/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220225.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 35
Headlines
ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Foster Suit Wins Final Nod
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settles Safeway FACTA Class Action Lawsuit
AMAZING CARE: Yashin Sues Over Home Care Givers' Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Settles Cannabis Users' Hiring Discrimination Suit
AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice in Rittmann Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Improper Training Pay
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Court Stays Carlisle Class Action
AMERICAN GENERAL: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due March 25
APPLE INC: Wants Judge to Reject $27.5MM Legal Fee Request
ARNOT HEALTH: Zona, Bain Seek to Certify Class of Nurses
AUTOZONE INC: Court Extends Class Certification-Related Deadlines
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney, et al., File Class Certification Bid
BECHT ENGINEERING: Court OK's Parties' Agreed Bid for Hearing
BEDROCK PC: Porter Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
BRIGHT HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 7 Deadline
BRISTOL BAY: Joint Bid to Continue Phase I Discovery Date Filed
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Seeks Time Extension to Respond
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Soenen et al. Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonym OK'd
BUMBLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 25 Deadline
CAPTURERX: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $4.75 Million
CASH ADVANCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit
CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Nixed
CLARIVATE PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 25 Deadline
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing Sought
COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY: Maldonado Loses Class Status Bid
CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Reply Brief Extended to Feb. 25
DEL MONTE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Injury From Steam Pipe Failure
ELECTRIC LAST: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 4 Deadline
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Threat Over Battlefield Game
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Court Certifies Class in Shields Suit
FENNEC PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 11 Deadline
FIRST SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of March 8 Deadline
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Files Bid for Class Certification
FIVE GUYS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
GEICO GENERAL: 2nd Circuit Rejuvenates Underpayment Class Action
GILEAD SCIENCES: Second Joint Stipulation on Class Briefing Filed
GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Calhoun Suit
HALLS FERRY: Tierney Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
HAWAII: Opulento Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
INMEDIATA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.13MM
INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING: Averts Gold Medal Swimmers' Antitrust Suit
JC MCMURRAY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, McQuaid Says
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Plaintiff's Rule 59 Bid for Reconsideration Nixed
KROGER CO: Gabriel Lalli Files Bid for Class Certification
LEXINGTON LAW: Class Cert. Hearing in Moore Suit Set for Feb. 28
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Insurance Class Action Dismissal
LONGHORN PIZZA: Lipkin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
M JEWELERS INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
META PLATFORMS: Texas AG Sues Over Facial Recognition Technology
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Randolph Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Appeal in FLSA Suit Ruling
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dolphins' Sale Likely if Racism Claims Are True
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Settlement Approval
NOOM INC: Settles Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Fees
NVR INC: Hughes, Jenkins Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives
PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Files Bid for Conditional Certification
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Hill Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
RA MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Derr Suit Wins Initial Nod
RENT TO COPY: Nunez Sues Over Equipment Technicians' Unpaid Wages
RUSHMORE LOAN: Joint Bid to Amend Sched Order in Panzarella OK'd
SEQUIUM ASSET: Abrams Bid for Clarification Nixed
SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SITE 25: Calel Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
ST. LOUIS, MO: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply OK'd
STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Wins Class Certification Bid
STORK CRAFT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit
TELOS CORP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 8 Deadline
TEXAS: Needs to Urgently Improve Children's Foster, Kinship Care
TRUGREEN INC: Faces Deramo Class Action Over Prerecorded Robocalls
TRUST FOR ADVISED: Schiavi + Company Files Securities Class Suit
UNITED OF OMAHA: Loses Bid to Junk Nieves Class Suit
VILORE FOODS: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Nixed in Gross
WALMART INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines OK'd
WEBRECON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Regulation F Violation
WELLS FARGO: Williams Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination
WKT GROUP: Faces Solano Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
ZOOM VIDEO: March 5 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
[*] Juan Monteverde Investigates Terms Behind Acquisitions
[*] U.S. Senate OKs Bill to End Forced Sexual Assault Arbitration
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,876 Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cajun Co. Wins Judgment in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 1,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Multiple Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Faces Suits Involving 38,200 Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Divests $398MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.1MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Defends 915 Active Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
*********
ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Foster Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL FOSTER, et al., v.
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
parties' class action settlement; and
2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and
costs:
-- $1,000,000 in attorney's fees;
-- $149,978.03 in costs; and
-- $5,000 as an incentive award for each Class
Representative;
-- In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements, "within 21 days
after the distribution of the settlement funds and
payment of attorneys' fees," Class Counsel shall file
"a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides the
following, to the extent applicable:
The total settlement fund, the total number of class
members, the total number of class members to whom
notice was sent and not returned as undeliverable, the
number and percentage of claim forms submitted, the
number and percentage of opt-outs, the number and
percentage of objections, the average and median
recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts
paid to class members, the method(s) of notice and the
method(s) of payment to class members, the number and
value of checks not cashed, the amounts distributed to
each cy pres recipient, the administrative costs, the
attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms
of percentage of the settlement fund, and the
multiplier, if any.
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-
guidance-for-class-action-settlements/.
Adams & Associates operates youth and children's programs for
local, state, and federal government agencies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0xkcE at no extra charge.[CC]
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settles Safeway FACTA Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Day, writing for BoiseDev, reports that if you purchased gas at
an Albertsons gas station, you could be part of a class-action
lawsuit, and might get a small check.
Fred Martin of Alameda County, California sued Safeway in 2019,
alleging the receipt he received at a Safeway gas station did not
meet the requirements of federal law for debit transactions.
Albertsons Companies is Safeway's parent company
Martin and his attorneys said his receipt showed more than the last
five digits of his debit card number, which attorneys said was a
violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
–- or FACTA.
The lawsuit was granted class-action status, and ultimately the
company agreed to pay $20-million in a proposed settlement.
Albertsons Companies provided a statement to BoiseDev, indicating
which of its owned brands are impacted by the settlement: "'Safeway
fuel location' includes fuel stations operated by Safeway or
operated under any of the following banners affiliated with
Safeway: Albertsons; Acme; Carrs; Randalls; Jewel; Tom Thumb; and
Vons."
Albertsons has more than 330 fueling stations, including three
Boise-area locations.
Who would get what
Of the $20 million, 40% would actually go to attorneys -- or $8
million, as well as "reasonable expenses." Martin will get a check
for $10,000.
The rest of the cash would go to members of the class, but the
roughly $12 million will be divided up into many small payments. An
FAQ on the class action attorney's website outlines what happens:
"The final payment amount will depend on the total number of valid
and timely claims submitted by Settlement Class Members, but Class
Counsel estimates $36-$18."
You might have received a postcard in the mail, pointing you to the
class action website. Folks who bought gas at one of the
Safeway-affiliated gas stations owned by Albertsons Companies
between September 17, 2017, and February 26, 2019, may be impacted.
To participate in the class, you must file a claim.
If a court approves the settlement, checks could go out sometime
after May 4th of this year.
Safeway said it desires "to avoid further expense in this
litigation," but said it "denies all claims as to liability,
damages, losses, penalties, interest, fees, restitution, and all
other forms of relief, as well as the class action allegations,
asserted in the litigation." [GN]
AMAZING CARE: Yashin Sues Over Home Care Givers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
PARBATEE YASHIN, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. AMAZING CARE AGENCY INC.,
and RHODA PAPPOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00662-WMR (N.D. Ga.,
Feb. 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff for Defendants' alleged
failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for breach of contract and, in the alternative,
quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment under the
Georgia state law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home care giver
from July 29, 2021, to January 21, 2022.
Amazing Care Agency Inc. is in the business of providing in-home,
non-medical services, including personal care and companion/sitter
services, in the metro-Atlanta area in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael David Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Settles Cannabis Users' Hiring Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. McMahon, Esq., -- pmcmahon@foley.com -- of Foley &
Lardner LLP, disclosed that for years, most employers and employees
alike assumed a clean drug test was a pre-requisite for getting
hired. These pre-employment drug testing panels included a list of
illegal drugs, and almost always included Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the key psychoactive compound found in cannabis. But the
times have changed as it relates to cannabis -- from both social
and legal perspectives. These changes beg the question: is it even
worth testing for cannabis still? Perhaps even more concerning, is
such testing even legal?
In addition to medical cannabis being legal in 37 states,
recreational cannabis is now legal in 18 states and the District of
Columbia. Considering that just 10 years ago there were only two
states with legal recreational cannabis, it is not hard to see
where the trend is heading. Perhaps recognizing this trend and more
commonplace usage, certain jurisdictions have adopted protections
for employee candidates surrounding drug testing, including
outright bans on testing for cannabis. For example, New York City
prohibits all employers from requiring employment candidates to
submit to testing for THC. Most recently, Philadelphia enacted a
similar law effective January 1, 2022, prohibiting employers from
requiring job applicants to submit to cannabis testing. At the
state level, Nevada has prohibited pre-employment cannabis testing
since January 2020.
Setting aside these explicit prohibitions surrounding testing,
though, there are some practical considerations as well. As we
previously discussed, there are risks in states like Illinois for
discriminating against recreational cannabis users because cannabis
is now a "lawful product" under Illinois law. Other states like New
York and New Jersey protect off-duty cannabis use even more
broadly. There can be real consequences for violating these
protections, too. Amazon recently settled a proposed class action
alleging it discriminated against New Jersey recreational cannabis
users. Amazon also dropped cannabis from its drug screening shortly
after this suit was filed. And while these statutory protections
are notable, employers that require testing would still feel the
impacts of legalized cannabis in other respects. One Illinois
employment agency noted that an astounding 40% of recent applicants
had failed drug tests for cannabis use. In an era of a generally
contracted employee pool, that can lead to a prohibitively small
group of candidates.
So with all these factors in mind, is testing for cannabis even
worth it? Of course, the answer is not a "one-size-fits-all" issue.
The decision will depend on a number of factors including some
exceptions to statutory prohibitions on testing listed above, laws
requiring drug testing for certain jobs, and position-specific
questions surrounding job duties (e.g., desk job versus operating
heavy machinery). Still, what many employers may have considered as
a best practice for years is one that should be reconsidered in
light of these rapid developments. Foley's Labor & Employment
Group, with the support of Foley's Cannabis Law Team, is ready to
help employers navigate this ever-evolving landscape. [GN]
AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice in Rittmann Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs may refile their motion once the Court lifts the
stay. The matter remains stayed, pending the outcome of Sw.
Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 993 F.3d 18 492 (7th Cir. 2021), cert.
granted, No. 21-309, 2021 WL 5858631 (2021), and Moriana v. Viking
River Cruises, Inc., 2020 WL 5584508 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2020),
cert. granted, 20-1573, 2021 20 WL 5911481 (2021). (See Dkt. No.
193.)
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgHfSM at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Improper Training Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that American
Airlines failed to adequately pay hourly employees for the time
they spent completing mandatory training, according to a recent
wage and hour class action lawsuit filed in Illinois federal
court.
Plaintiff Robert Wilhelm alleges that many hourly American Airlines
employees are required to complete quarterly training modules,
which typically last about four or five hours each.
However, the employees are expected to complete the training
modules after their shifts are complete and they have already
clocked out of work, the American Airlines class action lawsuit
alleges.
As a result, Wilhelm says many hourly American Airlines employees
are not paid for the time they spend on the mandatory training in
violation of federal and state wage and hour laws. Some employees
must work more than 40 hours in a work week to complete the
mandatory training but are not compensated at the overtime rate for
their time, Wilhelm alleges.
"[American Airlines] regularly fails to pay plaintiff and other
hourly employees for the time they spend completing the quarterly
training or pays them their regular hourly pay rate rather than an
overtime pay rate, even if plaintiff or other hourly employees have
already worked over 40 hours that week," the class action lawsuit
states.
Employees who do not complete the training can face discipline or
termination.
Wilhelm says he most recently was expected to complete quarterly
training modules during the week of Jan. 31 but was not paid for
the time he spent completing them.
Class Action: Failure to Pay for Training Violates Wage & Hour
Laws
American Airlines' failure to pay employees for mandatory training
violates both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime
provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the unpaid overtime
class action lawsuit alleges.
"In each week in which [Wilhelm] was required to complete the
quarterly training modules without clocking in, [he] has incurred
damages," according to the lawsuit.
Wilhelm filed the American Airlines class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and a proposed class of other hourly American Airlines
employees who were required to complete quarterly training modules
in the past three years.
Hourly American Airlines employees including cargo workers, fleet
service clerks, gate agents and mechanics were allegedly required
to complete the quarterly training modules.
Do you think American Airlines should be on the hook to pay hourly
employees back wages for the time they spent on the mandatory
training modules? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below!
Wilhelm is represented by Colby Qualls and Joshua Jon Sanford of
Sanford Law Firm PLLC.
The American Airlines Training Pay Class Action Lawsuit is Robert
Wilhelm v. American Airlines Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00690, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Court Stays Carlisle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlisle v. The Board of
Trustees of the American Federation of the New York State Teamsters
Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-00455-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes
entered an order:
1. granting the Fund Defendants' motion to stay this action;
2. directing the Clerk stay this action for 120 days or 14
days after the Fund has received a determination from the
PBGC, whichever is sooner; and
3. directing the parties to file a joint status report within
90 days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, or within 7
days of any determination by PBGC, whichever is sooner
The Plaintiff Robert Carlisle, brings this proposed class action
individually and as a representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the New York State Teamsters
Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. section
1001 et seq., alleging breach of fiduciary duty in violation of
ERISA sections 404(a)(1)(A)–(D), 29 U.S.C. section
1104(a)(1)(A)–(D) and ERISA section 405(a)(1) and (2), 29 U.S.C.
section 1105(a)(1) and (2).
The Plaintiff, a participant in the Fund, a defined-benefit plan,
alleges that beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
"imprudently deploying and maintaining the [Fund] assets in an
extraordinar[ily] high risk, high cost asset allocation to chase a
grossly excessive and unreasonable 8.5% 'actuarial return target,'
as the Plan remained in dangerous and worsening financial
condition."
The Plaintiff alleges that Horizon, as the Fund's actuary,
"recklessly increased the actuarial return assumption from 8% to
8.5% knowing the [Fund] would chase this unrealistic return
assumption with extraordinary allocation of [Fund] assets to the
riskiest asset classes."
The Plaintiff alleges that Mekata used its position as the Fund's
"nondiscretionary investment consultant to recommend itself for the
position of the [Fund's] paid discretionary investment manager" and
advised the Fund's Trustees (in its role as nondiscretionary
investment consultant) that "the only way to achieve the
‘actuarial return target' was with significantly overweighted
allocations of [Fund] assets to the highest risk asset classes" --
namely, Emerging Markets Equities ("EME") and Private Equity
("PE").
The Plaintiff includes ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and as a
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT
FUND.
The Defendants include THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT FUND; JOHN BULGARO; BRIAN K. HAMMOND; PAUL A. MARKWITZ;
GEORGE F. HARRIGAN; MARK D. MAY; MICHAEL S. SCALZO, SR.; ROBERT
SCHAEFFER; MARK GLADFELTER; SAMUEL D. PILGER; DANIEL W. SCHMIDT;
TOM J. VENTURA; MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.; and HORIZON
ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I3B2cX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Emily L. Skaug, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
- and -
Leslie A. Blau, Esq.
Blau & Malmfeldt, Esq.
566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60661
The Attorneys for the Defendants: The Board of Trustees of the
American Federation of the New York State Teamsters Conference
Pension and Retirement Fund; John Bulgaro; Brian K. Hammond; Paul
A. Markwitz; George F. Harrigan; Mark D. May; Michael S. Scalzo,
Sr.; Robert Schaeffer; Mark Gladfelter; Samuel D. Pilger; Daniel W.
Schmidt; and Tom J. Ventura, are:
Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
Sara E. DeStefano, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
- and -
Bernard T. King, Esq.
Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
BLITMAN & KING LLP
443 North Franklin Street
Syracuse, NY 13204
The Attorneys for the Defendant Meketa Investment Group, Inc.
Diana K. Lloyd, Esq.
Samuel N. Rudman, Esq.
Preston F. Bruno, Esq.
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART
Two International Place
Boston, MA 02110
- and -
Eric G. Serron, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
The Attorneys for the Defendant Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC:
Edward J. Meehan, Esq.
Stephen M. Saxon, Esq.
Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
Kalena R. Kettering, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
AMERICAN GENERAL: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due March 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LSIMC, LLC v. American
General Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-11518-SVW-PVC
(C.D. Cal), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order
granting stipulation to set briefing schedule and hearing date for
class certification as follows:
-- The Defendant shall file its opposition March 25, 2022
to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on or before:
-- The Plaintiff shall file its reply in April 25, 2022
support of the Motion on or before:
American General Life Insurance operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36kX2St at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Wants Judge to Reject $27.5MM Legal Fee Request
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple Inc has
asked a judge to reject a request for $27.5 million in legal fees
from a law firm that represented plaintiffs in a $95 million
settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit alleging deceptive
AppleCare warranty practices.
Apple's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said in
a Feb. 11 California federal court filing that the litigation was
not particularly "risky" and the outcome not so remarkable to
justify an award of 29% of the settlement fund.
"While the settlement represents a fair result for the class, it
was by no means exceptional," Paul Weiss partners William Isaacson
and Karen Dunn told the court.
Apple asked U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco to
limit the fee award to plaintiffs' firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
to $23.7 million, or 25% of the settlement.
That lower percentage is the benchmark for courts in California and
other states that are part of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Hagens Berman partner Steve Berman did not immediately return a
message on Feb. 14 seeking comment. Isaacson and Dunn also were not
immediately available.
A court hearing is scheduled for April 27.
Apple settled the class action claims last year, and Orrick in
November granted preliminary approval to the deal.
The plaintiffs alleged in 2016 that Apple had issued refurbished
replacement products under warranty programs despite contract
claims promising "new or equivalent to new" devices. The lawsuit
said Apple had unfairly charged premium prices to consumers.
Apple's lawyers in their bid to knock down the fee award said the
$95 million settlement amounted to "only 13% of plaintiffs' claimed
damages."
Apple clarified language in AppleCare contracts after the
settlement, "but there is nothing in the record that supports class
counsel's supposition that the change was attributable to class
counsel's efforts," the Paul Weiss lawyers said.
Seattle-based Hagens Berman in its fee petition called Apple "a
formidable defendant" with the resources to hire experienced and
well-respected attorneys." The plaintiffs' firm was founded in 1993
and has more than 80 lawyers in offices across the U.S.
The firm said a 29% award would be "within the range for a class
action of this size and complexity."
The case is Maldonado v. Apple, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO.
For plaintiffs:
For Apple: Karen Dunn and William Isaacson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison [GN]
ARNOT HEALTH: Zona, Bain Seek to Certify Class of Nurses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY ZONA and FREDERICK
BAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ARNOT HEALTH, INC., ARNOT OGDEN MEDICAL CENTER, and ST. JOSEPH'S
HOSPITAL, Case No. 6:20-cv-06902-FPG-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) and (b)
(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked
at Arnot Ogden Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital,
and/or Ira Davenport Memorial Hospital at any time from
October 28, 2014 until the date class notice is provided
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);"
2. certifying the following two subclasses within the broader
Class above:
Subclass A:
"All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked
in a permanent staff nurse position at Arnot Ogden Medical
Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, and/or Ira Davenport
Memorial Hospital at any time from October 28, 2014 until
the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2); and
Subclass B:
"All current and former non-exempt nurses who have worked
in a traveling nurse position at Arnot Ogden Medical
Center, St. Joseph's Hospital, and/or Ira Davenport
Memorial Hospital at any time from October 28, 2014 until
the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2).
3. certifying the following causes of action of the First
Amended Class Action Complaint, in the following respects:
-- First Cause of Action: Failure to compensate for work
performed "off-the-clock" during purported 30-minute
"meal periods" that Defendants have systematically
deducted from the Class members' pay, in violation of
N.Y. Lab. Law section 190 et seq.
-- Second Cause of Action: Failure to pay overtime
compensation for work performed "off-the-clock" during
purported 30-minute "meal periods" that the Defendants
have systematically deducted from the Class members'
pay, during weeks in which hours worked exceed 40, in
violation of N.Y. Lab. Law section 190 et seq.
-- Third Cause of Action: Failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law
section 195, arising from the failure to pay for all
hours worked and resultant failure to provide wage
statements showing the accurate number of regular and
overtime hours worked, wages owed, and rates of pay;
4. appointing Plaintiff Frederick Bain to represent Subclass
A under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Plaintiff Tammy Zona to
represent Subclass B under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to serve as class
counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4);
5. permitting them to submit a proposed form of notice to the
Classes and a notice plan to the Court after certification
is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
Arnot Health is a regional integrated healthcare delivery system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhTL0C
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schnedeirwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
John J. Nestico, Esq.
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
AUTOZONE INC: Court Extends Class Certification-Related Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR.,
and NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants, on behalf of the
AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp
(W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Mark Norris entered an order granting
the remainder of the parties' joint motion to extend certain class
certification related deadlines.
Before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Certain
Class Certification Deadlines, filed December 27, 2021. The Court
granted in part and reserved ruling in part on the Motion in an
earlier Order.
As foreshadowed in that Order, the Court scheduled and held a
status conference in this matter on February 11, 2022. The Court,
informed by the Parties at the conference, establishes the
following deadlines related to Motion:
1. Response Deadline: April 1, 2022
2. Reply Deadline: April 22, 2022
Specifically, the Court ordered that all stipulations concerning
class certification would be due on or before February 4, 2022 and
reserved judgment on due dates for response and reply
to the Motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3xZtE at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney, et al., File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVE KEARNEY, et al., on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKEAKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Case No.
17-cv-13544-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying this action against the Defendant BMW of North
American, LLC as a class action.
The Plaintiffs include Dave Kearney, James Barr, Tony Trosclair,
Ronald Rothrock, Courtney Loughrey, and Kara Finch.
BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9f2pA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
zjacobs@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
dmoffa@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
- and -
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Christopher T. Gilroy
ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com
BECHT ENGINEERING: Court OK's Parties' Agreed Bid for Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BECHT
ENGINEERING CO., INC. Case No. 1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Michael J. Truncale entered an order granting the
Parties' agreed motion for hearing.
The following motions: are set for oral hearing before this
Honorable Court on March 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2,
Jack Brooks Federal Building, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas.
1. The Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss without
Prejudice for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to
12(b)(2), together with the Parties' Responses, Replies,
and Sur-Replies;
2. The Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Amend Order for
Equitable Tolling to Cover Expanded Class Opt-Ins;
3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for
Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, together with
the Parties' Responses, Replies, and Sur-Replies; and
4. The Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
together with the Parties' Responses, Replies, and Sur-
Replies.
Becht provides technical excellence in Engineering Solutions, Plant
Services, Training and Software Tools to worldwide clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34UIqcj at no extra charge.[CC]
BEDROCK PC: Porter Slams Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEDROCK PC 1099, LLC; AND EOG RESOURCES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00524 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2022)
is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover overtime
compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act resulting from
the Defendants' alleged misclassification scheme.
According to the complaint, Bedrock has contracted with EOG, an
international energy company engaged in exploration and production
of oil and gas, to provide water consultants for EOG's oil and gas
operations.
Mr. Porter worked as a water consultant for EOG from January of
2018 until March of 2020. He interviewed and was hired through
Bedrock, and he worked exclusively as a water consultant at
EOG.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELLINO, P.C.
1020 Macon St., Suite 15
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 908-9861
Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
BRIGHT HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
BHG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
OSH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
CLVT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE:BHG)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bright Health
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about June 24, 2021; and/or (b) Bright Health securities between
June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 7, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Bright Health had overstated
its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was
ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii)
the Company was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because
of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv)
all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative
impact on Bright Health's business and financial condition; and (v)
as a result, the documents issued in connection with the IPO and
Defendants' public statements throughout the class period were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSH)
OSH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 6, 2020 -
November 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 14, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oak-street-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Oak
Street Health, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street
maintained relationships with third-party marketing agents likely
to provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street was providing
free transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a
manner that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) these
activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) as such,
Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice and/or other federal law enforcement
agencies; (5) as a result, Oak Street was subject to adverse
impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of
management resources; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Clarivate Plc (NYSE:CLVT)
CLVT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2021 - December 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=23683&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Clarivate Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clarivate maintained defective
disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) the
foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the Company
accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate failed to
properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition of
CPA Global, a global leader in Intellectual Property software and
tech-enabled services; (iv) accordingly, the Company was reasonably
likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial
statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
BRISTOL BAY: Joint Bid to Continue Phase I Discovery Date Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed
AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman
Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce
Resources, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the
phase one discovery cut-off deadline only for the Parties' taking
of depositions from January 21, 2022 to March 23, 2022.
The Parties also agree, and respectfully request of the Court, that
the deadline to file a motion for class certification
be continued from February 25, 2022 to April, 22, 2022.
The Parties' request to extend the foregoing deadlines is due to
the following facts:
(1) counsel for Plaintiffs was unavailable to defend the
depositions during the month of October 2021 due to being
scheduled for trial;
(2) lead counsel for Defendants 15 has been on the East
Coast, unexpectedly, for much of November and December
2021 caring for her ailing father and handling his
estate, as he had cancer and has since passed away (lead
counsel's mom also passed away suddenly in April 2021,
increasing the need for her to be in Pennsylvania to care
for her father throughout 2021); and
(3) the Plaintiffs do not speak English fluently enough to
testify in English, the language each of the seven
the Plaintiffs is able to testify in has changed from
prior litigation due to the passage of time, the Parties
have met and conferred to confirm the appropriate
language translation required for each of seven
Plaintiffs, and Defendants have secured an appropriate
translator available for depositions for each of the
required languages in February and March 2022.
On January 28, 2021, this Court issued its Scheduling Order
Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceeding ("Scheduling
Order") which specified that "Phase One discovery," including
pre-certification depositions, was to be completed by August 20,
2021.
In the months following issuance of the Court's 3 Scheduling Order,
the Parties diligently engaged in discovery, including propounding
and responding to written discovery, conferring on a stipulated
protective order and producing voluminous records.
On April 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint ("Motion to Amend") seeking to add an additional
cause of action for breach of contract, thereby extending the
statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' claims from three years to
four years.
The Defendants opposed the Motion on April 29, 2021, and Plaintiffs
replied on May 13, 2021. As of August 2021, a decision on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend was still pending. Due largely to the
fact that the pleadings had not yet been settled in this action,
the Parties filed their first Joint Motion to Continue All Dates Re
Discovery and Certification ("Joint Motion to Continue") on August
11, 2021.
Bristol Bay is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in
settlement of aboriginal land claims.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H94qgp at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
A. Melissa Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON HEEDER LLP
2727 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-1313
E-mail: melissa@johnsonheeder.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: atodd-gher@littler.com
sfahimi@littler.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Seeks Time Extension to Respond
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC.; et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their time for
responding to Defendants' six motions to exclude the opinions of
all of the Plaintiffs' experts that were submitted in support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3(a), the Plaintiffs submit with this
motion a proposed order and the Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in
Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Enlarge the Time to
File Their Responses to Defendants Six Motions to Exclude the
Opinions of Plaintiffs' Experts in Support of Motion for Class
Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August
18, 2021. The Defendants' opposition to the motion is due on March
3, 2022 and Plaintiffs' reply is due on May 19, 2022. The hearing
on the motion is set for June 9, 2022.
Brookdale Senior owns and operates retirement homes across the
United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JGDczs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Travis C. Close, Esq.
Rachel L. Steyer, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
tclose@schneiderwallace.com
rsteyer@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
GERTLER GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
E-mail: kathryn@stebnerassociates.com
brian@stebnerassociates.com
- and -
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
Amy Xu, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN
GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
Bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
jyelin@rbgg.com
axu@rbgg.com
- and -
David T. Marks, Esq.
MARKS, BALETTE, GIESSEL
& YOUNG, P.L.L.C.
7521 Westview Drive
Houston, TX 77055
Telephone: (713) 681-3070
Facsimile: (713) 681-2811
E-mail: davidm@marksfirm.com
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Soenen et al. Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonym OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katiana Soenen, et al., v.
Brown University, Case No. 1:21-cv-00325 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge
John J Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion
to proceed under a Pseudonym.
The Plaintiffs may use the pseudonym for pre-trial proceedings
until the point of class certification, and trial at which point
the Defendant can seek a Court order to end its use.
The nature of suit states civil rights – education.
Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in
Providence, Rhode Island.[CC]
BUMBLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Feb. 14
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased the Class A common stock of Bumble Inc.
("Bumble" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BMBL) issued in connection
with its Secondary Public Offering ("SPO") conducted on or about
September 10, 2021.
If you purchased Bumble Class A common stock issued in connection
with the SPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 25, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Bumble investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, text
or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Bumble Securities Class Litigation
Bumble, headquartered in Austin, Texas, operates the Bumble app and
Badoo app online dating platforms.
The action alleges that the registration statement that Bumble
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission in connection with
the SPO failed to disclose that: (1) Bumble had in fact lost tens
of thousands of paying users during the third quarter of 2021; (2)
a price hike for paid services on the Bumble app deterred the app's
users from signing up for such services; (3) a significant number
of paying users were departing the Badoo app and/or were unable to
make payments because of issues arising from the Company's
transition of its payment platform; and (4) as a result, Bumble's
business metrics and prospects were weaker than represented in the
registration statement.
On November 10, 2021, the Company announced its third quarter of
2021 financial results, disclosing that Bumble's total paying user
count had declined to 2.86 million, below the 2.9 million paying
users as of June 30, 2021 that the Company had touted in the SPO
registration statement.
By January 24, 2022, when the action was filed, Bumble Class A
common stock was trading under $27 per share, less than half of the
SPO offering price.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is an
internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide
for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting
that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of
the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world."
Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10
Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
CONTACT:
Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]
CAPTURERX: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $4.75 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Kim Cohen, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
CaptureRx has agreed to pay $4.75 million to settle a proposed
class-action lawsuit related to a data breach it experienced last
year, according to court documents filed on Feb. 11. [GN]
CASH ADVANCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kamisha Stanton v. Cash
Advance Centers, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00285 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order amending the scheduling
order as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff shall designate March 14, 2022
experts on or before:
(2) The Defendant shall designate April 11, 2022
experts on or before:
(3) Discovery shall be completed May 13, 2022
on or before:
(4) Dispositive motions and Daubert June 6, 2022
motions shall be filed on or
before:
(5) The Plaintiff shall file a July 8, 2022
motion for class certification
on or before:
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Vilore is an importer, distributor and marketer of Hispanic brands
in the U.S. and Canada.[CC]
CASTLE STRATEGIC: Akselrod Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY AKSELROD v. CASTLE
STRATEGIC PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01529-JLR (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order denying
Akselrod's motion for an extension to the class certification
deadlines because he has not shown good cause.
The deadline to complete discovery on class certification remains
April 8, 2022, and the deadline for Mr. Akselrod's motion for class
certification remains May 10, 2022.
Castle Strategic is a real estate company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BGd2Ku at no extra charge.[CC]
CLARIVATE PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 25, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CLVT) securities between February 26, 2021 and December 27,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Clarivate investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/clarivate-plc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed that previous financial
reports "should no longer be relied upon because of an error in
such financial statements." The Company specified that the error
relates "to the treatment under U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles ('GAAP') relating to an equity plan included in the CPA
Global business combination, which was consummated on October 1,
2020 ('the CPA Global Transaction'). In the affected financial
statements, certain awards made by CPA Global under its equity plan
were incorrectly included as part of the acquisition accounting for
the CPA Global Transaction."
On this news, Clarivate's stock fell $1.70, or 6.9%, to close at
$22.78 per share on December 28, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Clarivate
maintained defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result
of a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting; (2) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to
how the Company accounted for warrants; (3) as a result, Clarivate
failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its
acquisition of CPA Global; (4) accordingly, the Company was
reasonably likely to restate one or more of its previously issued
financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 25,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Reschedule of Class Cert Hearing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Parties agree that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and Colgate's motions to exclude shall be
rescheduled from February 28, 2022 to March 14, 2022, or such other
later date after April 11, 2022 that is convenient for the Court.
The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on December
17, 2020. Colgate filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification on April 8, 2021.
Colgate filed two motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses
and evidence with its opposition to the motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff filed her reply brief on the motion for class
certification and oppositions briefs to Colgate’s motions to
exclude on July 15, 2021.
Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products
company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3scGh4H at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
- and -
Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 991-8960
Facsimile: (212) 991-8952
E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com
- and -
Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
The Attorneys for Colgate-Palmolive Company7
Sable Hodson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1601 Elm Street, 27th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 972-1770
Facsimile: (214) 972-1771
E-mail: sable.hodson@kirkland.com
COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY: Maldonado Loses Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISELA M. MALDONADO v.
COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05428-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo
entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to deny class
certification and strike the Plaintiff's class allegations:
1. The instant action will proceed solely on the individual
claims of the named Plaintiff.
2. All class allegations will be struck from the pleadings.
3. As class certification is denied, Defendants' motion for
judicial finding is moot.
4. Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Status Report filed on
September 24, 2020, the Parties are instructed to submit a
further joint status report and discovery plan
within 30 days of this order.
The Plaintiff failed to file her motion for class certification by
the November 23, 2021 deadline set forth in the Court's December
11, 2020 Class Discovery and Certification Scheduling Order. The
Court understands this failure as a determination by the Plaintiff
that she intends to proceed only with her individual claims and not
on behalf of a class of other individuals.
The instant action will proceed solely on the individual claims of
the named Plaintiff and all class allegations will be struck from
the pleadings.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33yRiDG at no extra charge.[CC]
CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 14
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Cortexyme, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRTX) resulting from
allegations that Cortexyme may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Cortexyme 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-2254.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 October 26, 2021, after market hours,
Cortexyme issued a press release "report[ing] top-line results from
its Phase 2/3 GAIN Trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study
evaluating the efficacy of atuzaginstat (COR388), an
investigational orally administered small-molecule that targets
gingipain proteases from the bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.
gingivalis)." The press release reported, in relevant part, that
the study had failed to meet statistical significance in its
co-primary endpoints of improving cognitive and functional
abilities in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.
On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $44.17 per share, or
76%, to close at $13.51 per share on October 27, 2021, damaging
investors.
Then, on January 26, 2022, before market hours, Cortexyme disclosed
receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") advising that the FDA had "plac[ed] a full clinical hold on
atuzaginstat's (COR388) Investigational New Drug application (IND
134303)."
On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $2.85 per share, or 31%,
to close at $6.21 per share on January 26, 2022, further damaging
investors.
On February 1, 2022, Cortexyme issued a press release announcing
plans to reduce its workforce by 53% in response to the clinical
hold. That same day, Cortexyme announced the resignations of Casey
Lynch, the Company's CEO and Chair of the Board, and Steve Dominy,
the Company's Chief Scientific Officer and a director.
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.
CONTACT:
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 [GN]
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Cervantes Reply Brief Extended to Feb. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cervantes v. CRST
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00075 (N.D. Iowa),
the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to file reply Brief in support of motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff's Reply Brief is due by Feb. 25, 2022, Judge Williams
says.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa.[CC]
DEL MONTE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on Feb. 11, Libby
Gatling-Lee filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District
of California against Del Monte Foods, Inc. alleging consumer
protection violations for false and misleading advertising.
According to the complaint, Del Monte Foods is a California
corporation with principal place of business in Walnut Creek,
California and manufactures a variety of food products including
College Inn broths and stocks.
The complaint alleges that College Inn Chicken Broth, along with
many of the defendant's other broths and stocks, promptly display a
label on the front of the package that states "NO MSG." However,
the complaint further alleges that the defendant's products that
are labeled with "NO MSG" do contain ingredients that contain MSG.
Specifically, the complaint states the defendant adds "yeast
extract" which is a substantial source of MSG.
Additionally, the complaint purports that the defendant's products
state, in a very small font on the side of the product, "a small
amount of glutamate occurs naturally in yeast extract." The
plaintiff argues that this qualifying statement does not make the
defendant's "NO MSG" claim truthful or not misleading. To support
this argument, the complaint states the FDA has specifically
recognized that it is misleading to label a product "NO MSG" or "NO
MSG ADDED" when it has the particular, free-glutamate-containing
ingredients that are in the defendant's products.
The named plaintiff states that, in the winter of 2021, she read
and relied on the defendant's "NO MSG" label when she purchased
College Inn Chicken Broth. She further alleges that she tries to
avoid eating foods that include MSG, she did not notice the
qualifying statement on the packaging, and she would not have
purchased the product at the price she paid if she had known that
the products actually do contain free glutamates. The plaintiff
argues that she and other similarly situated individuals were
misled and face an imminent threat of harm because they will not be
able to rely on the labels in the future, and thus, will not be
able to purchase the products.
The plaintiffs bring the present suit alleging violation of
Consumer Protection Acts in over 40 states, violation of the New
York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, statutory, treble and punitive
damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The
plaintiffs are represented by Dovel & Luner, LLP and Broslavsky &
Weinman, LLP. [GN]
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Injury From Steam Pipe Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Teague and Mackenzie Moore, writing for WJHL, report that
Eastman Chemical Company faces a class-action lawsuit following the
Jan. 31 "steam pipe failure" at the company's Kingsport plant,
which injured five workers and caused debris possibly containing
asbestos to rain down in a nearby neighborhood.
The lawsuit filed by Knoxville-based firm Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman accuses Eastman of trespass, negligence, and
being a public and private nuisance. It claims Eastman "engaged in
ultra-hazardous activities by transporting high pressure steam
under unsafe condition through an asbestos-lined steam line."
The lawsuit also claims the company failed to warn nearby residents
in a timely manner about the "dangers of contaminants released by
the steam line explosion."
On the day of the incident, Eastman did not release a public
statement until nearly an hour and a half after the steam line
failure happened. Since then, the company has said that it did not
ask city officials to send an alert to residents because it did not
see the potential for off-site impact until hours after the
incident.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Sharon Weatherly, owns a home in the
area where the debris fell. The lawsuit claims that Weatherly's
neighborhood and much of Kingsport will be negatively impacted by
the incident.
Eastman has said it does not believe anyone was exposed to a
harmful level of asbestos. [GN]
ELECTRIC LAST: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Attention Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III
Corp. ("ELMS") (NASDAQ: ELMS) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between March 31, 2021 and February 1, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in ELMS, contact us about
potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=23622&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against ELMS includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ELMS's
previously issued financial statements were false and unreliable;
(2) ELMS's earlier reported financial statements would need
restatement; (3) certain ELMS executives and/or directors purchased
equity in the Company at substantial discounts to market value
without obtaining an independent valuation; (4) on November 25,
2021 (Thanksgiving), the Company's Board formed an independent
Special Committee to conduct an inquiry into certain sales of
equity securities made by and to individuals associated with the
Company; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: April 4, 2022
Aggrieved ELMS investors only have until April 4, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Threat Over Battlefield Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that tens of
thousands of people have signed a petition calling for EA Games to
offer unconditional refunds for its new game Battlefield 2042 or
else face a class action lawsuit.
As of Feb. 11, more than 160,000 people had signed a Change.org
petition demanding EA Games refund its customers for the game.
Petition creator Satoshi Nakamoto said the game was "unplayable"
when it launched and that it still "has bugs that drastically
change the in-game experience so much that it's deemed an
unfinished release by many community members."
Nakamoto states that if the petition gets more than 50,000
signatures, he will reach out to "some of the best class action
lawyers in the country" to evaluate a case against EA and DICE.
"EA's release of Battlefield 2042 was a mockery of every customer
who purchased this video game for $70 due to EA's false
advertising," he states. "Battlefield 2042 has cost consumers
millions of dollars in damages and upset thousands of customers
worldwide."
The petition is directed at EA, DICE, Sony Interactive
Entertainment, Steam, Microsoft and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC). DICE is a video game developer and a subsidiary of EA.
EA Says It Is "Committed To Pushing Up The Quality Of The Game,"
Delays Start Of First Season
The company addressed customer feedback that the game was released
unfinished in its latest blog post.
It said it was "committed to pushing up the quality of the game"
and announced that it was delaying the start of the first season
until the summer as it works with the community to fix the
technical side of the game and tweak its most controversial design
elements.
In 2020, EA was hit with a class action lawsuit in Canada alleging
the company's practice of selling randomized "loot boxes" for
profit constituted an illegal gambling business.
Plaintiffs claimed the company knew that the loot box enterprise
was illegal and "wilfully concealed" its unlawful nature from
customers.
Meanwhile Nintendo was hit with a class action lawsuit last year
alleging its Nintendo Switch has a defect dubbed the "Joy-Con
drift," a problem with the controller's analog stick that causes
the game to move on its own.
In 2019, a plaintiff in the state of Washington filed a class
action lawsuit asserting that Nintendo knew of the problem but
failed to take any action or warn consumers. [GN]
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Court Certifies Class in Shields Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al.,
v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION, Case No. 18-cv-07393-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under
Rule 23(b)(2) but denying the motion to certify a class
under Rule 23(b)(3);
2. appointing Winston & Strawn LLP as class counsel to
represent the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class;
3. denying Federation Internationale de Natation's (FINA)
motion to file supplemental materials and granting in part
and denying in part the parties' administrative motions to
file under seal.
The Court will hold a further Case Management Conference in this
case and the related case on March 3, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom
videoconference. An updated joint case management conference
statement, including a proposed schedule through trial, is due
February 24, 2022. The Court will refer to the arguments regarding
Plaintiffs' merit expert reports, so the parties need not repeat
them in the case management conference statement.
The Plaintiffs are professional swimmers who bring federal
antitrust claims and a state law tort claim against FINA, related
to FINA's control over international swimming competitions.
FINA is a Swiss organization recognized by the International
Olympic Committee ("IOC") as the governing body for Olympic
swimming, diving, high diving, water polo, artistic swimming, FINA
masters and open-water swimming.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JA1cUQ at no extra charge.[CC]
FENNEC PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 11 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, and docketed under 22-cv-00115, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec securities
between May 28, 2021 and November 26, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec
securities during the Class Period, you have until April 11, 2022
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that develops product
candidates for use in the treatment of cancer in the United States.
The Company's lead product candidate is PEDMARK, a formulation of
sodium thiosulfate, which has completed a Phase III clinical trial
for the prevention of cisplatin induced hearing loss, or
ototoxicity, in children.
In December 2018, Fennec initiated a rolling New Drug Application
("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for
PEDMARK for the prevention of ototoxicity induced by cisplatin
chemotherapy in patients 1 month to < 18 years of age with
localized, non-metastatic, solid tumors, which was completed in
February 2020 (the "Initial Pedmark NDA").
In August 2020, Fennec announced that it had received a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA for the Initial Pedmark NDA
because of deficiencies identified at the manufacturing facility of
the Company's drug product manufacturer.
Then, in May 2021, the Company announced that it had resubmitted
the NDA for PEDMARK with the FDA following receipt of final minutes
from a Type A meeting with the FDA (the "Resubmitted Pedmark
NDA").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Fennec had not successfully remediated, and
overstated its efforts to remediate, issues with the manufacturing
facility of its drug product manufacturer for PEDMARK; (ii) as a
result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Resubmitted Pedmark
NDA; (iii) accordingly, the regulatory and commercial prospects of
the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA were overstated; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 29, 2021, during pre-market hours, Fennec issued a
press release "announc[ing] that it expects to receive a [CRL]
after the PDUFA [Prescription Drug User Fee Act] target action date
of November 27, 2021 from the [FDA] regarding its [Resubmitted
Pedmark NDA]." Specifically, Fennec advised investors that "[t]he
FDA has indicated that, following a recent completion of a
pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of our drug
product manufacturer, deficiencies have been identified[,]" and
that "[o]nce the official CRL is received, the Company plans to
request a Type A meeting to discuss the deficiencies and steps
required for the resubmission of the NDA for PEDMARKTM."
On this news, Fennec's common share price fell $4.86 per
share, or 50.41%, to close at $4.78 per share on November 29,
2021.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
FIRST SOLAR: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked and award-winning shareholder
rights firm, on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased First Solar, Inc.
("First Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FSLR) common stock between
February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). First Solar investors have until March 8, 2022 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
On January 15, 2020, Barclays reported that First Solar had
"seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream
solar market" and that the Company had concealed its rapidly
declining market share through misleading financial reporting by
including projects in its Project Development pipeline that had
actually been completed in prior years.
If you currently own stock or options in First Solar, Inc. and
suffered a loss, click here to participate.
If you want to receive additional information and protect your
investments free of charge, please contact David J. Schwartz using
the toll-free number (800) 321-0476 or via email at
david@labaton.com.
About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
labaton.com.
CONTACT:
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com [GN]
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy
Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v.
FirstGroup America, Inc., FirstGroup America, Inc. Employee
Benefits Committee, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following proposed class in this action (or
in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may
determine to be appropriate):
"All participants and beneficiaries of the FirstGroup
America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or
after October 1, 2013 who had any portion of their account
invested in Aon Hewitt Funds, excluding Defendants, any of
their directors, and any officers or employees of
the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's
investment or administrative functions;" and
2. appointing them as the class representatives for the
classes; and
3. appointing their counsel as class counsel (Nichols Kaster,
PLLP as lead counsel and Freking Myers & Reul as local
counsel).
FirstGroup America provides transportation services. The Company
offers leasing, transit contracting, management, maintenance, and
ancillary services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34UpL03
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
mthomson@nka.com
- and -
George M. Reul, Jr., Esq.
FREKING MYERS & REUL
600 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 721-1975
Facsimile: (513) 651-2570
E-mail: greul@fmr.law
FIVE GUYS: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq., David Anthony, Esq., Scott Kelly,
Esq., Benjamin White, Esq., and Mary Zinsner, Esq., of Troutman
Pepper, in an article for JDSupra, report that on January 24, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California took the
unusual step of declining to sign off -- for the fourth time -- on
a proposed settlement, resulting from a putative class-action
lawsuit against Five Guys Enterprises LLC and its parent Encore
FGBF LLC. The lawsuit alleges the popular burger chain's credit
reporting and labor practices violate various federal and
California laws. In Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, et al., the
court denied the class's fourth motion for conditional
certification and preliminary settlement approval, holding that the
most recent settlement version represents a "disservice" to the
class.
In May 2017, Jeremy Lusk filed a putative class action against Five
Guys and its parent, alleging the burger chain's credit reporting
and labor practices violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
in addition to California's Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and
Labor Code Sections 201, 204, 226.7, 510, 512, 1198, 2698, and
2802. Specifically, the class alleges Five Guys commissioned credit
and background checks for prospective employees to influence hiring
decisions without the necessary disclosures, regularly required
employees to work more than six hours per shift without meal and
rest breaks, and refused to reimburse employees for driving their
personal vehicles to pick up supplies.
Five Guys removed the action to federal court, and the parties
exchanged discovery before reaching a class-wide settlement in
mediation. Things went awry, however, in the Rule 23 approval
process. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
reviewing court must ensure the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate in light of several factors, including the risk of
adjudication on the merits and the reasonableness of attorney's
fees. Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii reviewed and rejected
requests for conditional certification and preliminary settlement
approval in December 2019, October 2020, and June 2021, taking
issue with the class's risk generalized assessment, insufficient
discovery, excessive attorney's fees, and overly broad releases of
liability. Judge Ishii's fourth and most recent review, handed down
January 24, largely identified the same issues, focusing on the
vague risk assessment and failure to distinguish between class
members' injuries of varying severity, such that certain class
members would receive a "windfall" despite having minor injuries
relative to other class members.
The court admitted it could not identify "clear signs of collusion"
but characterized Five Guys's willingness to pay $1 million to
settle claims it had just discredited in its briefs as "a perverse
set of circumstances." Moreover, Judge Ishii accused the named
plaintiff Lusk of "doing himself and the putative class he seeks to
represent a disservice by trying to fit a square peg in a round
hole." He emphasized the court's duty to "cautiously and rigorously
scrutinize" attempts to settle class actions before certification
and warned both parties to "carefully consider how they would like
to proceed before another motion of this kind is immediately
filed." The court, he continued "will not further consider a new
motion that merely tinkers with the same details."
Judge Ishii's repeated rejections of Five Guys settlements reflect
a broader sensitivity toward class-action settlements across the
Ninth Circuit, a downstream effect of recent congressional efforts
to streamline the class-action process and prevent suspected
collusion. In 2018, Congress made several changes to Rule 23,
including heightening the standards for class-action settlement
approval. The reform added the factors (risk, reasonable fees,
etc.) that Judge Ishii relied on to reject the settlement agreement
in his January 24 Five Guys opinion. The decision suggests that the
changes to Rule 23 are having some effect on putative settlements.
Both class counsel and defense counsel should take care to include
detailed risk assessments and reasonable attorney's fees in any
class-action settlement eligible for review in the Ninth Circuit.
[GN]
GEICO GENERAL: 2nd Circuit Rejuvenates Underpayment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit
partially rejuvenated a class action on Feb. 14 accusing Geico
General Insurance Co. of underpaying for total losses of certain
vehicles, saying New York insurance law requires insurers to look
at the prices of new comparable cars when calculating the
replacement cost. [GN]
GILEAD SCIENCES: Second Joint Stipulation on Class Briefing Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley et al v. Gilead
Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate, subject to approval by this Court, as follows:
1. The Defendants shall file one joint opposition brief to
each of DPP's and EPPs' respective class certification
motions. The page limit for Defendants' respective briefs
in opposition to each of DPP's and EPPs' motions for class
certification, due June 2, 2022, shall be 40 pages.
2. The page limit for the EPPs and DPP's reply briefs in
support of their respective class certification motions,
due June 30, 2022, shall be 24 pages for each reply brief;
however, EPPs expressly reserve the right to seek leave
for an extension of this page limit in proportion to any
page-limit extension Defendants receive for their
opposition brief.
3. All briefs, exhibits, declarations, expert reports, and
similar materials filed in support of or in opposition to
Plaintiffs' class certification motions and related
Daubert briefs that contain information designated as
confidential under the Protective Orders ("Class
Certification Material(") may, as an initial matter, be
filed conditionally under seal in their entirety.
4. On or before August 4, 2022, a designating party or non-
party seeking to keep any portion of the Class
Certification Material under seal, regardless of whether
they are the filing party, shall file an omnibus (i.e.,
single motion so as to avoid excessive briefing)
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, including any
accompanying declarations (including those of affected
non-parties) in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)
(1)(A), and will file a proposed order, redacted versions
of all applicable filings previously filed under seal, and
unredacted versions indicating portions to be redacted in
compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B)–(D).
5. On or before August 11, 2022, any Party may file a
response in opposition to any Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal.
6. On or before August 18, 2022, any Party may file a reply
in support of any Administrative Motion to File Under
Seal.
7. To the extent a Party's Class Certification Material
contains information designated as confidential under the
Protective Orders by a non-party, the filing party will
serve, on the same day as such filing, written notice to
the designating party providing the information required
in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) and providing only the portion
of the Class Certification Material that quotes,
describes, or otherwise incorporates the designating
party's designated material.
8. The Parties agree that, subject to this Court's approval,
the Parties may depart from the sealing requirements set
forth in Local Rules only as set forth in this
stipulation.
9. The Parties agree not to pursue separate challenges to
confidentiality designations with respect to Class
Certification Material pursuant to the procedures set
forth herein. The Parties agree that nothing in this
stipulation otherwise affects the Parties' obligations
pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Protective Order (e.g., to
appropriately designate information and to promptly
withdraw any mistaken confidentiality designation).
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33zMIFn at no extra charge.[CC]
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs, are:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Richard Brunell, Esq.
Nicholas William Shadowen, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
Tina Joann Miranda, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
Mark A. Lemley, Esq.
David McGowan, Esq.
Aditya V. Kamdar, Esq.
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 362-6666
Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com
mlemley@durietangri.com
dmcgowan@durietangri.com
akamdar@durietangri.com
- and -
Allyson R. Bennett, Esq.
W. Henry Huttinger, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
953 East 3rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-4422
Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
E-mail: abennett@durietangri.com
hhuttinger@durietangri.com3
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
THOMAS M. Sobol, Esq.
Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tom@hbsslaw.com
grega@hbsslaw.com
abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs are:
John Radice, Esq.
Dan Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Michael Ols, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
mpols@millershah.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
arodriguez@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
- and -
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
lglancy@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Eugene Spector, Esq.
William Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
The Interim Liaison Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. are:
Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
3708 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: (415) 751-4193
Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
pbc@scarpullalaw.com
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (501) 952-8558
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
Attorneys for Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Holdings,
LLC, Gilead Sciences, LLC, and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, are:
Heather M. Burke, Esq.
Jeremy K. Ostrander, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109
Telephone: (650) 213-0300
Facsimile: (650) 213-8158
E-mail: hburke@whitecase.com
jostrander@whitecase.com
- and -
Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
Peter J. Carney, Esq.
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3807
Telephone: (202) 626-3600
Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com
pcarney@whitecase.com
- and -
Heather K. McDevitt, Esq.
Bryan D. Gant, Esq.
Kristen O'Shaughnessy, Esq.
Michael E. Hamburger, Esq.
Raj S. Gandesha, Esq.
WHITE CASE
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
E-mail: hmcdevitt@whitecase.com
bgant@whitecase.com
kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com
mhamburger@whitecase.com
rgandesha@whitecase.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Janssen R&D Ireland, Janssen Products,
LP and Johnson & Johnson, are:
Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
Joanne C. Lewers (pro hac vice)
FAEGRE DRINKER
Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
paul.saint-antoine@faegredrinker.com
joanne.lewers@faegredrinker.com
GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Calhoun Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending class
certification briefing deadlines as follows:
1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply in Further
Support of their Motion for Class Certification (and
related briefing, including oppositions to Google's prior
Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of
Class Certification) shall be two business days after
final transcripts of the depositions of the three Google
Declarants are transmitted to the parties.
2. The deadline for Google to file its Reply to Plaintiffs'
oppositions to Google's prior Motions to Strike Plaintiff
Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification shall be
four weeks after Plaintiffs file their oppositions.
3. The deadline for Google to file its Opposition to any
motions by Plaintiffs to strike Google expert reports
shall be five weeks after Plaintiffs file such motions.
4. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply to
Google's Opposition to any Plaintiff motion to strike
Google expert reports shall be three weeks after Google
files such Opposition.
5. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall remain calendared for April 21, 2022.
On October 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed
class of Chrome users in the United States. On December 22, 2021,
Google filed its brief in opposition and related supporting
documents, including two motions to strike certain Plaintiffs'
supporting expert reports.
On January 11, 2022, the Court ordered that the deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their Reply in Further Support of their Motion
for Class Certification (and related briefing, including
oppositions to Google’s prior Motions to Strike Plaintiff Expert
Reports in Support of Class Certification) be February 11, 2022 and
the deadline for Google to file its Reply in Support of its Motions
to Strike Plaintiff Expert Reports in Support of Class
Certification be March 11, 19 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JudWwc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
aornelas@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
David Straite, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
Sharon Cruz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
scruz@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Jay Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Schapiro, Esq.
Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Jomaire Crawford, Esq.
Josef Ansorge, Esq.
Jonathan Tse, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com
stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com
josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com
jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com
HALLS FERRY: Tierney Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TIERNEY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HALLS
FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-CV-00828-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claims to proceed as a collective
action;
2. directing the Defendant to identify all delivery drivers
employed at any time in the last three years;
3. directing the Defendant to provide notice-related
information to Plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days; and
4. directing the issuance of the Plaintiff's proposed notice
and consent form to all such persons.
This case includes collective action claims for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime compensation under the FLSA. The group of
employees at issue in this class are pizza delivery drivers
employed by the Defendant.
Halls Ferry Pizza is a full-service restaurant.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sUytDv
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
DOLLEY LAW, LLC
12977 N. Outer Forty Dr., Suite 230
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 645-4100
Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James C. Morris, Esq.
Henry L. Benson, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
211 North Broadway, Suite 2150
St. Louis, MO 63102
E-mail: jmorris@grsm.com
hbenson@grsm.com
HAWAII: Opulento Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA OPULENTO, on behalf
of her daughter, JESSICA FORTSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; and FRANK HAMPP, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, NOLAN ESPINDA, individually and in his
official capacity; GAVIN TAKENAKA, Health Care Director, Hawaii
Department of Public Safety, Corrections Division; and DOES 1-30,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class of:
"All persons who are now, or will in the future be,
incarcerated in a jail or prison operated by the State of
Hawaii, Department of Public Safety, and who have a Serious
Mental Illness or a Serious and Persistent Mental Illness as
defined by Department of Public Safety Policy No.
COR.10.1G.04."
The Plaintiffs initiated this litigation to obtain declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of incarcerated persons with serious
mental illness in the custody and control of the Defendant, State
of Hawaii Department of Public Safety ("DPS" or the "Department").
According to the Defendant's most recently of population report,
DPS currently has 2,973 individuals incarcerated at its facilities
across the State. A significant percentage of this population
suffer from Serious Mental Illness ("SMI") and/or Serious and
Persistent Mental Illness ("SPMI") as defined by Department of
Public Safety Policy No. COR.10.1G.04.
The Defendant has knowingly and maliciously failed to implement
even basic measures to prevent suicide and other forms of
self-inflicted harm within this population, and Despite DPS's
awareness for years of severe and unconstitutional deficiencies in
its provision of mental health services, DPS has continued its
long-standing pattern and practice of neglect and deliberate
indifference to the mental health needs of the seriously mentally
ill population.
The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the
executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii. It
is headquartered in the 919 Ala Moana Boulevard building in
Honolulu, Hawaii.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H93Ijf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric A. Seitz, Esq.
Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq.
Kevin A. Yolken, Esq.
820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 533-7434
E-mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com
jloo33138@yahoo.com
kevinyolken@gmail.com
INMEDIATA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.13MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that stemming
from a 2019 data breach that impacted nearly 1.6 million patients,
Puerto Rico-based Inmediata Health Group reached a $1.13 million
settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged
that the healthcare clearinghouse failed to secure protected health
information (PHI).
Under HIPAA, organizations must notify patients of healthcare data
breaches within 60 days. But Inmediata began notifying patients
that their data was potentially compromised in mid-April 2019,
despite the fact that the breach occurred in January.
The breach occurred when a misconfigured web setting allowed search
engines to index internal webpages. The website leaked medical
claim information, demographic details, and some Social Security
numbers.
Inmediata immediately deactivated the website and engaged a digital
forensics firm. The investigation found no evidence of data
exfiltration or misuse as a result of the data leak.
But the situation escalated when some patients reported receiving
multiple notification letters, some of which were addressed to
different patients. The mailing errors caused some patients to
receive anywhere from one to five letters.
The lawsuit, which was filed in August 2019, alleged that Inmediata
failed to implement adequate security measures and failed to notify
impacted individuals of the breach within a reasonable timeframe.
The $1,125,000 settlement will cover all administrative expenses
and approved claims to settlement class members. In addition,
Inmediata will pay the cost of Kroll's Web Watcher Services for
settlement class members who choose to enroll.
The healthcare clearinghouse also agreed to pay incentive awards to
representative plaintiffs, at a maximum of $2,000 for each, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs for the class counsel.
Data breach victims are entitled to submit claims for fraudulent
charges, credit monitoring services, and out-of-pocket losses.
"The Plaintiffs claim that Inmediata failed adequately to protect
their personal information and that they were injured as a result.
Inmediata denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other entity has
made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing or that
the law has been violated," the settlement website states.
"Inmediata denies these and all other claims made in the lawsuit.
The Court has not decided that Inmediata did anything wrong and the
Settlement does not mean Inmediata is admitting that it did
anything wrong. Both the Plaintiffs and Inmediata believe that the
Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and that it is in the
best interests of the Settlement Class."
Class members have until March 21, 2022, to file a claim form and
until April 19, 2022 to exclude themselves from the settlement. The
final hearing will take place on April 21. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING: Averts Gold Medal Swimmers' Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that professional
swimming's world governing body defeated a bid for up to $75
million in class action damages by three-time Olympic gold medalist
Katinka Hosszu of Hungary and U.S. gold medalist Michael Andrew,
who are leading federal antitrust litigation against the federation
in San Francisco.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley partly denied class
certification to Hosszú, Andrew, and two-time U.S. Olympian Tom
Shields, saying the pay structure of the swimming league behind a
related case -- and its links to Hosszú and Andrew -- makes
individual damages claims more appropriate.
Because participants in the International Swimming League compete
for a "fixed pot" of prize money. [GN]
JC MCMURRAY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, McQuaid Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MCQUAID, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. JC MCMURRAY INC., and AMMAR JALI,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00616 (E.D. Pa., Feb.
17, 2022) is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising from the Defendants' flawed automobile
reimbursement policy resulting in failure to compensate Plaintiff
at the federal minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2008 to June 2020
as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in
Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
JC McMurray Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Plaintiff's Rule 59 Bid for Reconsideration Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., on his own behalf
and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00820-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael
S. Nachmanoff entered an order denying the plaintiff's Rule 59
Motion for Reconsideration.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JCTFov at no extra charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Gabriel Lalli Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL LALLI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 8:21-cv-00274-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion for class certification on
the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been
satisfied:
"all legally blind individuals residing in the United States
who have attempted to access Defendant's website by the use
of a screen reading software during the applicable
limitations period up to and including final judgment in this
action."
Kroger Company is an American retail company that operates
supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4QUdG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
LEXINGTON LAW: Class Cert. Hearing in Moore Suit Set for Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Moore v. John C.
Heath, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC doing business as Lexington Law Firm,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00027 (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M Romero
entered an order setting class certification hearing on on Feb. 28,
2022 at 11:00 AM via Zoom video conference.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Lexington Law is a firm focused on credit repair. Its services
revolve around removing inaccurate or questionable negative items
listed on your credit report through credit report analysis, credit
disputes, dispute escalation and credit score analysis.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Insurance Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has
affirmed the district court's decision declining to certify a
proposed damages class in an auto insurance diversity action in
Washington involving Liberty Mutual.
This case centers on how auto insurance companies value totaled
vehicles.
Plaintiffs sued Liberty Mutual, an auto insurer, and CCC
Intelligent Solutions, a company that Liberty works with to help it
develop its valuations.
Plaintiffs alleged that Liberty breached its contracts with its
insureds and that both companies violated Washington's unfair trade
practices law and committed civil conspiracy.
A district court declined to certify a proposed class because
individual questions predominated over common questions and
individualized trials were superior to a class action.
The 9th Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that the predominance and superiority
requirements for certifying a class action were not satisfied.
To show liability for breach of contract or unfair trade practices,
plaintiffs must show an injury, the court held.
Plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist sued both Liberty
Mutual, an auto insurer, and CCC Intelligent Solutions, a company
that Liberty works with to help it develop its valuations.
Plaintiffs allege that Liberty breached its contracts with its
insureds and that both companies violated Washington's unfair trade
practices law and committed civil conspiracy.
The plaintiff's vehicles were totaled, and Liberty valued them in
part with a disputed downward condition adjustment. The plaintiffs
then sued Liberty and CCC, arguing that they didn't follow
Washington insurance regulations, which require the insurers to
itemize the deductions or additions that they make, and that these
adjustments be appropriate. [GN]
LONGHORN PIZZA: Lipkin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
DALTON LIPKIN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., RICHARD HAFNER, JOSEPH
ROMANO, and ROBERT BRENT HAMILL, individually Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00387-C (N.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2022) is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful pay and reimbursement policies, practices and methodology
resulting in failure to compensate Plaintiff at the federal minimum
and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2019 to
March 2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store
located in El Paso, Texas.
Longhorn Pizza, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores including stores within the state of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
David Burns, Esq.
Jessica Wells, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North Saint Paul St. Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
M JEWELERS INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The M Jewelers Inc.
The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. The M Jewelers Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01372 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The M Jewelers -- https://themjewelersny.com/ -- is one of the
largest online personalized jewelry company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
META PLATFORMS: Texas AG Sues Over Facial Recognition Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Malik, writing for TechCurnch+, reports that Texas Attorney
General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Meta over Facebook's
facial recognition practices, his office announced on Feb. 14. The
news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which notes
that the lawsuit seeks civil penalties in the hundreds of billions
of dollars. The lawsuit alleges that the company's use of facial
recognition technology, which it has now discontinued, violated the
state's privacy protections regarding biometric data.
A press release announcing the lawsuit alleges that Facebook has
been storing millions of biometric identifiers contained in photos
and videos uploaded by users. Attorney General Paxton says that
Facebook exploited the personal information of users "to grow its
empire and reap historic windfall profits."
"Facebook will no longer take advantage of people and their
children with the intent to turn a profit at the expense of one's
safety and well-being," Paxton said in a statement. "This is yet
another example of Big Tech's deceitful business practices and it
must stop. I will continue to fight for Texans' privacy and
security."
A spokesperson from Meta told TechCrunch in an email that "these
claims are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously."
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook deceived the public by concealing
the nature of its practices and that Texans who used the app were
oblivious to the fact that Facebook was capturing biometric
information from photos and videos. It also alleges, without
providing further context, that users were unaware that Facebook
was disclosing users' personal information to other entities who
further exploited it.
"Facebook often failed to destroy collected biometric identifiers
within a reasonable time, exposing Texans to ever-increasing risks
to their well-being, safety and security," the lawsuit reads.
"Facebook knowingly captured biometric information for its own
commercial benefit, to train and improve its facial recognition
technology, and thereby create a powerful artificial intelligence
apparatus that reaches all corners of the world and ensnares even
those who have intentionally avoided using Facebook services."
In November 2021, Meta announced it was shutting down its Face
Recognition system on Facebook, and would no longer automatically
identify opted-in users in photos and videos. It also said it would
delete over a billion individual facial recognition templates as
part of this shutdown. But Texas officials asked Meta to preserve
this data for its investigation, likely delaying the system's full
closure.
This isn't the first time that Meta has faced legal action for its
facial recognition practices. Last March, Facebook was ordered to
pay $650 million for running afoul of an Illinois law designed to
protect the state's residents from invasive privacy practices. That
law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), is a powerful
state measure that's tripped up tech companies in recent years. The
suit against Facebook was first filed in 2015, alleging that
Facebook's practice of tagging people in photos using facial
recognition without their consent violated state law.
Following the ruling,1.6 million Illinois residents received at
least $345 under the final settlement ruling in California federal
court. The final number was $100 million higher than the $550
million Facebook proposed in 2020, which a judge deemed inadequate.
Facebook disabled the automatic facial recognition tagging features
in 2019, making it opt-in instead and addressing some of the
privacy criticisms echoed by the Illinois class-action suit.
A $650 million settlement would have been enough to significantly
impact any normal company, but Facebook brushed it off as it did
with the FTC's record-setting $5 billion penalty in 2019 following
its probe into the social media giant's privacy issues.
The new Texas lawsuit shows that widespread privacy laws could have
a significant impact not only on Meta's operations but also on all
big technology companies' practices. In the past years, a cluster
of lawsuits has accused Microsoft, Google and Amazon of breaking
laws when users' faces were used to train their facial recognition
systems without explicit consent. [GN]
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Case Management Plan Entered in Randolph Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RANDOLPH,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10858-JSR
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakof entered an order adopting
the civil case management plan as follows:
-- The Court require that this case August 24, 2022
shall be ready for trial on:
-- The Defendant's motion to dismiss February 17, 2022
must be filed by:
-- The Plaintiffs opposition must be February 25, 2022
filed by:
-- The Defendant's reply must be March 2, 2022
filed by:
-- Oral argument on the motion to March 7, 2022
dismiss shall be held on:
-- Joinder of additional parties March 22, 2022
must be accomplished by:
-- The Plaintiff filed an Amended February 9, 2022
Class Action Complaint on:
-- Initial disclosures required by March 1, 2022
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be
served by:
-- The Parties shall file a March 22, 2022
protective order and/or ESI
protocol by:
-- First request for production March 22, 2022
of documents, if any, must be
served by:
-- Interrogatories pursuant to March 22, 2022
Rule 33.3(a) of the Local
Civil Rules of the Southern
District of New York must be
served by:
-- Every party-proponent of a April 26, 2022
claim (including any
counterclaim, cross-claim, or
third-party claim) that intends
to offer expert testimony on
an issue other than damages in
support of such claim must make
the disclosures required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
no later than:
-- Every party-opponent of such May 17, 2022
claim that intends to offer
expert testimony on an issue
other than damages in opposition
to the party-proponent's expert
must make the disclosures
required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) no later than:
-- Every party-proponent of a claim June 17, 2022
(including any counterclaim,
cross-claim, or third-party claim)
that intends to offer expert
testimony related to damages
must make the disclosures
required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) by:
-- Every party-opponent of such July 1, 2022
claim that intends to offer expert
testimony in opposition to the
party-proponent's expert on damages
must make the disclosures required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by:
-- All depositions (including any July 8, 2022
expert depositions) must be
completed by:
-- Any notice of deposition that May 3, 2022
seeks testimony pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on a matter
related to class certification
must be served by:
-- Any deposition pursuant to such May 24, 2022
a notice must be completed by:
-- The Plaintiff may serve and take May 24, 2022
an additional Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) after:
-- All discovery is to be completed July 13, 2022
by:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class May 31, 2022
certification must be filed by:
-- The Defendant's opposition to June 21, 2022
class certification must be filed
by:
-- The Plaintiffs reply must be filed July 5, 2022
by:
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34MDmXy at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Appeal in FLSA Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Blutman, writing for onlabor, reports that the Court of
Appeals has granted the NCAA's request to appeal the district
court's decision that college athletes could pursue their FLSA
claims in Johnson v. NCAA despite the protestations made by the
plaintiffs. The Third Circuit is now set to weigh in on whether the
NCAA is a joint employer of student athletes under the FLSA, a
question that the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the NCAA argues, have
answered in the negative. At the same time, the NLRB may have
occasion to opine on whether student-athletes are employees after
the National College Players Association, an advocacy group for
college athletes, filed unfair labor practice charges against the
NCAA, the PAC-12 Conference, the University of Southern California,
and the University of California, Los Angeles, asking the NLRB to
find that those entities illegally misclassified student-athletes
and suppressed their right to speak out about compensation and
working conditions. The charge represents the first opportunity for
the NLRB to test the position that General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo
staked out in a September memo that "players at academic
institutions" area employees under the NLRA. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dolphins' Sale Likely if Racism Claims Are True
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Masala, writing for Dolphinswire, reports that a couple of
weeks after former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores filed a
class action lawsuit against the NFL and multiple organizations, it
had seemed that the buzz had died down.
Flores has alleged that there is racial discrimination taking place
in the league's hiring practices that have resulted in sham
interviews for many minority coaching candidates including himself.
On top of that, Flores also stated that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross
offered him $100,000 for each loss in 2019.
Many originally believed that if these allegations specifically
made against Ross were found to be true then he would be forced to
sell his team. Now, according to Ian Rapoport, a league source has
confirmed that to be the case.
"A league source confirmed that owners could, in fact, vote a
fellow owner out under the most dire circumstances based on league
rules, which would require a three-fourths vote," Rapoport wrote in
a story early on Feb. 14.
The NFL is currently investigating the claims made by Flores, as
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has stated that any violations will
not be tolerated by the league. Flores' representatives have stated
that they have witnesses and evidence that would corroborate the
story.
No NFL owner has ever been forced to sell the team, however, former
Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson did sell his team amid
allegations of inappropriate behavior that ranged from sexual
misconduct to racism. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4th Circuit Affirms Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tycko & Zavareei LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that in a victory for
borrowers, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Robinson v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, affirming approval of a settlement between
mortgage servicer Nationstar and a class of borrowers. The Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The 2008 financial crisis revealed that many mortgage servicers did
not have the infrastructure to manage an influx of loss mitigation
applications–the process by which a homeowner who has fallen
behind on a mortgage seeks relief from the servicer–which
prompted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to amend
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) in 2013. The
amendments, which became effective in 2014, require servicers to
follow strict procedures for processing loss mitigation
applications and to disclose certain information to borrowers about
the status of their application. Plaintiffs Demetrius and Tamara
Robinson, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
borrowers alleged that Nationstar had failed to comply with these
CFPB regulations.
After years of contentious litigation and court-supervised
negotiations, the district court certified two classes in 2019 and
approved a settlement in 2020, which provided for a $3 million
recovery for the class. One individual class member then objected
to the settlement, arguing that the magistrate judge did not have
jurisdiction to grant final approval, that the Settlement Agreement
was overbroad, that the settlement was inadequate, that attorneys'
fees were excessive, that Nationstar's agreement not to oppose the
motion for fees was inappropriate, and the notice did not
sufficiently inform class members of the settlement distribution
plan. The magistrate judge overruled the objections, and the Fourth
Circuit has now also rejected all these arguments against the
settlement.
As a result of the Fourth Circuit's decision, the benefits of the
settlement will soon be distributed to members of the class, after
what has been an 8-year-long litigation.
Partner Jon Tycko, class counsel, said about the settlement,
"We're hopeful that, as a result of the Fourth Circuit's decision,
the benefits of the settlement will soon be distributed to members
of the class. That will wrap up what has been an 8-year-long
litigation."
The case is Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No.
8:14−cv−03667−TJS in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division. The Plaintiffs are
represented by Tycko & Zavareei LLP. [GN]
NOOM INC: Settles Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Breck Dumas, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that Noom, Inc. has
agreed to pay $62 million to settle a class action lawsuit from
former customers who allege that the weight loss app provider lured
them into "risk-free" trial periods and then continued to charge
them hefty, automatic renewal fees that were tough to cancel.
The company denies any wrongdoing, and the settlement still has to
be approved by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
New York.
The plaintiffs accuse Noom of collecting nonrefundable renewal
payments for its Healthy Weight Subscription as long as eight
months beyond the expiration of the trial, tallying as much as $199
for individuals.
As part of the preliminary deal, Noom has agreed to now send email
reminders to customers ahead of the expiration of their trials, and
to make it easier to cancel subscriptions both on their mobile app
and website.
Noom co-founders Saeju Jeong and Arten Petakov posted a joint
message on the company's blog on Feb. 14 acknowledging the
agreement that was filed on Feb. 11, saying, "While we disagree
with the claims made in the suit, we believe the settlement is the
best path forward as it allows us to focus our energy on delivering
the best possible health outcomes for our Noomers."
The founders noted that not only has Noom made changes that allow
easier cancellations over the past 18 months, the company has also
bolstered its customer service team, simplified its pricing, and
clarified subscription details.[GN]
NVR INC: Hughes, Jenkins Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives
---------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HUGHES and LORI
JENKINS, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., v. NVR, INC.
and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) Collectives pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), as follows:
-- Loan Processor Collective:
"All Loan Processors and employees in similar positions who
are or were employed by NVR, Inc. and/or NVR Mortgage
Finance, Inc. anywhere in the United States (other than
Florida) at any time three years prior to the filing of
this Complaint through the present and beyond;" and
-- Loan Officer Collective:
"All Loan Officers and employees in similar positions who
are or were employed by NVR, Inc. and/or NVR Mortgage
Finance, Inc. anywhere in the United States (other than
Florida) at any time three years prior to the filing of
this Complaint through the present and beyond.
NVR, Inc. is a company engaged in home construction. It also
operates a mortgage banking and title services business. The
company primarily operates on the East Coast of the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LLkc4G
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Harris D. Butler III, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Files Bid for Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BOCEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PATZERIA FAMILY & FRIENDS INC., PATZERIA PERFECT PIZZA INC., JOSEPH
AZZOLINO, and SHKELZEN ULAJ, Case No. 1:21-cv-07384-LGS (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
class certification, court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and expedited
discovery, as well as such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s2G6Zt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: NDGrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Hill Hits Misclassification, Seeks Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD HILL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00097-HEH (E.D. Va., Feb. 17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid regular wages, and all
other allowable damages and recoveries pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as Virginia State law.
The complaint alleges the misclassification of Plaintiff, and
others similarly situated, as independent contractors despite not
meeting the "Internal Revenue Service guidelines" for evaluating
independent contractor status. The suit further states that all
unpaid wages, salary, or benefits are the result of Defendant's
misclassification scheme.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a consignee in Virginia
since at least 2015.
Pepperidge Farm, Inc. is a baker and distributor of packaged snack
food, bakery, and bread products sold to consumers throughout the
U.S. and in other countries at thousands of groceries, convenience,
and other stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
paul@butlercurwood.com
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Adams, Esq., Koji Fukumura, Esq., Stephen Richards, Esq.,
Steve Strauss, Esq., and Julie Veroff, Esq., of Cooley LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that Cooley litigators secured a win on
behalf of Qualcomm, a San Diego based technology company that
specializes in semiconductors, in a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. The cross-functional team for the Ninth Circuit appeal
brought together members of Cooley's business litigation,
securities litigation, and appellate practice groups --
specifically, Cooley partners Steven M. Strauss, Koji F. Fukumura,
and Peter M. Adams, and associates Stephen Richards and Julie
Veroff. Cooley partner Koji F. Fukumura argued both in district
court and the Ninth Circuit appeal. The successful outcome earned
the team a shout out as part of Am Law's Litigator of the Week
Runners-Up and Shout Outs list.
Background
Cooley represented Qualcomm Inc. and the four individual
defendants, who included the company's senior most executives. In
late 2017, Broadcom Ltd., a Singapore-based company, made an
unsolicited offer to buy Qualcomm, which quickly rejected the offer
because it grossly undervalued the company and came with too much
regulatory risk. In response, Broadcom mounted a proxy fight to
replace the entire Qualcomm board at an upcoming shareholder
meeting. Over the ensuing months, Qualcomm made clear to investors
and Broadcom that a fair price was fundamental to any deal between
the two companies and repeatedly explained that the proposed
transaction would raise serious concerns for regulators, including
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"),
which could meaningfully delay or block any deal between the two
companies. Consistent with its public stance on regulatory risk
Qualcomm asked CFIUS in January 2018 to review Broadcom's effort to
seize control of the board. Qualcomm did so confidentially, which
is the default approach contemplated by federal regulations
governing the CFIUS process. CFIUS began its review, which involved
requesting and receiving information from both companies.
Meanwhile, the companies continued to negotiate about a possible
deal. A month later, in February 2018, a national news outlet
reported that CFIUS was reviewing Broadcom's takeover attempt. The
market had no reaction; Qualcomm's stock price did not change. A
week later, CFIUS announced that it was ordering Qualcomm to
postpone its upcoming shareholder meeting and, because of national
security concerns, was imposing certain interim requirements on
Broadcom. Qualcomm's stock price declined over the following two
days. A week later, after Broadcom had violated CFIUS's interim
requirements at least three times, then-President Trump issued an
executive order permanently blocking the deal. Qualcomm's stock
price dropped the next day.
Plaintiffs filed a putative securities fraud class action,
contending that Qualcomm's statements about its willingness to
negotiate with Broadcom and the regulatory risk involved in any
potential deal were materially false or misleading because Qualcomm
did not disclose that it had asked CFIUS to look into Broadcom's
attempt to take over Qualcomm's board.
Dismissal Affirmed
Cooley filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Battaglia of the
Southern District of California granted in March 2020. He held that
Plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead two essential elements of
a securities fraud claim -- scienter and loss causation. He granted
leave to amend, but Plaintiffs fared no better on their second try.
The case was reassigned to Judge Bencivengo, who dismissed
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Ruling from
the bench, she held that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
Cooley continued to defend Qualcomm on appeal, where it achieved a
complete victory. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo,
adopted the reasoning in Cooley's briefing, and affirmed on all
three issues -- falsity, scienter, and loss causation. On falsity,
the Ninth Circuit explained that Qualcomm had made it clear from
the outset that its directors and officers opposed the deal and
that the deal posed significant regulatory risks, and "reject[ed]
the Investors' argument that, despite these statements, Qualcomm
downplayed the risk of regulatory oversight by CFIUS." The court
explained that "[n]egotiating in good faith is not necessarily
incompatible with having sincere regulatory, antitrust, and
national security concerns," "Qualcomm's statements regarding good
faith negotiations came with significant qualifications and
caveats," and "CFIUS's and the administration's subsequent actions
were not foreseeable in a way that would have given rise to a duty
to provide any more definite qualifying statements." On scienter,
the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts
from which a reasonable person could conclude it was plausible that
Qualcomm made false or misleading statements either intentionally
or with deliberate recklessness. And as to loss causation, the
Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to allege "a causal
connection between the allegedly wrongful statements and omissions
in late 2017 and early 2018 and the stock-price drop," noting that
the public learned of the CFIUS review two weeks before any
stock-price drop, and that the stock only dropped after CFIUS
ordered Qualcomm to postpone its board elections and again after
then-President Trump blocked the deal.
Significance
This case is the first of which Defendants' counsel is aware
involving a securities fraud claim stemming from a notice to CFIUS.
The Ninth Circuit confirmed that a lawful and appropriate notice to
CFIUS cannot be transformed into securities fraud absent any
sufficient pleading of falsity, scienter, or loss causation. In so
doing, the Court made clear that a company can simultaneously
negotiate a deal in good faith and harbor genuine regulatory
concerns about any ultimate deal reached by the parties. [GN]
RA MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Derr Suit Wins Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERVIN DERR, and PETER
SHOEMAKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DEAN IRWIN, ANDREW JACKSON,
MELISSA BURSTEIN, MARTIN BURSTEIN, RICHARD HEYMANN, MAURICE
BUCHBINDER, MARTIN COLOMBATTO, RICHARD MEJIA, JR., MARK E. SAAD,
and WILLIAM ENQUIST, JR., Case No. 3:19-cv-01079-LAB-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an amended order:
1) granting motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement;
2) denying motion to dismiss without prejudice; and
3) denying motion for consideration of documents without
prejudice.
-- Class Certification for Settlement Purposes
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that it will likely
be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class solely
for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement.
That Settlement Class would consist of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Ra Medical common stock: (a) pursuant and/or
traceable to Ra Medical's IPO; and/or (b) between
September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive."
Excluded from that Settlement Class would be: (a)
persons and entities who or which suffered no
compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants and the
Underwriters; (ii) any person who served as a partner,
control person, executive officer, and/or director of
Ra Medical or the Underwriters during the Settlement
Class Period, and their Immediate Family Members; (iii)
present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns,
successors, affiliates, and predecessors of Ra Medical
and the Underwriters; (iv) any entity in which the
Defendants or Underwriters have or had a controlling
interest; (v) any trust of which any Individual
Defendant is the settler or which is for the benefit of
any Individual Defendant and/or their Immediate Family
Members; (vi) Defendants’ liability insurance carriers;
and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
and assigns of any person or entity excluded under
provisions (i) through (vi) hereof.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons
and entities who or which submit a request for
exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by
the Court. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any
Investment Vehicle shall not be excluded from the
Settlement Class; and (b) “affiliates” are persons or
entities that directly, or indirectly through one or
more intermediaries, control, are controlled by or are
under common control with one of the Defendants.
-- Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
The Court will likely be able to approve the
Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class,
subject to further consideration at the Settlement
Hearing. On that basis, the Court preliminarily
approves the Settlement.
-- Settlement Hearing
The Court will hold a settlement hearing (the
"Settlement Hearing") on June 13, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 14A of the United States Courthouse, 333 West
Broadway, San Diego, California.
-- Settlement Administration Fees and Expenses
All reasonable costs incurred in identifying Settlement
Class Members and 11 them of the Settlement as well as
in administering the Settlement shall be paid as set
forth in the Stipulation without further order of the
Court.
-- Settlement Fund
The contents of the Settlement Fund held by The
Huntington National Bank (which the Court approves as
the Escrow Agent), shall be deemed and considered to be
in custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such
time as they shall be distributed pursuant to the
Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gYfu5o at no extra charge.[CC]
RENT TO COPY: Nunez Sues Over Equipment Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO FRANCISCO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT TO COPY INC. (DBA Integrated
Document Solutions "IDS") KENNETH ("KEN") WANG and JOANA WANG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00897 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) seeks
to recover overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay for
Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions
from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 15, 2018,
until April 20, 2019, as an equipment technician.
Rent to Copy Inc. is a document solutions company based in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
RUSHMORE LOAN: Joint Bid to Amend Sched Order in Panzarella OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH PANZARELLA v.
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04467-PD
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order
granting the parties joint motion to amend scheduling order.
-- The Defendant shall file its expert Feb. 25, 2022
report on class certification
and opposition to motion for
class certification no later than:
-- The Plaintiff shall file its rebuttal March 24, 2022
expert report and reply papers in
support of class certification no
later than:
Rushmore Loan is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2c2eG at no extra charge.[CC]
SEQUIUM ASSET: Abrams Bid for Clarification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. ABRAMS v. SEQUIUM
ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 21-CV-05374-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Lauren King entered an order denying as moot motion for
clarification of Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3).
The Plaintiff asks the Court to resolve three alleged ambiguities
in Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3).
On January 26, 2022, Chief Judge Martinez signed General Order
02-22 of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, amending the Local Civil Rules. General Order 02-22
repealed Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3) in its entirety. The amendments
to the Local Civil Rules "apply to every civil case pending in the
Western District of Washington without regard to when the case was
filed."
Sequium Asset is an accounts receivable management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gXOVgP at no extra charge.[CC]
SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Heath, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports
that a purported class of Shah & Shah store managers claim they
were not paid overtime wages and were not reimbursed for
work-related expenses.
Therese Blake filed a class-action suit on Jan. 14 in the U.S.
District for the Southern District of Illinois against Shah & Shah,
LLC and Syed Khalid M. Shah, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and violations of other Illinois acts.
Blake is represented by attorney Ryan F. Stephan of Stephan Zouras
LLP in Chicago.
According to the lawsuit, Blake worked as a store manager for the
defendants and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being provided overtime pay as compensation. Blake claims
the defendants knowingly and deliberately misclassified her and the
putative class members as exempt employees not entitled to overtime
compensation and failed to reimburse them for the time worked.
Blake also claims class members incurred job-related expenses, and
the defendants failed to provide reimbursements.
Blake asks the court to order the defendants to provide the names,
addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and social security
numbers of all putative collective action members. She also seeks
approval of the form and content of a notice to be sent to the
class members advising them of the pendency of this litigation and
of their rights; plus liquidated damages equal in amount to the
unpaid compensation; an award of unpaid wages and other damages
allowed; cost of action and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:22-cv-00066 [GN]
SITE 25: Calel Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMAS GABRIEL CALEL and
CARLOS GEOVANY PONCIO ZARATE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. SITE 25 RESTAURANT
CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a WEI WEST and ALAN PHILLIPS, Case No.
1:21-cv-08692-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective
certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v0yWH9
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24 th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ST. LOUIS, MO: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody, et al., v. City of
St. Louis, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey
G. Fleissig entered an order granting the consent motion for
extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify
class filed by the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs include Diedre Wortham, John Doe, John Roe, Michael
Mosley, Jasmine Borden, and James Cody
The nature of suit states civil rights -- other civil rights.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
(KJS)
STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Wins Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a
LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Raymond Jackson
entered an order:
1. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude;
2. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to exclude; and
3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification:
"All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Virginia
wit a Businessowners insurance policy issued by State Farm
on Form CMP-4100, including a Loss of Income and Extra
Expense endorsement on Form CMP 4705.1 or CMP 4705.2, in
effect at any time betyween March 23, 2020 and June 30,
2020 (the Closure Period), that were subject to partial or
full business suspension under the Orders and submitted
claims for business income losses and/or extra expenses
incurred during the Closure Period that were denied by the
Defendants."
On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit. On July 21,
2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Elegant Massage has owned and
operated Light Stream Spa since 2016, which provides therapeutic
massages in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
In 2019, Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from State Farm.
The Policy issued to Plaintiff is an "all risk" commercial property
insurance policy, which covers loss or damage to the covered
premises resulting from all risks other than those expressly
excluded. The Policy was effective from July 22, 2019 until July
22, 2020 and Plaintiff paid an annual premium of $475.00. The
Policy includes coverage for "Loss of Income and Extra Expense,"
the standard form for which is identified as CMP-4705.1. Under the
provision, the Policy provides for the loss of business income
sustained as a result of the suspension of business operations
which includes action of a civil authority that prohibits access to
the Plaintiffs business property.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwybJU at no extra charge.[CC]
STORK CRAFT: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAEL CRUZ v. STORK CRAFT
MANUFACTURING (USA) INC., Case No. 21-cv-10036-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend or to join March 11, 2022
additional parties shall be filed
no later than:P
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Feb. 23, 2022
Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure shall be completed
no later than:
-- All fact discovery is to be June 9, 2022
completed no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline for class April 29, 2022
certification motion is:
Stork Craft was founded in 1993. The Company's line of business
includes distributing furniture.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h2jWQG at no extra charge.[CC]
TELOS CORP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Attention Telos Corporation ("Telos") (NASDAQ: TLS) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 8 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between November 19, 2020 and November 12, 2021.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Telos, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/telos-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23626&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Telos includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") and Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") contracts, which constituted
a majority of the Company's future revenues, were not on track to
commence as represented at the end of 2021 and in 2022; (2)
Defendants lacked a reasonable basis and sufficient visibility to
provide and affirm the Company's 2021 guidance in the face of the
uncertainty surrounding the TSA and CMS contracts; (3) COVID-19-
and hacking scandal-related headwinds were throwing off the timing
for performance of the TSA and CMS contracts and their associated
revenues; (4) as a result, the guidance provided by Defendants was
not in fact "conservative"; (5) as a result of the delays, Telos
would be forced to dramatically reduce its revenue estimates; and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Telos' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DEADLINE: April 8, 2022
Aggrieved Telos investors only have until April 8, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
TEXAS: Needs to Urgently Improve Children's Foster, Kinship Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Garrett, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports
that Texas is in danger of simply slapping a Band-Aid on "the
ongoing tragedy" of kids sleeping in Child Protective Services
offices and won't cure root causes unless it acts with more urgency
and taps some of the state's huge budget surplus for improvements
to foster and kinship care, two lawyers for plaintiff children in a
long-running lawsuit said on Feb. 14.
Reacting to a new filing by two state agencies in U.S. District
Court in Corpus Christi, plaintiffs' lawyers Marcia Robinson Lowry
and Paul Yetter labeled the state's response to an expert panel's
recommendations deficient.
In a news release, the lawyers voiced "concern about the state's
lack of commitment and evasive language" in its reply to the expert
panel.
"The state has not responded with the sense of urgency that this
crisis demands,'' said Lowry, executive director of the New York
nonprofit A Better Childhood and co-counsel in the suit.
"They have agreed to create new positions, hold meetings and to
study issues, but this is a time to take specific steps to create
placements and services for children who are currently being
shipped out of state or placed in highly inappropriate facilities
in state. These children in the state's custody are not being kept
safe, and this is an ongoing tragedy that the state needs to remedy
as quickly as it can."
Statewide, 221 youth spent at least two consecutive nights at a CPS
office, hotel or other makeshift facility in January — compared
with 148 a year earlier and just 13 in January 2020.
Spokesmen for the Department of Family and Protective Services,
parent agency of CPS, and the Health and Human Services Commission,
which is responsible for licensing and regulating foster-care
providers, did not comment when asked about Lowry and Yetter's
concerns.
One child advocacy group, Texans Care for Children, welcomed the
state's agreement in the filing to adopt some of the experts'
recommendations.
"Rather than making kids in foster care wait until after the 2023
legislative session for some of these reforms, it will be critical
for Governor [Greg] Abbott and legislative leaders to give the
green light to move forward now on the expert panel's
recommendations like pooling funding across agencies to ensure
trauma-informed services and supports for families are quickly
accessible," said Kate Murphy, the group's expert on child-welfare
policy.
Leaders also should provide emergency funding to give more
financial support to grandparents and others providing kinship
care, which allows children who've been removed from birth families
to stay with someone they know, Murphy said.
Referring to how Abbott and GOP legislative leaders responded to an
earlier crisis over poor investigations and high caseworker
turnover at CPS by granting $12,000 raises to 6,000 front-line
workers, she added, "We are optimistic the governor and Legislature
will work with the agencies to ensure they can move forward
quickly, just as they did with CPS caseworker salaries in 2016."
Recurring problem
Since the late 2000s, Texas has experienced on-again, off-again
shortages of foster care beds.
All parties to the nearly 11-year-old, class-action suit over
conditions in the state's system of long-term foster care agree
that children removed from their birth families because of
maltreatment should be housed in homes with trained foster parents
-- and if that's not possible, humanely operated congregate-care
settings.
Instead, on any given night, a persistently high number -- 200 or
more -- sleep on cots in state office buildings, in hotel rooms and
on mattresses pitched in church meeting halls because of what
Abbott, the two state agencies and plaintiffs' lawyers agreed in
late October are "ongoing gaps in appropriate services and
placements in Texas."
In their response to the expert panel's recommendations, the
commission and the protective services department agreed to create
an interagency team by the end of this month that will oversee
fixes to the problem of children without placements, or CWOPs.
The team will be led by a high-level protective services official
soon to be designated. The three experts, in a report issued Jan.
10, said it should be a person who can "cut through the
bureaucracy."
By March 30, the department said it will comply with another of the
expert panel's recommendations --to hire a clinical coordinator in
each of 11 regions. That person will try to ensure that children
lacking placements receive mental health therapies they need and
stop bouncing back from foster homes, residential treatment centers
and emergency shelters into CWOP status.
The department also agreed, in each of the four regions that have
the most CWOPs, to hire a community liaison. That employee will
"build community capacity to prevent placements in unlicensed care
and to transition children out of unlicensed care into safe
settings," said the state agencies' response. And they agreed to
study how, last year, Texas made out-of-state placements of
children in CPS' care more than 2,100 times -- and to develop a
plan to bring them home.
To fulfill one of the panel's recommendations, which called for
technical assistance to the department's top brass, The Deckinga
Group has been tapped as the consultant. That group, led by former
assistant protective services commissioner for CPS Audrey Deckinga,
has been retained through Casey Family Programs, a group that
provides services to child welfare systems without charge.
'Business as usual'
Plaintiffs' lawyers, though, were especially unhappy with how, on
the more expensive items, the state agencies stressed how they lack
authority or money to commit to launching new programs.
In effect, the commission and the department played "Mother, may I"
with the Legislature and with provider groups on recommendations
that would expand the kinds of high-quality placements that are in
short supply, boost financial support for kinship caregivers and
build out the state's inadequate system of mental health care for
children, the children's lawyers said.
"The state should do whatever it takes, including exploring the use
of the state's significant surplus funds, to increase funding for
kinship care and secure funding and resources to capitalize on the
promise of the mental health programs identified by the expert
panel," Yetter said. He was referring to $12 billion of unspent
discretionary state revenue that is expected to pile up by Aug. 31,
2023, although lawmakers would have to vote to bust a
constitutional spending cap to draw down more than $4.4 billion of
it. "It is in everyone's interest -- at the state and local level
-- to solve this crisis for Texas children," he said.
Said Lowry, who has launched many class-action suits over foster
care nationwide, "The state is not treating this as anything like
an emergency."
The two private law firms who worked on the case for free, and
placed $5.5 million in fees they were awarded by U.S. District
Judge Janis Graham Jack in trust, have repeatedly offered to let
the state use the money to do things such as improve its antiquated
child-welfare computer systems, only to be ignored.
In the Feb. 14 response by the state agencies, though, they agreed
for the second time in recent months to accept some of the money.
"We used the plaintiffs' fee award, now held in trust for the
children, to pay for the panel's work," explained Yetter, whose
firm Yetter Coleman was awarded $4.5 million. Haynes and Boone of
Dallas was awarded $1 million.
According to Kelly Darby, a Yetter spokeswoman, final bills by two
of the three experts who are accepting compensation haven't been
received. But the rates charged by panel members were reasonable,
she said.
On Feb. 14, the commission and the department agreed to tap the
attorney-fee money being held in trust again to keep one of the
expert panel members working in a role with foster-care providers
-- reviewing what kind of safety record they must achieve before
they can get off a heightened monitoring regimen that Jack ordered
for shoddy ones and the sometimes-conflicting signals the two state
agencies send to providers.
Lowry said the plaintiffs' side doesn't know yet which of the
expert panel members will take on that assignment -- Ann Stanley of
Casey Family Programs, former Alabama child welfare official Paul
Vincent or Judith Meltzer, president of the Washington, D.C.-based
Center for the Study of Social Policy.
"It is ironic, though, that the state agreed to use the funds to
pay neutral experts and are now agreeing only to the
recommendations that would result in more meetings, more
contractors and more bureaucratic positions, but nothing that would
expand, or provide, different services and placements," Lowry said.
"Thus far, the state has only agreed to take any action 'to the
extent possible with existing resources and legislative authority.'
So that sounds pretty much like business as usual." [GN]
TRUGREEN INC: Faces Deramo Class Action Over Prerecorded Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Trugreen, Inc. uses an artificial
voice to place unsolicited, prerecorded phone calls to consumers
without their consent, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Dominic Deramo claims Trugreen violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making the prerecorded robocalls
advertising for its lawn care business.
Deramo says Trugreen called him on his cellular and landline phone
more than 20 times during the summer of 2021 despite him never
doing business with the company or giving them consent to call him.
Further, Deramo claims the telephone calls were placed using an
artificial or prerecorded voice, which he never consented to.
"Prior to the calls at issue in this action, Mr. Deramo had not had
any contact with Defendant. He has never consented in writing, or
otherwise, to receive calls using an artificial or prerecorded
voice from Defendant," the class action lawsuit states.
Trugreen Would Need 'Express Written Consent' To Place Calls
Trugreen would need to acquire express written consent to make
prerecorded phone calls, in accordance with the TCPA.
"Defendant not only invades the personal privacy of Plaintiff and
members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and
repeatedly violates the TCPA," the class action lawsuit states.
Deramo claims Trugreen is not only guilty of violating the TCPA but
also of knowingly and willfully doing so. He is demanding a jury
trial and requesting injunctive relief along with statutory damages
for himself and all class members.
Deramo wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have
received a prerecorded telephone call by or on behalf of Trugreen
in the past four years.
Earlier this month, a class of non-Citibank customers were given
class certification to pursue their claims that the bank placed
robocalls to them without their consent.
Also this month, a class action lawsuit was filed against David's
Bridal by a consumer who argues the company sends unsolicited and
unwanted text messages to consumers who have already opted out of
receiving them.
Have you been contacted by a company using a pre-recorded message
with an artificial voice? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Yitzchak Kopel and Alec M. Leslie
of Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
The Trugreen Pre-Recorded Robocalls Class Action Lawsuit is Deramo
v. Trugreen, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01151, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
TRUST FOR ADVISED: Schiavi + Company Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCHIAVI + COMPANY LLC DBA SCHIAVI + DATTANI and DOMINUS
MULTIMANAGER FUND, LTD., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUST FOR ADVISED PORTFOLIOS,
INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA
FUND, L.P., INFINITY Q VOLATILITY ALPHA OFFSHORE FUND, LTD.,
CHRISTOPHER E. KASHMERICK, JOHN C. CHRYSTAL, ALBERT J. DIULIO,
S.J., HARRY E. RESIS, RUSSELL B. SIMON, STEVEN J. JENSEN, JAMES
VELISSARIS, LEONARD POTTER, SCOTT LINDELL, QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS,
LLC, U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC, EISNERAMPER LLP, BONDERMAN
FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP, and INFINITY Q MANAGEMENT EQUITY,
LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00896 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) is
a federal securities action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
all persons and entities who purchased between December 21, 2018
and February 22, 2021, securities issued by the Infinity Q
Diversified Alpha Fund and the Volatility Master Fund and the
Volatility Feeder Fund, seeking to recover the massive damages
suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit arises from one of the most egregious investment fund
collapses in history wherein the Funds lost over 40% of their
respective values after a forced liquidation by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission due to, inter alia, Defendants':
(a) manipulation of the pricing methodology for the Funds' assets;
(b) failure to employ the valuation methodologies and internal
controls policies and procedures represented to investors; and (c)
material overstatement of the Funds' net asset value.
Throughout the Class Period, and at all relevant times, Infinity Q
served as the investment advisor that managed the Funds. Allegedly,
the Funds were marketed to investors seeking moderate growth and
asymmetric returns through a "swap" strategy that would purportedly
preserve capital and avoid the massive risks of aggressive hedge
funds seeking greater returns.
As a result of alleged egregious acts, the Funds' investors have
been unable to withdraw their money from the Funds, and investors
are still waiting and wondering what amount they will receive from
the wreckage as Defendants continue to deplete available assets on
legal defense costs. Additionally, Infinity Q has effectively held
investors' money hostage unless they release Defendants from
liability, further compounding investor damages, says the suit.
Trust for Advised Portfolios, the Diversified Fund's registrant, is
a Delaware statutory trust registered with the SEC under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 as an open-end management investment
company.
Infinity Q Capital Management LLC is the investment adviser to the
Funds and general partner to the Volatility Fund.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, 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: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
John T. Zach, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
E-mail: jzach@bsfllp.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Loses Bid to Junk Nieves Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES,
individually, and on behalf of a class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE CO., Nebraska corporation; and DOES 1 thru 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
Judge entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss
and denying plaintiff's motion to strike.
In June of 2016, the Plaintiff, a resident of San Diego County,
California, purchased a $30,000 whole life policy (the "Policy")
from United that insured the life of her son.
The Plaintiff is the owner and sole beneficiary of the Policy.
United is a Nebraska corporation that administers life insurance
policies in California, including Plaintiff's Policy.
The Plaintiff's individual claims center on United's alleged acts
related to the Policy. The Plaintiff alleges that United repeated
the same unlawful acts across thousands of other life insurance
policies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4lJPN at no extra charge.[CC]
VILORE FOODS: Bids to File Documents Under Seal Nixed in Gross
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GROSS, DEBORAH
LEVIN, SHELBY COOPER, and EDWARD BUCHANNAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. VILORE FOODS COMPANY, INC.,
ARIZONA CANNING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00894-LL-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order denying motions
to file documents under seal.
Accordingly, Vilore's motions to seal are denied. Unless the
documents are withdrawn, on or before February 18, 2022, Vilore
shall file publicly on the docket an unredacted version of their
P&A in support of its opposition that includes complete and
unredacted versions all exhibits, as well as an unredacted version
of its motion to exclude expert reports that includes a complete
and unredacted version of all exhibits, the Court says.
Vilore Foods is the exclusive importer, distributor and marketer of
leading Hispanic brands in the U.S. and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s1Na8C at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Joint Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE
ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting joint
stipulation to continue case deadlines by 60 days as follows:
1. Class certification discovery shall April 19, 2022
be completed by no later than:
2. The motion for class certification May 17, 2022
shall be filed by no later than:
3. Any opposition to the motion for July 1, 2022
class certification shall be filed
by no later than:
4. Any reply brief in support of July 22, 2022
the motion for class certification
shall be filed by no later than:
5. The motion for class certification August 3, 2022
shall be heard on:
6. The status conference to set further November 1, 2022
scheduling dates, currently set for
August 30, 2022, is continued to:
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s519ug at no extra charge.[CC]
WEBRECON LLC: Faces Class Action Over Regulation F Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Accountsrecovery.net reports that the database maintained by Jack
Gordon and the team at WebRecon has yielded yet another Regulation
F lawsuit, this one a class-action against a company accused of not
only violating Reg F, but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making at least 47
phone calls to an individual's cell phone -- including 22 in one
seven-day period alone -- without first obtaining the individual's
consent to contact him on his cell phone.[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Williams Suit Asserts Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS
FARGO & CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 17, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged racially
discriminatory residential mortgage policies and practices in
violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing
Act of 1968.
According to the complaint, Wells Fargo has a long history of
discriminating against African Americans and maintains a corporate
culture replete with harmful racial stereotypes and biased views
about African American customers. While Wells Fargo has long
advertised its willingness to symbolically support racial equality
in banking, such as making investments to black owned banks, it has
not and will not meaningfully redress its systematic discrimination
against its Black and African American customers, borrowers, and
mortgage applicants, says the suit.
Mr. Williams is an African American and a citizen of Georgia. He
applied for a home mortgage with Wells Fargo and was discriminated
against on the basis of his race in the mortgage lending process by
Wells Fargo, the suit asserts.
Wells Fargo & Co., is a publicly-traded, global financial services
firm and Fortune 500 corporation incorporated in Delaware and has
its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
Daniel Lewin, Esq.
Jared Calvert, Esq.
STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 431-0888
E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com
- and -
Sam Sani, Esq.
SANI LAW, APC
15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
Encino, CA 94612
Telephone: (310) 935-0405
E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com
WKT GROUP: Faces Solano Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARCADIO SOLANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WKT GROUP II INC. (DBA Margot Patisserie)
JOBIE YU and WAI TSUI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01366
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff for
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commission of Labor including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Solano was employed by the Defendants for about 16 years.
He worked for the Defendants as a cook and a store cleaner in the
bakery.
WKT Group II Inc. owns, operates, and controls a bakery in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina F. Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (800) 933-5620
ZOOM VIDEO: March 5 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC, reports that have you used Zoom or
TikTok at some point within the last year? Probably.
If so, you might qualify for part of the nearly $200 million
dollars the companies are paying out in various lawsuit
settlements.
ZOOM SETTLEMENT
For the last couple of years, I've relied on Zoom almost daily when
in-person interviews couldn't happen safely. I never had intruders
hack into sessions.
But those so-called "Zoom bombers" are part of a lawsuit settlement
involving the video-conference company.
"Class action lawyers are saying Zoom didn't do a good enough job
protecting you and your kids from seeing things they shouldn't have
seen," said Scott Hardy, who works with TopClassActions.com, a
website that shares various class-action lawsuits.
He said the lawsuit also involves allegations that Zoom shared
users' information without their consent.
The $85 million settlement means if you used Zoom between March 30,
2016, and July 30, 2021, you could get up to $25. The business
claims no wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The deadline to file a claim is March 5, 2022.
KROGER DATA BREACH
Kroger, which is the parent company of Fry's Food Stores here in
the Valley, suffered a data breach and, as a result, a class-action
lawsuit was filed against the grocery chain.
"They actually had things like your Social Security number, and
other personal data," said Scott Hardy, of TopClassActions.com.
Those who used the grocery's money services or pharmacy, as well as
its own employees, were apparently affected. Lost info could
include birth dates, insurance information, and medical
information.
If you can prove the data breach caused you harm after Dec. 16,
2020, you could receive up to $5,000 in damages. However, most
claims would likely get up to $91.
As part of the settlement, Kroger does not admit to wrongdoing. The
deadline to file a complaint is March 10, 2022.
TIKTOK LAWSUIT
While everyone was showing off their dancing skills and baking
talents, could Tik Tok have also been collecting and using users'
personal information without their consent?
That's the allegation in a class-action lawsuit filed against the
social media company.
"Could be information about you where you are, when you record
videos, and sharing that with marketers or other data buyers,"
Hardy said.
It's a $92 million dollar settlement.
If you used the TikTok app before October 1, 2021, you might
qualify for part of it. The exact amount claimants may get depends
on how many claims are filed.
As usual, the company claims no wrongdoing in the settlement. The
deadline to file a claim is March 1, 2022. [GN]
[*] Juan Monteverde Investigates Terms Behind Acquisitions
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the
2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (BDSI), relating to its
acquisition by Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, BDSI shareholders will receive $5.60 in cash per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/biodelivery-sciences-international-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Zurn Water Solutions Corp. (ZWS), relating to its merger with Elkay
Manufacturing Co. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zurn-water-solutions-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD), relating to its acquisition
by Chatham Asset Management, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
RRD shareholders will receive $10.85 in cash per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/r-r-donnelley-sons-company. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Quidel Corp. (QDEL), relating to its merger with Ortho Clinical
Diagnostics Holdings plc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/quidel-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Ready Capital Corp. (RC) relating to its merger with funds managed
by MREC Management, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, RC
shareholders will own approximately 70% of the combined company.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ready-capital-corp. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (TACO), relating to its sale to Jack in
the Box, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, TACO shareholders
will receive $12.51 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/del-taco-restaurants-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
[*] U.S. Senate OKs Bill to End Forced Sexual Assault Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Brenner, Esq., Anthony Oncidi, Esq., Evandro Gigante, Esq.,
Laura Fant, Esq., Theresa Madonna, Esq., and Ariel N. Brotman,
Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
on February 14, 2022, the Senate passed H. 4445, the Ending Forced
Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the
"Act"), by a voice vote. The bill had previously passed the House
of Representatives by a vote of 335-97. The White House has
indicated President Biden will sign the bill.
If enacted, the Act would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to
prohibit enforcement of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration
agreements, as well as agreements prohibiting participation in a
joint, class or collective action in any forum, "at the election of
the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment
dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a
class or in a collective action alleging such conduct." The Act
also provides that any dispute concerning whether a claim falls
within the scope of the Act's prohibitions will be decided by a
court and not an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the
arbitration agreement at issue purports to delegate such
determinations to an arbitrator.
A "sexual assault dispute" is defined as one "involving a
nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are
defined in section 2246 of title 18 or similar applicable Tribal or
State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." A
"sexual harassment dispute" is defined as one "relating to conduct
that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable
Federal, Tribal, or State law."
The new restrictions would apply "with respect to any dispute or
claim that arises or accrues on or after the date of enactment of
this Act," meaning that once enacted, millions of American workers
could elect to be released from existing arbitration agreements
and/or class and collective action waivers as relating to sexual
harassment and sexual assault claims that arise after the law goes
into effect. However, because the law only addresses pre-dispute
arbitration and class/collection action waiver agreements, any
agreement to arbitrate claims entered into by the parties after the
claims arise remains enforceable. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Defends 3,876 Claims as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of December 31, 2021, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent approximately 3,876 individual claimants,
compared to approximately 2,075 individual claimants with actions
pending on December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a
jury. In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two
lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the
other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving
allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to
protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a
jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M’s 8710 respirators
failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded
compensatory damages of approximately $2 million and punitive
damages totaling $63 million. In August 2018, the trial court
entered judgment and the Company appealed. During March and April
2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial
majority of the then-pending coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky
and West Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in
April 2018 in the Kentucky case mentioned above. That settlement
was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been dismissed. In
October 2020, 3M defended a respirator case before a jury in King
County, Washington, involving a former shipyard worker who alleged
3M's 8710 respirator was defective and that 3M acted negligently in
failing to protect him against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered
a complete defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710
respirator was not defective in design or warnings and any conduct
by 3M was not a cause of plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The
plaintiff’s appeal is pending. A ruling is expected during the
first quarter of 2022.
"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half
of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of
cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust;
that increase represents the substantial majority of the growth in
case numbers."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3sZrBFa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cajun Co. Wins Judgment in Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted The Cajun Company's motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned LINDA CROSSLAND, v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No.
20-3470 (E.D. La.).
This case arises from the plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos.
The Plaintiff filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans on September 16, 2020. The Plaintiff's petition for
damages named several defendants under the category of
"Contractor/supplier/manufacturer/professional vendor defendants,"
including Cajun. The case was removed to the District Court on
December 20, 2020.
On March 26, 2021, Cajun filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In its
petition, Cajun named plaintiff, Linda Crossland, as an unsecured
creditor, with a contingent, unliquidated, and disputed claim. This
petition was mailed to plaintiff's attorneys.
On March 30, 2021, defendant filed a "Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy" in this Court, thereby staying further action against
Cajun. In an order dated April 28, 2021, the bankruptcy court set a
bar date of June 7, 2021. In that same order, the bankruptcy court
explicitly stated that any proof of claims not received by June 7
"shall not be allowed and shall be barred and the Debtor shall be
forever discharged from any liability as to any such claim,
PROVIDED that a copy of this Order and Notice is mailed to each
scheduled creditor by the Debtor's attorney."
Although plaintiff received notice of the bankruptcy proceeding and
bar date, she did not file a timely proof of claim in the
bankruptcy proceeding. On October 7, 2021, the bankruptcy court
entered an order confirming Cajun's Chapter 11 reorganization plan.
The plan, as confirmed by the bankruptcy court, discharged any of
defendant's pre-reorganization plan debt unless otherwise provided
for in the order. Based on the bankruptcy court's order, Cajun now
moves for the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against it,
contending that, because plaintiff failed to timely file a proof of
claim, her claims against Cajun have been discharged in
bankruptcy.
Judge Vance finds that the Bar Data notice was reasonably
calculated to inform plaintiff of the bar date, as a matter of due
process. Moreover, given that plaintiff has not filed an
opposition to Cajun's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds
undisputed Cajun's statement in its motion that "Plaintiff received
notice of the bankruptcy proceeding and bar date through, at least,
the Petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection . . . and Order
for Notice of Final Date for Filings Proofs of Claim." For these
reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff received reasonable notice
of the deadline for filing a proof of claim.
Although plaintiff received notice of the bar date, she did not
file a timely proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding by June
7. On October 7, 2021, the bankruptcy court confirmed the Chapter
11 plan of reorganization and thus discharged any pre-plan debtors
except as provided by the plan. Under the terms of the
reorganization plan and 11 U.S.C. Section 1141, plaintiff's claims
have been discharged.
Accordingly, the Court grants Cajun's motion for summary judgment
and dismisses Cajun from this matter. Plaintiff's claims against
Cajun are dismissed with prejudice.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 1,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2021 and 2020, has been
assigned to approximately 1,000 and 1,100 lawsuits pending against
EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos
docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products."
At December 31, 2021 and 2020, Chemours had accruals of $33 and $34
related to these matters, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3p5eW24
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland-Cliffs Faces Multiple Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.'s acquired subsidiaries have been named as
defendants, among many other named defendants, in numerous lawsuits
filed since 1990 claiming injury allegedly resulting from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Similar lawsuits seeking monetary relief
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions in the U.S., which
cases are vigorously defended. Although predictions about the
outcome of pending litigation is subject to uncertainties, based
upon present knowledge, we believe it is unlikely that the
resolution in the aggregate of these claims will have a materially
adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JFqwJ6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Faces Suits Involving 38,200 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous
defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts
involving approximately 38,200 claimants at December 31, 2021
relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos
in products allegedly manufactured by them or asbestos materials
present at their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We manufactured, among other things, rubber
coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and
aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to
1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their
employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain
of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of
these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear
manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our
facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense
and claim resolution was $15 million during 2021. The plaintiffs in
the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as
a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory
diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and
other relief."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3saaUrq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. has been named in asbestos-related
personal injury claims related to North American Refractories
Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction
Materials business, which was sold in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Payments, net of insurance recoveries, related
to known asbestos matters were $240 million, $229 million and $163
million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019,
respectively, and are estimated to be approximately $220 million in
2022. We expect to make payment associated with these asbestos
matters from operating cash flows. The timing of these payments
depends on several factors, including the timing of litigation and
settlements of liability claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3t1KAPe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including
those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer,
mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In
some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also
named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of
its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during
the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019 were immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3v83YwT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Divests $398MM Asbestos Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s operating cash flows declined by $444 million from 2020,
mainly driven by a $398 million payment related to the divestiture
of ITT's asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the
second quarter of 2021, as well as working capital investments,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/35ecpvx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not
specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its
products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally
seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the
likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company
does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to,
nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material
adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future
developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the
future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of
significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the
Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/34RNXjX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.1MM Loss Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. has a total recorded net loss and
loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims
of $21.1 million as of December 31, 2021 and $21.4 million as of
December 31, 2020, with asbestos claims constituting approximately
23% of these reserves in both years, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended
period and can be unpredictable.
"Environmental claims have arisen primarily from insured landfill
exposures in municipal government and small non-manufacturing
commercial risk, as well as leaking underground storage tanks
within our homeowners policies. Asbestos claims have arisen
primarily from policies issued to various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. We handle our asbestos and environmental claims in a
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
That unit establishes case reserves on individual claims based on
the facts and circumstances known at a given point in time,
supplemented by bulk IBNR reserves.
"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because these claims have delayed and inconsistent
reporting patterns. In addition, there are significant
uncertainties associated with estimating critical reserve
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Limiting our exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims are (i) the fuel oil system exclusion on our
New Jersey homeowners policies that we introduced in 2007, and (ii)
the Insurance Services Office, Inc.'s Total Pollution Exclusion
that was introduced in the mid-1980's, Prior to the mid-1980's, we
primarily wrote Standard Personal Lines, which has also limited our
exposure to asbestos and environmental claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/36wLX0W
ASBESTOS UPDATE: USS Defends 915 Active Cases as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation (USS), as of December 31, 2021, was
a defendant in approximately 915 active cases involving
approximately 2,505 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31,
2020, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 855 cases
involving approximately 2,445 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3JO6Wuf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Water Solutions Corporation's subsidiaries are co-defendants
in various lawsuits in a number of U.S. jurisdictions alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used
in certain components of its products, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain Company subsidiaries are subject to
asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2021, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos
components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These
claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by
insurers.
"As of December 31, 2021, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be
approximately $66.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $49.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $66.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve
for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2021, is in excess
of the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of December 31, 2021, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $66.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in insurance for
asbestos claims within the consolidated balance sheets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/36y3mGz
*********
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 ***