, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com
cwood@rgrdlaw.com
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
afolkerth@rgrdlaw.com
STATE FARM: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Reset to April 7
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McClure v. State Farm Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389 (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order resetting the in-person
oral argument presently set for March 2, 2022 as to the motion for
Class Certification and motion to Strike.
-- The motion hearing is reset for April 7, 2022.
The nature of suit Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Parker Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC and SOUTHWESTERN FURNITURE OF WISCONSIN,
LLC d/b/a ASHLEY FURNITURE, Case No. 8:21-cv-00740-CEH-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval to the settlement;
2. certifying for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement
Class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and (e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure;
3. approving the Notice program set forth in the Agreement
and approve the form and content of the Notices and Claim
Form, Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval attached
to the Settlement Agreement;
4. approving the opt-out and objection procedures set forth
in the Agreement;
5. appointing him as Class Representative;
6. appointing as Class Counsel the law firms and attorneys
listed in the Agreement; and
7. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.
According to the complaint, the Settlement Agreement makes
available to each member of the Settlement Class a Cash Settlement
Payment of $10 cash for the first marketing text message received
from Defendants without prior express consent and $7 for the second
such text message received from Defendants; or, alternatively, a
Voucher Award of $25 voucher for the first such text message
received from Defendants and a $15 voucher for the second such text
message from Defendants. The Voucher Award shall only be redeemable
for purchases on the www.ashleyfurniture.com website, will expire
no earlier than 18 months after they are issued to the Settlement
Class Members and shall be freely transferable. If approved, the
Settlement will bring an end to what likely would be lengthy and
contentious litigation centered on unsettled legal questions.
-- Settlement Terms
a. The Settlement Class
The proposed Settlement establishes a Settlement Class
as follows:
"All persons throughout the United States to whom
the Defendants and/or their agent(s) sent, or caused to
be sent, a text message, directed to a number assigned
to a cellular telephone service, utilizing an automatic
telephone dialing system, without prior express consent
during the Class Period, between May 1, 2017 and
September 30, 2020."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all persons
to whom Defendants and/or their agent(s) sent, or caused
to be sent, a text message, directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, utilizing an
automatic telephone dialing system, purely to consummate
a purchase transaction, such as text messages solely
sent to set up time for delivery of a purchase; and (2)
the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or
controlled person of Defendants, as well as the
officers, directors, agents, servants or employees of
the Defendants, or any parent, subsidiary or affiliate
of Defendants, and the immediate family members of all
such persons.
b. The Settlement Awards to Settlement Class Members
Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant has agreed to make
available to each Settlement Class member either a Cash
Settlement Payment of $10 cash for the first allegedly
violative text message received from Defendants and $7
for the second such text message received from the
Defendants (a "Cash Settlement Award"); or,
alternatively, a Voucher Award of $25 voucher for the
first such text message and a $15 voucher for the second
such text message from Defendants (a "Voucher Award").
c. The Notice Program
Pending this Court's approval, Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC ("KCC"), will serve as the Claims
Administrator, and will be responsible for
administrating the Notice to the Settlement Class
Members informing them of the proposed Settlement and
their ability to submit Claim Forms seeking Cash
Settlement Payment or Voucher Awards.
d. Claims Process
The Claims Process and Claim Form are straightforward,
easy to understand for Settlement Class Members, and
designed so that they can easily submit their claim for
their Settlement Award.
e. Class Counsel Fees and Expenses
The Defendants have agreed not to oppose Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expenses of up to
$400,000.
Stoneledge is a financial services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3om5o2k
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
Kevin Cole, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C
9701 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1000,
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2010
Telephone: (310) 861-7797
Facsimile: (818) 994-9200
E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
- and -
Matthew A. Goldberger, Esq.
E-mail: matthew@goldbergerfirm.com
MATTHEW A. GOLDBERGER, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 659-8337
Facsimile: (561) 284-8938
T-RUS-T ELECTRIC: Faces Pandashina Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO PANDASHINA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. T-RUS-T
ELECTRIC LLC, and NIKITA PONOMAREV, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00875 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022) is a civil action for
damages and other redress based upon violations that Defendants
committed of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay proper
overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wages staments and
unlawful deductions from earned wages without written consent.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in New York from the first
week of late October or early November 2019 through January 4,
2022, as a non-managerial electrician, with the exception of March
31, 2020 through June 8, 2020, when New York banned non-essential
construction due to the Coronavirus pandemic.
T-RUS-T Electric LLC provides electrical services for commercial
and residential customers in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired common stock of Talis
Biomedical Corporation (the "Company" or "Talis") (NASDAQ: TLIS) in
connection with Talis' February 12, 2021 initial public offering
(the "IPO"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Talis common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Talis Biomedical Corporation Shareholder Class-Action Lawsuit or
contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Talis purportedly develops diagnostic tests to enable accurate,
reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular testing for infectious
diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care. The Talis One
tests are being developed for respiratory infections, infections
related to women's health, and sexually transmitted infections.
On or about February 12, 2021, Talis conducted its IPO, offering
15,870,000 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of
$16 per share for anticipated proceeds of $232.6 million.
According to the complaint, the Company's registration statement
used to effectuate its IPO contained representations that were
materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose that the comparator assay in the
primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis'
Emergency Use Application for the Talis One COVID-19 test; that, as
a result, Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in
obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test;
that, as a result, the Company's commercialization timeline would
be significantly delayed; and that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As these true facts emerged after the IPO, Talis' shares fell
sharply, trading as low as $3.81 per share, representing a decline
of over 76% from the offering price.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 8, 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 TLIS common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/talisbiomedicalcorporation-tlis-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-476/
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.
Contact Information:
Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Valdez Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DIAZ VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKSPACE, INC., OREN FRANK, MARK
HIRSCHHORN, HEC SPONSOR LLC, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, DOUGLAS G.
BERGERON, JONATHAN DOBRES, ROBERT GREIFELD, AMY SCHULMAN, THELMA
DUGGIN, HUDSON EXECUTIVE CAPITAL LP, and HEC MASTER FUND LP,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00840 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022) seeks
to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising from the
materially false or misleading statements or omissions issued
during the Class Period and in the proxy statement issued in
connection with the merger between Talkspace and Hudson Executive
Investment Corporation (HEIC).
The suit is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Talkspace securities between June
11, 2020 and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive, and/or all
holders of Talkspace common stock as of the record date for the
special meeting of shareholders held on June 17, 2021 to consider
approval of the merger between HEIC and Talkspace and entitled to
vote on the merger.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Additionally, the proxy issued
in connection with the merger omitted and/or misrepresented
material information. Specifically, Defendants and the Proxy made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) HEIC had overstated its competitive advantage and due diligence
capabilities with respect to identifying and effectuating a merger
with target companies; (ii) HEIC had conducted inadequate due
diligence into then-private, pre-merger Talkspace, or else ignored
and/or failed to disclose multiple red flags concerning
then-private, pre-merger Talkspace's business and operations; (iii)
Talkspace was experiencing significantly increased online
advertising costs in its B2C business since the beginning of 2021;
(iv) Talkspace was experiencing lower conversion rates in its
online advertising in its B2C business; (v) as a result of (iii)
and (iv) above, Talkspace was experiencing increased customer
acquisition costs and more tepid B2C demand than represented to
investors; (vi) as a result of (iii)-(v) above, Talkspace was
suffering from ballooning customer acquisition costs and worsening
growth and gross margin trends; (vii) Talkspace had overvalued its
accounts receivables from certain of its health plan clients in its
B2B business, which amounts required adjustment downward; and
(viii) as a result of (iii)-(vii) above, Talkspace's 2021 financial
guidance was not achievable and lacked any reasonable basis in
fact.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Talkspace is a behavioral healthcare company that markets itself as
being enabled by a "purpose-built technology platform." Talkspace
began as HEIC, a blank check company. A blank check company is
sometimes referred to as a special purpose acquisition company --
or "SPAC" -- and does not initially have any operations or business
of its own.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
TD BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fee Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action
claims TD Bank has wrongfully charged overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw customers' accounts.
The 21-page lawsuit says that although TD Bank states in its
account documents that it will charge overdraft fees only when a
customer has insufficient funds to cover a transaction, the bank,
in practice, assesses overdraft fees on some transactions that were
at one time approved but settled later into a negative balance. Per
the suit, TD Bank's practice of assessing overdraft fees on what
the complaint calls "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle
Negative" (APPSN) transactions has caused customers to be charged
more in overdraft fees than they should have been.
The case contends that the bank's overdraft practices amount to
"exploit[ing] contractual discretion to gouge accountholders."
The complaint states that APPSN transactions are debit card
transactions that are initially authorized on an account with
sufficient funds to cover the transaction. At the time the
transaction is made, TD Bank sets aside the amount to cover the
transaction and subtracts that amount from an account's available
balance, the suit relays. The case argues that the account should
thus always contain sufficient funds to cover that particular
transaction given the bank has already set the money aside.
The lawsuit alleges, however, that TD Bank will sometimes assess
"crippling" overdraft fees on these transactions when an
intervening transaction depletes an account's balance:
"Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, TD
later assesses OD Fees on those same transactions when they
purportedly settle days later into a negative balance. These types
of transactions are APPSN Transactions."
According to the suit, TD Bank, unbeknownst to customers, runs each
debit card transaction twice to determine whether to assess an
overdraft fee-both when the transaction is initiated by the
customer and when it settles, often days later. The case explains
that during TD's nightly batching process, the bank releases the
funds it held to cover a particular debit card transaction and
allows them to be used for other purposes, which thus depletes a
customer's account and subjects them to additional overdraft fees
at the time the previously authorized transaction settles.
Not only is this practice "unfair and unjust," the suit says, but
it contradicts the "plain, clear, and simple language" in TD Bank's
account documents, which state that overdraft fees will only be
charged when an account has insufficient funds to cover a
transaction. Per the case, TD Bank has misrepresented "the true
nature" of its overdraft practices and abused its contractual
discretion to take advantage of customers.
"There is no justification for this improper practice, other than
to maximize TD's OD Fee revenue," the complaint charges.
The case looks to represent TD accountholders who, within the
applicable statute of limitations period, were charged overdraft
fees on APPSN transactions in a TD checking account.
Initially filed in New York in November 2021, the lawsuit was
transferred to New Jersey on January 20, 2022.[GN]
TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Crews Seeks Provisional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned a ROBERT CREWS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TITLEMAX OF
DELAWARE, INC., TITLEMAX OF OHIO, INC., TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
TMX FINANCE OF VIRGINA, INC., TITLEMAX OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
TITLEMAX OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA, INC., and
TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00168-JPW
(M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his motion for provisional certification and preliminary
injunction.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court provisionally certify the
class, preliminarily enjoin the Defendants from charging,
collecting, contracting for, or receiving over 6% interest and fees
from Crews and each class member, and order the other additional
preliminary relief.
TitleMax provides title loans, in-store personal loans, and online
personal loans as alternative lending solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rmxI6A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
East End Trial Group LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Brigidaa Wins Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW J. BRIGIDA, et al.,
v. PETE BUTTIGIEG, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02227-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L.
Friedrich entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The Court certifies the following class:
"All non-African American CTI graduates who: (1) By February
10, 2014, (a) graduated from a CTI program at one of the 36
FAA-partnered CTI Institutions between 2009–13 and (b) passed
the AT-SAT; (2) Applied to be an ATCS trainee through the
2014 all sources vacancy announcement but failed the
Biographical Questionnaire that was incorporated into the
2014 ATCS hiring process and was therefore not hired; (3)
Have never been offered employment as an FAA ATCS."
Excluded from the class are CTI graduates:
(1) Who were not US citizens as of February 10, 2014;
(2) Who by February 21, 2014 had reached 31 years of age (or
35 if they had 52 consecutive weeks of prior air traffic
control experience);
(3) Whose academic records as of February 21, 2014 explicitly
stated that they were ineligible to receive a letter of
recommendation from their CTI school; and
(4) Whose AT-SAT scores had expired as of February 21, 2014.
The Court also appoints plaintiffs Andrew J. Brigida and Matthew L.
Douglas-Cook as Class Representatives and Mountain States Legal
Foundation and Curry, Pearson & Wooten as joint Class Counsel.
It is further ordered that the parties shall submit, on or before
February 15, 2022, an agreed proposal for the text and form of a
Notice of Pendency of Class Action; if an agreement is not reached,
the parties shall submit their respective proposals on or before
that date.
The United States Department of Transportation is a federal Cabinet
department of the U.S. government concerned with transportation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3gjC6gG at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement for UNNJ Enrollees
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in this class action are current and former F-1
nonimmigrants who previously enrolled at the University of Northern
New Jersey (UNNJ), an undercover school set up by the Department of
Homeland Security. On November 22, 2021, the Parties reached a
Preliminary Settlement Agreement. On January 10, 2022, the Court
granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Class
Certification and Preliminary Settlement Approval.
In its order, the Court certified a class consisting of "[a]ny
noncitizen who, for any period of time, enrolled in the University
of Northern New Jersey." The Preliminary Settlement Agreement, if
approved, will affect you if you are a member of this class. If you
are a member of this class, you should read this "Notice of
Proposed Class Actions Settlement" ("Notice") carefully as it
explains certain time-limited opportunities you may qualify to
pursue. This Notice also explains certain obligations you will be
required to comply with if the Preliminary Settlement Agreement is
approved.
To see the Notice and learn how to obtain a copy of the Preliminary
Settlement Agreement, please click here. If after reviewing the
Settlement Agreement you still have questions, you can contact
Plaintiffs' Counsel (see contact information in the notice). [GN]
UNITED STATES: Extension of Deadlines to File Joint Report Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. at., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an
order extending the deadlines for the Parties' joint report and
Defendants' certified administrative, up to and including February
15, 2022.
Further, the Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for
Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their class certification
motion to March 1, 2022.
The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IU7b6P at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: (202) 739-5313
Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
E-mail: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com
- and -
Bernard J. Garbutt III, Esq.
Colin C. West, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
E-mail: bernard.garbutt@morganlewis.com
colin.west.@morganlewis.com
- and -
Taylor C. Day, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213.612.2501
E-mail: taylor.day@morganlewis.com
megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian p. hudak, Esq.
Acting Chief, Civil Division
John Haberland, Esq.
Special Assistant United States Attorney
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2574
E-mail: john.haberland@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Patients Win Right to Appeal in Home Care Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Jaffe at healthleadersmedia.com reports that a three-judge
federal appeals court panel in Connecticut has likely ended an
11-year fight against a frustrating and confusing rule that left
hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries without coverage
for nursing home care, and no way to challenge a denial.
The Jan. 25 ruling, which came in response to a 2011 class-action
lawsuit eventually joined by 14 beneficiaries against the
Department of Health and Human Services, will guarantee patients
the right to appeal to Medicare for nursing home coverage if they
were admitted to a hospital as an inpatient but were switched to
observation care, an outpatient service.
The court's decision applies only to people with traditional
Medicare whose status was changed from inpatient to observation. A
hospital services review team can make this change during or after
a patient's stay.
Observation care is a classification designed for patients who are
not well enough to go home but still need the kind of care they can
get only in a hospital. But it can have serious repercussions.
Without a three-day inpatient stay, beneficiaries are ineligible
for Medicare's nursing home benefit. So if they need follow-up care
in a nursing home after leaving the hospital, they can face charges
of about $290 a day, the average national cost of nursing home
care, according to a 2021 survey. Also, since observation care is
categorized as outpatient treatment - even if the patient is on a
hospital ward - they can get stuck with significant copays under
Medicare rules.
"You can appeal almost every issue affecting your Medicare coverage
except this one, and that is unfair," said Alice Bers, litigation
director at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, which represented the
patients in their lawsuit along with Justice in Aging, another
advocacy group, and the California law firm of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati.
Until Congress passed a law that took effect in 2017, hospitals
weren't required to tell patients whether they were receiving
observation care and had not been admitted. Under that law,
hospitals must provide written notice, but it does not trigger any
right to appeal.
The Department of Justice, representing HHS and the Medicare
program, tried numerous times to get the case dismissed, arguing
that the decision to admit patients or classify them as
"observation patients" was based on a doctor's or hospital's
medical expertise. Patients had nothing to appeal because the
government can't change a decision it didn't make, so no Medicare
rule had been violated.
Doctors rejected that notion and have long complained that the
Medicare rule undermined their clinical judgment and produced
"absurd results" that can hurt patients. The American Medical
Association and state medical societies filed legal papers in
support of the patients challenging the rule, as did several other
organizations, including AARP, the National Disability Rights
Network, and the American Healthcare Association, which represents
nursing homes across the country.
But U.S. District Judge Michael Shea ruled against HHS in 2020, and
estimated that hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients would be
able to seek refunds for nursing home care and other costs that
admitted patients don't pay. The trial took place in 2019.
The government continued to back the rule, however, and asked a
federal appeals court panel to reverse Shea's decision - despite
comments from then-chief of Medicare Seema Verma, who questioned
these policies in a 2019 tweet, saying that "government doesn't
always make sense."
On Jan. 25, the appeals court judges upheld Shea's decision,
agreeing that when hospitals switched a patient's status they were
following Medicare's 2013 "two-midnight rule." It requires
hospitals to admit patients who are expected to stay through two
midnights. The ruling applies to people in traditional Medicare.
"The decision to reclassify a hospital patient from an inpatient to
one receiving observation services may have significant and
detrimental impacts on plaintiffs' financial, psychological, and
physical well-being," the judges wrote. "That there is currently no
recourse available to challenge that decision also weighs heavily
in favor of a finding that plaintiffs have not been afforded the
process required by the Constitution."
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on whether government
lawyers would appeal the new ruling.
Three groups of Medicare patients who were switched from inpatient
to observation status after Jan.1, 2009, will be able to file
appeals for nursing home coverage and reimbursement for
out-of-pocket costs. People currently in the hospital will be able
to request an expedited appeal, and others who have recently
incurred costs can file a standard appeal by following instructions
in their Medicare Summary Notice. A plan for appealing older claims
has not yet been arranged, said Bers. The latest details are
available on the Center for Medicare Advocacy's website. (The
three-day inpatient hospital stay requirement is temporarily
suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
Observation status also causes trouble for people like Andrew
Roney, 70, of Teaneck, New Jersey, who was caught unawares when he
was switched from inpatient to observation status. He had
Medicare's Part A hospitalization coverage, which is free for most
people 65 and older. But he didn't sign up for Part B, which
carries a monthly premium and covers outpatient services, including
observation care, doctor visits, lab tests, and X-rays. He spent
three days in a nearby hospital for an intestinal infection in
2016.
Roney, a freelance editor and substitute teacher, didn't think he
needed Part B and assumed Part A would cover his hospital stay.
Instead, he was surprised to get a $5,000 bill because he was
classified as an observation patient and was not admitted. Despite
his best efforts, there was nothing he could do about it except to
pay up.
"It came as a shock to the system," said Roney, who testified in
the 2019 trial. "I don't want anybody else to go through that."
Although he had given up hope of getting his money back, he intends
to file an appeal now that he can. "It's a nice chunk of change."
[GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Snyder Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM SNYDER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP,
INC. et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-01049-JRT-BRT (D. Minn.), the Hon.
Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order certifying the Class defined
below with respect to the Class Claims specified.
a. Class Definition:
All participants and beneficiaries of the UnitedHealth
Group 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan") who, through the Plan,
invested in the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite (comprising
first the Wells Fargo Target funds and then the Wells
Fargo DJ Target N funds for target date vintages 2010,
2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050, 2055, and
2060) from April 23, 2015, through the date of judgment
(the "Class Period"), excluding any individuals who served
during the Class Period as members of UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated's board of directors, any individuals who
served during the Class Period as members of the
UnitedHealth Group Retirement Plan's Investment Review
Committee, the UnitedHealth Group Employee Benefits Plans
Investment Committee, or the UnitedHealth Group Employee
Benefits Plans Administrative Committee, and any
individual who served during the Class Period as
UnitedHealth Group's Executive Vice President of Human
Capital.
b. Class Claims:
(1) breach of the duty of prudence set forth in the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") based on Defendants' alleged failure to
remove the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite from the
UnitedHealth Group 401(k) Savings Plan during the
Class Period, and
(2) breach of the duty of prudence set forth in ERISA
based on Defendants' alleged failure during the Class
Period to monitor the individuals who possessed
delegated authority to remove the Wells Fargo Target
Fund Suite from the UnitedHealth Group 401(k) Savings
Plan.
UnitedHealth Group is an American multinational managed healthcare
and insurance company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gpt69L at no extra charge.[CC]
VALSPAR CORP: Amended Case Mng't Sched. Order Entered in Cordova
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordova, et al., v.
Valspar Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02325 (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order adopting the
deadlines set in the Parties' Joint Proposed Amended Case
Management Schedule as follows:
-- Fact discovery closes: May 16, 2022
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to disclose May 30, 2022
and provide expert reports as to
class certification and/ or the
merits is:
-- Deadline for Defendants to disclose June 30, 2022
and provide expert reports as to
class certification and/ or the
merits:
-- Expert discovery closes: July 30, 2022
-- Case dispositive motions and motions Aug. 30, 2022
for class certification due:
-- Final Pretrial Conference set for: Jan. 13, 2023
The nature of suit states other labor litigation --
diversity-citizenship.
Valspar Corporation manufactures and distributes coatings, coating
intermediates, and specialty chemical products.[CC]
VIZIO INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Kavehrad Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amir Kavehrad v. Vizio,
Inc. et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01868-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered a scheduling order:
-- Last Day to File a Motion to Add June 3, 2022
Parties or Amend Pleadings:
-- Last Day to File a Motion for Feb. 3, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 30, 2023
-- Last Day to File Motions July 14, 2023
(Excluding Daubert Motions and
all other Motions in Limine):
-- Last Day to Serve Initial Expert July 14, 2023
Reports:
-- Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert Aug. 11, 2023
Reports:
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 8, 2023
-- Last Day to Conduct Settlement Sept. 29, 2023
Proceedings:
-- Last Day to File Motions in Limine Feb. 23, 2024
and Daubert Motions:
-- Final Pretrial Conference: March 22, 2024
Vizio is an American publicly traded company that designs and sells
televisions, sound bars, viewer data, and advertising.
A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 2, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3upKtPJ at no
extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE: Lynch Loses Bid to Refile Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LYNCH v. WASHINGTON
HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05138-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings;
2. dismissing with prejudice Lynch's Fifth Amendment Takings
Clause claim and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim;
3. denying without prejudice to refile in state court Lynch's
motion to certify class, and motion for extension of time'
4. remanding the action to the Superior Court for Thurston
County, Case No. 21-2-00175-34;
5. directing the Clerk to send certified copies of this Order
to the Clerk of the Court for Thurston County Superior
Court.
The Court said, "Lynch argues that he has a viable claim for a Penn
Central regulatory taking, or a per se taking claim based on the
Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine. But for Lynch to have a
viable Takings Clause claim, there must be a taking of private
property. The Defendants argue that Lynch's "expectation of public
benefits does not constitute a protected property right for the
purpose of the Takings Clause." Lynch argues that he has "a vested
protectable expectation in continuation of the Agency's level of
Medicaid benefits" and a "legal entitlement to use his VA benefits
without being coerced into using them to pay for Medicaid-covered
services." But Lynch fails to distinguish Bowen, in which the
Supreme Court held that there is "no protected property rights to
continued benefits at the same level." And as Defendants highlight,
Lynch has not cited any opinion in which a court has held that
welfare benefits are protected property rights or that withholding
of such benefits constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
While Lynch argues that the Agency cites no federal authority to
justify its actions, he has not provided binding or persuasive
authority that he has a 20 protected property interest to his
benefits under the Takings Clause. It could be that the Agency's
actions are in conflict with federal Medicaid statutes and
regulations, or VA benefits statutes and regulations, but that is
not Lynch's claim. Under the Takings Clause, there is "no protected
property rights to continued benefits at the same level." But even
if there was a protected property interest, contrary to Lynch's
assertion, the Agency has not prevented him from using his Aid and
Assistance ("AA") and Unusual Medical Expense ("UME") benefits as
he sees fit. It has not placed a lien on his benefits, though he
argues that is the "practical effect."
The Agency designated these benefits as third-party resources; that
Lynch has to use these benefits toward his Medicaid cost of care
does not amount to a taking under the Fifth Amendment. His Fifth
Amendment Takings Clause claim necessarily fails under both of his
theories. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is,
therefore, granted, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice."
Mr. Lynch is a wartime veteran who receives medical care and
assistance under the Community Options Program Entry System
("COPES") Medicaid program and a Veteran's Administration
disability improved pension, which includes "AA" and "UME"
benefits. He alleges that Defendant Washington Health Care
Authority and its director Defendant Sue Birch have wrongfully
taken his AA and UME benefits by defining his VA benefits as a
third-party resource, which increases his Medicaid participation
amount. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated wartime veterans who have
had UME and AA benefits wrongfully taken.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rik0BV at no extra charge.[CC]
WEBER FARHAT: Puello Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Puello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Weber Farhat O'Connor Realty Management
Inc., Weber Farhat Realty Management Inc., Jeffrey Weber, Mark
Weber, 170-176 West 89th Street Apartment Corp. and William
Randolph, Defendants, Case 22-cv-00816 (E.D. N.Y., January 12,
2022), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and
statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants operate as "Weber Farhat Realty" managing approximately
100 residential properties, including cooperative and condominium
apartment buildings, in and around New York City, including within
Manhattan. Puello serviced two buildings managed by Weber Farhat
from September 2017 to October 4, 2021. He claims to have regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime,
worked through meal breaks and claims to be denied wage statements.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel. (631) 257-5588
Email: promero@romerolawny.com
ZIMMER BIOMET: Gluckstein Lawyers File Personal Injury Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gluckstein Lawyers has commenced a proposed class-action personal
injury lawsuit alleging that the ExploR Modular Radial Head System
medical device used in elbow surgeries across Canada resulted in
permanent injuries and the need for corrective surgery.
After recovering from elbow surgery, a male patient receives
physical therapy treatment from a male physiotherapist at a clinic.
The clinician stretches the patient's shoulder and arm.
The proposed class action is brought against Zimmer Biomet Holdings
Inc., Biomet Orthopedics LLC, Zimmer of Canada Limited and Zimmer
Cas on behalf of class representative Lynne Koss, who experienced
an ExploR Modular Radial Head System device failure following elbow
surgery in July 2017. Corrective surgeries were required in January
and March 2020. Koss required further medical attention and
physiotherapy following the surgeries, and continues to experience
a decrease in her range of motion, discomfort, and permanent
scarring, according to the statement of claim.
The plaintiff alleges the device was improperly designed,
manufactured and tested, resulting in the screw backing out into
the elbow. Similarly, thousands of Class Members have been or will
be exposed to device failures, "causing them to suffer and continue
to suffer from emotional, physical and psychological injuries,"
requiring medical attention and complicated revision surgeries,
according to the statement of claim.
Class Members, including the plaintiff, have experienced
instability, swelling, inflammation, pain and stiffness that have
impaired their ability to use their elbows/arms and otherwise
perform their activities of daily living and employment, the claim
states. These complications have allegedly resulted in ongoing pain
and the need for future surgery and care.
"People rely on medical products to return to the life they were
living before they were injured," says Class-action lawyer Jordan
Assaraf of Gluckstein Lawyers. "We are launching this lawsuit to
help those who suffered carry on and move on."
If you have experienced pain or complications from the ExploR
Modular Radial Head System and would like further information about
the lawsuit, please contact Gluckstein Lawyers at (416) 408-4252 or
visit our website. [GN]
[*] Opioid Class Action Lawsuit Reaches Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
thestate.com reports that the counties and cities in the Pee Dee
are set to receive millions of dollars each from the settlement of
a national class action lawsuit against companies that manufactured
and distributed opioids.
The settlement agreements total $26 billion - with $21 billion
coming from opioid distributors and $4.5 billion coming from the
manufacturer Janssen, a branch of Johnson & Johnson - and will be
split up among the 50 states, U.S. territories and the thousands of
counties and municipalities part of the lawsuit. The settlement was
negotiated over the past several years by attorneys general from
South Carolina and the other states.
Of the total, South Carolina could see around a $400 million total
settlement, though a significant portion will go toward attorneys
fees at the state, county and local levels. The settlement
agreement stipulates that the money has to be spent on "approved
abatements" of the opioid epidemic, which has been raging in the
United States since the 1990s. Such abatements include purchasing
Naloxone, which can reverse opioid overdoses, as well as addiction
treatment programs and other law enforcement expenses
South Carolina could see about $234 million go towards such
abatements, according to the proposed settlement agreement that
cities and counties across the state voted to approve.
In the Pee Dee region, settlement amounts range from the hundreds
of thousands for Georgetown to more than $10 million for Horry
County. Myrtle Beach, according to spokesperson Mark Kruea, could
see up to $4.3 million. Dillon County, according to county
administrator W. Clay Young, could see more than $1 million.
The opioid crisis hit Horry County and the Pee Dee region hard, as
it did other parts of the country. In its initial 2018 lawsuit
against AmerisourceBergen, Horry County alleged the crisis led to
an "opioid prescription rate of 110.7 per 100 persons, one of the
highest in the state of South Carolina." The county also cited a
statistic that 101 people died of opioid overdoses in 2016. That
figure climbed to 131 deaths as of 2019.
The Sun News has previously detailed how the county was once home
to a "pill mill" that distributed large quantities of Oxycontin and
other opioids.
HOW THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT BREAKS DOWN
The specific formula to determine how much each jurisdiction
receives from the settlement can vary significantly based on
numerous factors, including which state a municipality is in, how
badly the state suffered from the opioid epidemic and how many
other parties are in the lawsuit, according to the settlement
agreement.
Because the formula used to determine each municipality's
settlement amount is so complex, Robert Kittle, a spokesperson for
the South Carolina Attorney General, couldn't confirm specific
dollar amounts. Still, he said rough estimates could likely be
calculated from the settlement agreement.
Attorneys representing Greenville County, which led South
Carolina's piece of the suit, as well as attorneys for other
plaintiffs, did not return phone messages seeking comment on dollar
amounts the agreement could award.
The Sun News was able to glean rough estimates for each
municipality in the region based on the settlement documents. Those
estimates show the cities and counties in the Pee Dee region could
see between $30 and $40 million in total from the national
settlement.
From the distributor settlement agreement, up to $10.2 billion
could ultimately flow to states and municipalities. An additional
$8.3 billion could be added to that total if states qualify for
various incentives. South Carolina would receive 1.58% of the
total, meaning the state could see up to $162 million, excluding
attorney fees, from the base fund. The state could qualify for tens
of millions more if it meets the incentives. From the Janssen
settlement agreement, up to $4.5 billion could flow to states and
municipalities, and South Carolina would receive 1.59% of that
tota, about $72 million. That means the state could see about $234
million total from the two settlement agreements.
States hit harder by the opioid epidemic, including Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Florida, and large states like New York and Texas
will all receive higher percentages of the total settlement
amount.
Horry County, according to the estimates, could see more than $10
million from the settlement. Florence County could see around $5
million, and Darlington County could see more than $3 million.
Georgetown County, Chesterfield County and the city of Florence
could all see north of $2 million each from the settlement. Marion
and Marlboro counties are both likely to receive more than $1
million.
Inside Horry County, Myrtle Beach could see up to $4.3 million,
while North Myrtle Beach could see more than $1 million. Conway
could receive over $500,000.
WHAT THE MONEY CAN GO TO
According to the settlement agreement, the money can be spent on
dozens of programs and tools related to the opioid epidemic.
Among those listed, the funding can be used on a variety of law
enforcement personnel and programs related to opioids and
addiction, as well as purchasing Naloxone and giving grants to
community groups who work with people who use opioids.
The money can be used for counseling and other support services if
a city, county or local group offers such a program, can help
people in treatment find jobs and transportation to and from those
jobs, and can help people in treatment pay for legal expenses.
Funds can also go to a variety of law enforcement uses, including
911 services, police who interact with those using opioids,
criminal justice programs that connect people who have overdosed
with treatment and purchasing Naloxone for first-responders to
carry.
In Myrtle Beach and Horry County, it's likely the funds will go
towards law enforcement, officials told The Sun News
WHAT GOVERNMENT LEADERS - AND THE COMPANIES - SAY ABOUT THE
AGREEMENT
Cities and counties around South Carolina voted to approve the
settlement agreement ahead deadline. Attorneys general for the
states now have two weeks to assess and approve the settlement, and
the opioid distributors and Janssen will then have an additional
two weeks to approve the settlement.
Kittle said the settlement should be finalized by the end of
February. The settlement agreement states payments from the
companies can begin as soon as April.
Horry County Council members voted to approve the settlement, and
Myrtle Beach City Council followed suit.
The lawsuit ultimately pitted thousands of states, counties and
cities against numerous distributors of opioids, as well as the
manufacturer Janssen. The primary distributor defendants are
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health and McKesson
Corporation.
In a statement about the settlement agreement issued in July,
AmerisourceBergen said it supported the settlement, but did not
admit any wrongdoing.
"A settlement will avoid years of protracted litigation, expedite
the movement of resources to communities impacted by opioid misuse
and allow our company to do what we do best - ensuring that health
care facilities like hospitals and community pharmacies have access
to the medications that patients and care providers need," the
company wrote. "The years of legal actions leading up to this point
have shown time and time again that pharmaceutical distributors
must walk a legal and ethical tightrope between providing access to
necessary medications and acting to prevent diversion of controlled
substances."
In a similar statement, Johnson & Johnson attorney Michael Ullman
called the opioid crisis "a tremendously complex public health
issue."
"We have deep sympathy for everyone affected. This settlement will
directly support state and local efforts to make meaningful
progress in addressing the opioid crisis in the United States," he
said.
The companies will pay out the settlement money over the next 18
years, with larger payments happening this year and in future
years, and smaller amounts continuing throughout the agreement.
Myrtle Beach Mayor Brenda Bethune said the city could use the funds
for its opioid outreach program that has been active for almost two
years. It's currently supported by a grant from the state's
Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, she added.
"We do have an opioid epidemic. It's nationwide, but this is going
to greatly help us address the issues we have right here," Bethune
said.
Kathy Jenkins, the executive director of New Directions, which runs
an opioid treatment program in Myrtle Beach, said she's hopeful the
settlement funding will allow local governments to continue using
their program.
"We've got a really great program going and I hope this means we
will continue to partner with the city of Myrtle Beach. . . .to
reduce the number of overdoses," she said. Even though officials in
Horry County declined to release information about the settlement
or comment on its terms, some county leaders said the county will
benefit significantly.
"It wasn't a small number, it wasn't like $17,000," County Council
member Gary Loftus said. "Any time you get money it's a good thing
and of course we have had expenses regarding this thing, especially
with public safety. We've incurred costs because of this." [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 ***