/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220304.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 4, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 40
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Court Approves Settlement Deal Over Waste Hazard Case
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Waste Disposal
3M COMPANY: Faces Negligence Charges on Improper Waste Disposal
3M COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination
3M COMPANY: Faces Water Contamination Charges in Georgia
3M COMPANY: Named in CA Product Litigation Over Combat Earplugs
ALL WAYS AUTO: Faces Bryant Class Suit Over TILA Violations
ALLIED PILOTS: Flow-Thru Pilots Appeal Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
AMAZON.COM: Court Sets Discovery, Pretrial Dates in Garner Suit
AUTOZONE INC: Iannone "401(k) Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BKP INC: Miles Seeks March 24 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
CABLE TECHNOLOGY: McKee Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Status
CINCO PEREZ: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Deleon Suit Claims
CRICKET WIRELESS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Postpichal Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Chacon Sues Over Mislabeled Pail Relieving Products
DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Deal on PM Gold Fix Case to be Heard on Aug. 5
E-HOUSE (CHINA): Maso Capital Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
FCA US: Court Tosses Bledsoe Bid to Certify Class as Moot
FRESH HARVEST: Filing of Class Cert Extended in Saramiento Suit
ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Pension Fund Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
MAJESTIC CARE: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed
MARATHON REFINING: Must File Class Cert. Opposition by March 25
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Opt-Out Deadline in Class Suit Set as April 23
MILK STUDIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Alleges
MLS PROPERTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Bauman Antitrust Suit
MOWI ASA: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Salmon Case
NATERA INC: Prenatal Test Results Not Accurate, Davis Suit Alleges
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dent Appeals Summary Judgment Relief Bid Ruling
NETFLIX INC: Estate of B.H. Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
NFP RETIREMENT: Court Certifies 401(k) Plan Participant Class
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Nyanjom Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal
PEARL BANYAN: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
PEARL BANYAN: Pretrial Conference Adjourned in Tavarez-Vargas
PERSHING LLC: Ochoa Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
QUALVOICE LLC: Frederick Seeks Initial Nod of Class Action Deal
REBELZ CLUB: Harris Files Bid for Conditional Certification
SAILORS' TAILOR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
SPCP GROUP: Gamino Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class
SPEED NORTH: Parties in Brown Suit Seek Approval of Settlement
ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Protective Order Vacated in Baqer Class Suit
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Elegant Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Morrone Suit
TREK RETAIL: Stipulation to File First Amended Complaint OK'd
UNITED STATES: Lewis Appeals Denial of Prelim. Injunction Bid
VITAMINS BECAUSE: Gmax, Squared Seek More Time to Respond
ZURN WATER: Courts OKs Settlement in Plumbing Product Row
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 127 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Intl. Group Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Numerous PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 171 Talc Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Defends Pending Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl. Paper Records $103MM Total Future Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $29.9MM Future Litigation Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 2,709 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Has $218.6MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Records $372MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 1,675 Trauma Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,161 Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $54 Million Total Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.0MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has 27,770 Pending Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: Court Approves Settlement Deal Over Waste Hazard Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that in certain putative class
actions, certain parties, including 3M, reached an agreement to
resolve litigation among the settling parties. In February 2022,
the district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement. Under the agreement, defendants 3M, Saint-Gobain and
Honeywell will collectively contribute a fixed total amount of
approximately $65 million to resolve the plaintiffs' claims and
those of the proposed classes.
3M is defending 40 individual cases and one putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York and four additional individual cases filed in New York state
court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.,
Tonaga, Inc. (Taconic) is also a defendant in the state court
actions.
Plaintiffs allege that perfluorooctanoate discharged from fabric
coating facilities operated by non-3M entities (that allegedly had
used PFOA-containing materials from 3M, among others) contaminated
the drinking water in the Village of Hoosick Falls, the Town of
Hoosick and Petersburg, New York.
They assert various tort claims for personal injury and property
damage and in some cases request medical monitoring. 3M has
answered the complaints in these individual cases, which are now
proceeding through discovery.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Waste Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that is facing a class action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
against 3M and a certain Wolverine World Wide alleging improper
disposal of materials and wastes.
The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M's "Scotchgard," related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege
Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that
chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and
drinking water sources after disposal. In June 2021, the court
partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, by granting
the motions to dismiss the negligence claim only insofar as the
plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries, as opposed to
property damage.
In September 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint, including to add four new named plaintiffs and putative
class representatives. 3M and Wolverine filed a motion to strike
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and opposed
plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. The parties also filed
several dispositive and expert witness-related motions in November
2021, and the parties have had ongoing mediation discussions. The
court has set a trial date in June 2022. In addition to the
consolidated federal court putative class action, as of December
31, 2021, 3M is a defendant in approximately 275 private individual
actions in Michigan state court based on similar allegations. These
cases are coordinated for pre-trial purposes. Five of these cases
were selected over time for bellwether trials.
In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive
motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including
dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing
certain plaintiffs' medical monitoring and risk of future disease
claims, and granting summary judgment to the defendants on one
plaintiff's cholesterol injury claims. The parties settled the
first bellwether case in early 2020 for an immaterial amount. In
June 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider
the dismissal of the second bellwether case, and the plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the state appellate court.
In January 2021, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in one of three remaining cases. The plaintiffs in this
dismissed bellwether case have also appealed the dismissal to the
state appellate court. The company settled both remaining
bellwether cases for an immaterial amount. Following mediation, in
October 2021, 3M and Wolverine reached a settlement in principle
with counsel representing all but three of the remaining private
individual actions.
At a further mediation in December 2021, 3M and Wolverine reached a
settlement in principle to resolve two more of the remaining cases
(on behalf of seven plaintiff families). Upon completion of these
settlements, only one private individual action will remain pending
in Michigan state court.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Negligence Charges on Improper Waste Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that class action complaints were
filed against it alleging that it failed to warn its customers
about the hazards of improper disposal of the product and
contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries.
3M manufactured and sold various products containing
perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
including "Scotchgard," for several decades. Starting in 2017, 3M
has been served with individual and putative class action
complaints in various state and federal courts alleging, among
other things, that 3M's customers' improper disposal of PFOA and
PFOS resulted in the contamination of groundwater or surface
water.
The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that 3M failed to
warn its customers about the hazards of improper disposal of the
product. They also generally allege that contaminated groundwater
has caused various injuries, including personal injury, loss of use
and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values,
investigation costs, and remediation costs. Several companies have
been sued along with 3M, including Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc. (f/k/a Allied-Signal
Inc. and/or AlliedSignal Laminate Systems, Inc.), Wolverine World
Wide Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.,
Chemours Co., and various carpet manufacturers.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that it, together with several
co-defendants, is defending one putative class action in a Delaware
court brought by individuals alleging perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination of their water supply
resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been
named as defendants.
This case has been removed from state court to federal court, and
plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand to state court and
filed an amended complaint. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. In February 2021, the court raised the question
whether subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act was proper, issued an order requiring the parties to brief the
issue and denied defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to renew
pending the court's ruling on jurisdiction.
An oral argument was held in September 2021. In December 2021, the
court issued an order retaining jurisdiction over the case and 3M
renewed its previous motion to dismiss.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Water Contamination Charges in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that 3M, together with
co-defendants, is defending another putative class action in
federal court in Georgia, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf
of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who
allege their water supply was contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances discharged from a textile mill. In May
2021, the City of Summerville filed a motion to intervene in the
lawsuit, which remains pending. 3M has moved to dismiss this case.
This case remains in early stages of litigation.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Named in CA Product Litigation Over Combat Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that as of December 31, 2021, the
company is a named defendant in approximately 3,616 lawsuits
(including 14 putative class actions) in various state and federal
courts that purport to represent approximately 13,531 individual
claimants making similar allegations. This is with regards to the
"Dual-Ended Combat Arms Version 2" earplugs sold by Aearo
Technologies starting in about 2003.
3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from
2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. In December
2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit against 3M in
the San Bernardino Superior Court in California alleging that he
sustained personal injuries while serving in the military caused by
said product. The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks
various damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of
income, and punitive damages.
In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in
federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings.
The plaintiffs and 3M filed preliminary summary judgment motions on
the government contractor defense. In July 2020, the MDL court
granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and denied the
defendants' summary judgment motion, ruling that plaintiffs' claims
are not barred by the government contractor defense. The court
denied the Company's request to immediately certify the summary
judgment ruling for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. In December 2020, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate three plaintiffs for the first
bellwether trial, which began in March 2021.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
ALL WAYS AUTO: Faces Bryant Class Suit Over TILA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT BRYANT III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL WAYS AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC doing
business as AW TRANSPORT; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00279 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2022)
alleges violation of the Truth in Leasing Act.
According to the complaint, as a condition of working for the
Defendants, the Plaintiff is required to enter into a
non-negotiable "Equipment Lease Agreement". The Agreement is a
take-it-or-leave-it contract of adhesion.
Once the Plaintiff began working, the Defendants deducted lease and
other expenses from amounts that they paid to the Plaintiff. The
"other expenses" were often unspecified charges without description
that were not set forth in the Agreements. For example, the
Defendants would regularly deduct a "weekly deduction" of
approximately $388.05 from the Plaintiff's payment in addition to
all other deductions, without providing any information as to what
the deduction is for, in violation of the the Truth in Leasing Act,
alleges the suit.
All Ways Auto Transport LLC is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Darien, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
-and-
Taras Kick, Esq.
Sam Vahedi, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
The KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
Sam@kicklawfirm.com
Jeff@kicklawfirm.com
ALLIED PILOTS: Flow-Thru Pilots Appeal Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs American Airlines Flow-Thru Pilots Coalition, et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU PILOTS COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03682-RS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.
The case involves Allied Pilots Association's negotiation of length
of service credit for pilots who had been furloughed after
September 11, 2001. APA is the certified representative of pilots
flying for former defendant American Airlines, Inc. The five
individual Plaintiffs are pilots who originally worked at American
Eagle, and obtained their positions at American pursuant to the
so-called "Flow-Through Agreement."
The lawsuit alleges breach of the duty of fair representation in
connection with the representation of employees in the airline
industry under the Railway Labor Act.
On June 28, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
which was granted on January 21, 2022, through an Order and
Judgment by Judge Richard Seeborg.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as American Airlines Flow-Thru
Pilots Coalition, et al. v. Allied Pilots Association, et al., Case
No. 22-15252, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on Feb. 22, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants American Airlines Flow-Thru Pilots Coalition,
Gregory Richard Cordes, Dru Marquart, Doug Poulton, Stephan Robson
and Philip Valente III Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 1,
2022;
-- Appellants American Airlines Flow-Thru Pilots Coalition,
Gregory Richard Cordes, Dru Marquart, Doug Poulton, Stephan Robson
and Philip Valente III opening brief is due on April 25, 2022;
-- Appellee Allied Pilots Association answering brief is due on
May 25, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU PILOTS COALITION,
GREGORY RICHARD CORDES, DRU MARQUART, DOUG POULTON, STEPHAN ROBSON,
and PHILIP VALENTE III, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Christopher W. Katzenbach, Esq.
KATZENBACH LAW OFFICES
912 Lootens Place
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 834-1778
E-mail: ckatzenbach@kkcounsel.com
Defendant-Appellee ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Demain, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
- and -
Steven K. Hoffman, Esq.
Alice Hwang, Esq.
Edgar N. James, Esq.
Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
JAMES & HOFFMAN, PC
1629 K Street, NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 496-0500
AMAZON.COM: Court Sets Discovery, Pretrial Dates in Garner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., A Delaware Corporation, and AMAXON.COM SERVICES,
LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order setting discovery and pretrial dates as follows:
-- Last day to add parties or amend June 9, 2022
pleadings:
-- Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 16, 2022
-- Last day to file motion for class Jan. 26, 2023
certification (including expert
report in opposition to class
certification):
-- Last day to file opposition to March 24, 2023
class certification (including
expert report in opposition to
class certification):
-- Last day to file reply in support April 28, 2023
of class certification (including
reply class certification expert
report limited to any new subjects
introduced in opposition report):
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. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33ZBwSy at no extra charge.[CC]
AUTOZONE INC: Iannone "401(k) Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying the following class:
"All persons, other than Defendants, who were participants
as of November 11, 2013 in Plan, including (i)
beneficiaries of deceased participants who, as of November
11, 2013, were receiving benefit payments or will be
entitled to receive benefit payments in the future, and
(ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations
Order who, as of November 11, 2013, were receiving benefit
payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments
in the future; and (b) all persons, other than AutoZone,
who have been participants or beneficiaries in either the
Plan and had account balances in the Plan at any time
between November 11, 2013 through the date of judgment;"
2. Appointing Michael J. Iannone, Jr. and Nicole A. James as
Class Representatives;
3. Appointing Law Office of Lange Clark, P.C.; James White,
LLC; and Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb LLC as
class counsel.
AutoZone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories, the largest in the United States. Founded in
1979, AutoZone has over 6,400 stores across the United States,
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil and the US Virgin Islands.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Me3Bqr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lange Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK, P.C.
301 19th Street North, Suite 550
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 939-3933
E-mail: langeclark@langeclark.com
- and -
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER GOLDFARB, LLC
The Kress Building
301 Nineteenth Street North
Birmingham, AL A35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0557
E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
BKP INC: Miles Seeks March 24 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MILES A.K.A ELISA
MARIE MILES; and those similarly situated, v. BKP INC.; ELLA BLISS
BEAUTY BAR LLC; ELLA BLISS BEAUTY BAR - 2, LLC; ELLA BLISS BEAUTY
BAR - 3, LLC; BROOKE VANHAVERMAAT; KELLY HUELSING; AND PETER
KOCLANES, Case No. 1:18-cv-01212-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order extending up to and including
March 14, 2022 to file her reply to the motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' response to the pending motion
for class certification is currently due Monday, February 28, 2022.
The Plaintiff requests a 14-day extension, up to and including
March 14, 2022, to file her reply.
As good cause for the request, Plaintiff's legal team is in the
midst of long-planned family vacations surrounding the President's
Day holiday and has at least two hearings and two depositions
scheduled in the next week. Defendants received a similar extension
to file their response.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HvFmRe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Hood, Esq.
David Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
- and -
Mari Newman, Esq.
Liana Orshan, Esq.
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: (303) 571-1000
Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
lorshan@kln-law.com
tvaldez@kln-law.com
CABLE TECHNOLOGY: McKee Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB MCKEE, Individually,
and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CABLE
TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability
Company, and THANH NGUYEN, individually, Case No.
2:21-cv-02385-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"similarly situated current and former wire technicians,
commercial cable installers, cable technicians, and cable
construction persons who were employees of Cable
Technology Communications, LLC and Thanh Nguyen during the
last three years;"
2. authorizing the Plaintiff's claims to proceed as a Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and the putative class for overtime pay
violations;
3. directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing
the names (last names first), last known physical
addresses, last known email addresses, social security
numbers, dates of employment and last known telephone
numbers of all the putative class members;
4. providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with all
of the Defendants' currently employed putative class
members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be
mailed and emailed to the putative class so that they can
timely assert their claims;
5. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and
6. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join
Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vrM1t7
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
CINCO PEREZ: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Deleon Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL DELEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CINCO PEREZ TRUCKING LLC, Defendant, Case
4:22-cv-00530 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Deleon was employed by the Defendant as supervisor.
CINCO PEREZ TRUCKING LLC is a local trucking company specializing
in transportation of general freight. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
MCDONALD WORLEY, P.C.
1770 St. James Pl., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 523-5500
Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
Email: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
matt@mcdonaldworley.com
-and-
Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP
2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 425-6445
Facsimile: (888) 389-9317
Email: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com
CRICKET WIRELESS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Postpichal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled JAMIE POSTPICHAL, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-07270-WHA, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.
The Plaintiffs allege that Cricket Wireless falsely advertised
"unlimited 4G/LTE" services throughout the United States, without
being able to deliver on its promise of faster cellular service.
They bring the action under various state false advertising laws as
well as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
("RICO"). They additionally allege negligence and unjust
enrichment.
The action has already seen prior proposed amendments to the
original complaint, as well as numerous discovery disputes. At a
status conference held November 4, 2020, the parties disputed a
demand to depose current and proposed plaintiffs regarding their
status as Cricket customers and recruitment strategies used by the
Plaintiffs' counsel.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 20, 2021, Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California:
(i) denied the Defendant's motions to exclude and disqualify
the Plaintiffs' experts and oppose class certification;
and
(ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.
On September 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration of class members which the Court denied on January 20,
2022 through an Order signed by Judge William Alsup.
The Defendants now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Postpichal, et al. v.
Cricket Wireless, LLC, Case No. 22-15253, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 22, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Cricket Wireless, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was
due on March 1, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 21, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on April 20, 2022;
-- Appellant Cricket Wireless, LLC opening brief is due on May
31, 2022;
-- Appellees Ursula Freitas and Jamie Postpichal answering brief
is due on July 1, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC is represented by:
David Ryan Carpenter, Esq.
Nicole Marie Ryan, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
555 W 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6679
- and -
Daniel Jones, Esq.
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3860
E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Kristin Madigan, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING, LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 365-7233
Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMIE POSTPICHAL, individually; and URSULA
FREITAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq.
Neil Sawhney, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-0336
- and -
Tyler Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1177
- and -
Jonathan Taylor, Esq.
Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC
2001 K Street, NW Suite 850 N
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-7566
CVS PHARMACY: Chacon Sues Over Mislabeled Pail Relieving Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case
5:22-cv-00983 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants misrepresentation to its pain relieving products a
containing "Maximum Strength".
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells, markets, and
distributes "CVS Health" Maximum Strength Lidocaine Pain Relieving
patches, creams, roll-ons, sprays, and menthol lidocaine products.
The Plaintiff lack the scientific knowledge necessary to determine
whether the Products are "Maximum Strength" lidocaine products or
to ascertain the true nature of the quality or strength of the
Products. The Defendant makes the "Maximum Strength" representation
in a knowingly false and deceptive manner because the Defendant's
Products contains only 4% lidocaine; with regard to "Patch"
products, similar prescription Products manufactured by at least
one of Defendant's competitors contains 5% lidocaine; with regard
to "cream" products, similar creams manufactured by at least one of
Defendant's competitors contain 5% lidocaine, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members were allegedly damaged because they
would not have purchased for the Defendant's Products had they
known the true facts regarding the Products' "Maximum Strength"
representations and omissions.
VS Pharmacy Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company
offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health
supplement, and other medical products. CVS Pharmacy markets its
products throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
Email: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
jshub@shublawyers.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Deal on PM Gold Fix Case to be Heard on Aug. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Exchange - Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation
United States District Court Southern District of New York
Case. No 14-MC-2548(VEC)
If you from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2013, either (A) sold
any physical gold or financial or derivative instrument in which
gold is the underlying reference asset, or (B) bought gold put
options in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or
in part on COMEX or on any other exchange operated in the United
States, you may be eligible to receive a payment from pending
Settlements.
Please note that your rights may have changed following a January
5, 2022 court hearing, after which the Court issued a series of new
orders, available in the "Documents" section of this website.
There is, among other things, a new (third) settlement and a
proposed change to the Plans of Allocation. Settlement Class
Members have new deadlines to file new or revised claim forms, to
exclude themselves from the Settlements, or to file objections on
certain issues.
Plaintiffs allege that, from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2013
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), Defendants (Deutsche
Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, Barclays Bank plc, Societe Generale SA, The
Bank of Nova Scotia, and The London Gold Market Fixing Limited)
conspired to drive down the price of gold around the time of a
daily, secret, and unregulated afternoon meeting (the "PM Gold
Fix"). The PM Gold Fix was intended to determine the global
benchmark price per ounce of gold (the "Fix price") based on supply
and demand fundamentals stemming from a competitive gold auction
among the Fixing members. However, Defendants allegedly
capitalized on the lack of regulatory oversight and the private
nature of the PM Gold Fix to facilitate Defendants' agreement to
manipulate and fix gold prices and the prices of Gold Investments
during the Settlement Class Period. Defendants' conduct harmed
other market participants like Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
"Gold Investments" means (i) gold bullion, gold bullion coins,
gold ingots, gold bars, or any other form of physical gold, (ii)
gold futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in
part on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States
(iii) shares in gold ETFs, (iv) gold call options in transactions
conducted over-the-counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or any
other exchange operated in the United States (v) gold put options
in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or in part
on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States, and
(vi) gold spot, gold forwards, or gold swaps traded
over-the-counter.
The Court has not decided for or against Plaintiffs or Defendants.
Instead, Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel engaged in negotiations with
the Defendants to reach a negotiated resolution of the claims
against the Defendants in this Action. The Settlements allow
Plaintiffs and Defendants to avoid the risks and costs of lengthy
litigation and the uncertainty of pre-trial proceedings, a trial,
and appeals. If approved, the Settlements would permit eligible
Settlement Class Members, who file timely and valid Proof of Claim
and Release Forms, to receive compensation, rather than risk
ultimately receiving nothing. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel believe the Settlements are in the best interest of all
Settlement Class Members.
Following a January 5, 2022 hearing, there are now two sets of
settlements - the "Original Settlements" and the "Third Settlement
Agreement." The settlements are at different stages and thus your
rights differ depending on which settlement is at issue.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
DO NOTHING (prior claimants)
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you submitted a claim in
connection with the Original Settlements, unless you direct the
Settlement Administrator otherwise, your information will
automatically be treated as if also submitted in connection with
the Third Settlement Agreement. Thus, if you already have
submitted a claim, you need not re-submit the same information.
FILE A NEW OR REVISED CLAIM
A change to the Plan of Allocation has been proposed that would, if
approved, allow positions opened and closed the same day to be
included in the calculations for each class member’s pro rata
share under the Plan of Allocation. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and you submitted a claim in connection with the Original
Settlements, you may submit a revised claim, including to
supplement your claim with information about positions opened and
closed on the same day. If you did not submit a claim in
connection with the Original Settlements, you can still do so.
To qualify for payment, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release Form to the Settlement Administrator. New or revised Proof
of Claim and Release Forms must be mailed or submitted
electronically by April 19, 2022.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF
You can exclude yourself by sending a written "Request for
Exclusion" so that it is received no later than April 19, 2022.
The request should make clear whether you seek to be excluded from
the Original Settlements, the Third Settlement Agreement, or all
the Settlements.
OBJECT
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not exclude
yourself, you can tell the Court what you think about the Plans of
Allocation for the Original Settlements and the Third Settlement
Agreement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not
exclude yourself, you can also tell the Court what you think about
the Third Settlement Agreement, any application for attorneys’
fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses requested in
connection with the Third Settlement Agreement, and/or any service
or incentive awards for Plaintiffs requested in connection with the
Third Settlement Agreement. You can give reasons why you think the
Court should approve them or not. The Court will consider your
views. Your objection must be received no later than June 24,
2022.
The deadline for objecting to the Original Settlements and Co-Lead
Counsel’s request for fees and expenses in connection with the
Original Settlements has passed. Therefore, you have no further
right to object to any of the terms of the Original Settlements, or
the fee and expense awards the Court has already informed
Plaintiffs that it will grant in connection with the Original
Settlements.
GO TO A HEARING
The Fairness Hearing with is scheduled for Friday, August 5, 2022,
at 10:00 A.M. Please continue to check this website for updates as
to date, time, and access information.
DO NOTHING (if you did not already submit a claim)
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you did nothing in
connection with the Original Settlements, and you continue to do
nothing, you will not get any money from any Settlement. You will
remain in the Settlement Classes and be bound by the decisions of
the Court in this matter.
E-HOUSE (CHINA): Maso Capital Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Maso Capital Investments Limited, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MASO
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLACKWELL PARTNERS LLC -- SERIES A,
and CROWN MANAGED ACCOUNTS SPC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CROWN/MASO
SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. E-HOUSE (CHINA) HOLDINGS LIMITED,
XIN ZHOU, NEIL NANPENG SHEN, E-HOUSE HOLDINGS LTD., CHARLES CHAO,
BING XIANG, HONGCHAO ZHU, JEFFREY ZENG, WINSTON LI, DAVID JIAN SUN,
CANHAO HUANG, SINA CORPORATION, KANRICH HOLDINGS LIMITED, ON
CHANCE, INC., JUN HENG INVESTMENT LIMITED, SMART CREATE GROUP
LIMITED, and SMART MASTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02943, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of former owners of E
House American Depository Receipts (ADS), who sold their shares
from April 15, 2016 until August 31, 2016, allege that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements about their stock
merger deal, where each ADS would be bought for $6.85 per ADS. The
Defendants claim the deal was fair and in the best interest of
investors, although there were no plans for post-merger
transactions, and that the proxies' published projections as the
best available. The Plaintiffs and Class members contend that the
Defendants' fraudulent scheme aimed for them to accept the deal on
August 12, 2016. After the merger, E-House relisted a portion of
its business at a price reflecting a valuation far higher than the
$6.85 per ADS.
The Defendants' wrongful act caused losses and damages to the
Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated September 29, 2021 and Judgment dated February 8, 2022,
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Maso Capital Investments v.
E-House (China) Holdings, Case No. 22-355, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 23,
2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Maso Capital Investments Limited, Altimeo
Asset Management, Blackwell Partners LLC Series A, and Crown
Managed Accounts SPC for and on behalf of Crown/Maso Segregated
Portfolio, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:
Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: jbissell-linsk@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
Defendants-Appellees E-House (China) Holdings Limited, Xin Zhou,
Neil Nanpeng Shen, E-House Holdings Ltd., Bing Xiang, Hongchao Zhu,
Jeffrey Zeng, Winston Li, David Jian Sun, Canhao Huang, SINA
Corporation, Kanrich Holdings Limited, On Chance, Inc., Smart
Create Group Limited, Smart Master International Limited, Jun Heng
Investment Limited, and Charles Chao are represented by:
Scott Musoff, Esq.
Robert Alexander Fumerton, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-7852
FCA US: Court Tosses Bledsoe Bid to Certify Class as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on
be-half of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC, a Delaware corpo-ration, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Terrence G. Berg entered an order denying as moot motion to certify
class.
The Plaintiffs in this proposed putative class action allege that
Defendant FCA's 2007-2012 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks,
equipped with 6.7-liter Turbo Diesel engines manufactured by the
Defendant Cummins Inc., emit nitrogen oxides (NOx) at levels in
excess of federal and state emissions standards.
The Complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act), the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act (MMWA), as well as claims asserted under the respective laws of
49 states and the District of Columbia.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans.[CC]
FRESH HARVEST: Filing of Class Cert Extended in Saramiento Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIGOBERTO SARAMIENTO, and
others similarly situated, v. FRESH HARVEST, INC., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-07974-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
entered an order granting parties' stipulation to extend time for
mediation and filing of class certification as follows:
1. The deadline for the parties to mediate shall be extended
through and including October 14, 2022.
2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification shall be extended from April 29, 2022
through and including November 18, 2022 with an agreed
briefing scheduled that provides approximately 60 days for
Defendants' Opposition through and includingJanuary 13,
2022 and 28 days for Plaintiffs' reply through and
including February 10, 2023.
Fresh Harvest Inc is a food & beverages company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pmmL3S at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
DAWSON MORTON, LLC
104 Cambridge Ave
Decatur, GA 30030
Counsel for Fresh Harvest, Inc. and SMD Logistics, Inc.
Charley M. Stoll, Esq.
CHARLEY M. STOLL, P.C.
340 Rosewood Ave, Ste K
Camarillo, CA 93010
E-mail: cstoll@cmsapc.com
- and -
Rob Roy, Esq.
VENTURA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION
916 W. Ventura Blvd.
Camarillo CA 93010
E-mail: Rob-vcaa@pacbell.net
- and -
Robert Mussig, Esq.
Tyler Johnson, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin, Esq.
E-mail: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com
tjohnson@sheppardmullin.com
Counsel for Fresh Foods, Inc. and Rava Ranches, Inc., are:
Ana Toledo, Esq.
NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS
333 Salinas Street
P.O. Box 2510
Salinas, CA 93902
E-mail: atoledo@nheh.com
canossett@nheh.com
ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY
SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
class and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"),
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All current and former non-exempt employees of ISS Facility
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; ISS Facility Services
California, Inc. at any time during the period from October
24, 2015 through the date of the order granting class
certification ("Class Period")."
The Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the
following classes and subclasses:
1. Minimum Wage Class:
"all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt
employees in California during the Class Period.:"
a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants
as non-exempt employees in California during the Class
Period who were not paid by Defendants based on
employee clock in and clock out times.
b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during
the Class Period.
2. Overtime Class:
"all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt
employees in California during the Class Period who worked
at least one shift over eight hours long."
a. Rounding Subclass: all persons employed by Defendants
the as non-exempt employees in California during the
Class Period who were not paid by Defendants based on
employee clock in and clock out times, and worked one
shift over eight hours long.
b. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during
the Class Period who worked at least one shift over
eight hours long.
3. Rest Break Class:
"all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt
employees in California during the Class Period who worked
at least one shift over 3.5 hours long."
4. Meal Period Class:
all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees
in California during the Class Period who worked at least
one shift over five hours long.
a. First Meal Break Subclass: all persons employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during
the Class Period who worked at least one shift over
five hours long.
b. Second Meal Period Subclass: all persons employed by
the Defendants as non-exempt employees at Defendants’
California facilities during the Class Period who
worked at least one shift over ten hours long.
5. Wage Statement Class:
"all persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt
employees in California during the Class Period."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order:
(1) certifying the derivative claims for failure to pay all
wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair
business practices;
(2) appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and
(3) appointing Matern Law Group, including Matthew J. Matern
and Tagore O. Subramaniam, as class counsel.
ISS was founded in 2006. The company's line of business includes
providing facilities support management and consulting services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tfNFLS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
tagore@maternlawgroup.com
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Pension Fund Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022,
that a securities suit over a merger deal in July 9, 2021 was
voluntarily dismissed on August 10, 2021.
On July 6, 2021, a complaint captioned "The City of Boca Raton
Police and Firefighters' Retirement System v. MSG Networks Inc.,"
2021-0578, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by purported stockholders of MSG Networks Inc. against MSG
Networks Inc. The complaint purported to seek to enforce the
plaintiff's right to inspect certain of MSG Networks Inc.'s books
and records under Section 220 of the DGCL.
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is into live experiences
comprising venues; marquee entertainment brands, regional sports
and entertainment networks; dining and nightlife offerings and a
premier music festival based in New York.
MAJESTIC CARE: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WRIGHT, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MAJESTIC
CARE STAFF LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-2129 (S.D. Ohio), the
Parties jointly stipulate to conditionally certify a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and move this Court to
approve the attached Notice and Consent to be sent to the putative
collective members who are defined as:
"All current (as of the date the Court's entry of an Order
approving the Parties' Notice Packet) and former hourly, non-
exempt Ohio employees of Defendants who were paid for 40 or
more hours in any workweek and (i) had a meal deduction taken
from their compensable hours worked; (ii) received Additional
Remuneration; and/or (iii) had unpaid short rest breaks of 20
minutes or less, during the last three years and continuing
through the date of the final disposition of this case
("Potential Opt-Ins").
The Parties will provide notice to the Potential Opt-Ins in
accordance with the following schedule:
1. The Parties jointly submit the proposed Notice and Consent
to Join forms ("Notice Packet") to be authorized by the
Court.
2. Within 14 days of the Court's entry of an Order approving
the Parties' Notice Packet, Defendants shall provide to
Named Plaintiff's Counsel a list (in Microsoft Office
Excel format) containing the names, last known addresses
(including zip code), and personal email addresses (to the
extent that Defendants have email addresses) of the
Potential Opt-Ins.
3. Named Plaintiff's Counsel will mail and email to the
Potential Opt-Ins via First Class U.S. Mail within 14 days
of receiving the list. The Potential Opt-Ins shall have 90
days from the date the Notice Packet is mailed and emailed
to return their Consent to Join form and opt-in to this
case.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0AqW5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey N. Lindemann, Esq.
Jessica T.S. Sexton, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
Great American Tower
301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3300
Cincinnati, OH 54202
Telephone: (513) 651-6800
Facsimile: (513) 651-6981
E-mail: jlindemann@fbtlaw.com
jsexton@fbtlaw.com
MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD R. FLYNN, GENE
DAISEY, DOUGLAS J. ABBOTT, PERCY CHAPMAN,and JANENE CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY a/k/a M&T BANK, Case No.
2:17-cv-04806 WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the classes as proposed in the
contemporaneously filed Brief in Support and Amended
Declaration of Richard Shenkan;
2. appointing Richard Shenkan, James Haggerty, and their
respective law firms as class counsel;
3. appointing Gene Daisey, Edward Flynn, Douglas Abbott,
Percy Chapman, and Janene Chapman as Class Representatives
4. approving the proposed class notice proposed by Plaintiffs
be sent to putative class members and that the information
necessary to effectuate the class notice (i.e., names,
addresses, etc.) be provided to Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs are filing this amended motion for certification and
a contemporaneous Brief in Support pursuant to this Court's
February 2, 2022 Order.
The Plaintiffs and their counsel are advocating on behalf of
approximately 4,000 -- 5,000 consumer borrowers with potential
statutory damages of approximately $37 million dollars ($
37,000,000), and other substantial relief, including equitable,
declaratory, and injunctive relief.
The other relief requested includes the removal of credit
tradelines relating to the repossession and loan, refund of monies
paid towards disputed deficiency balances (including setting-aside
of loans financing deficiency balances), and a restraint on
collection of the purported deficiency balances, are critically
important features sought by these beleaguered consumers, and is a
substantial motivating factor for the Plaintiffs' efforts to
advance this complex litigation.
The Plaintiffs are up against a sophisticated, seemingly
endlessly-resourced financial institution that has demonstrated
again and again that it will obstruct and obfuscate the issues at
every single turn in an attempt to dodge its liability to this
vulnerable population. As a result, this action has been a
difficult, and at times, irregular journey.
This consumer class action relates to the repossession and
redemption or loan reinstatement of more than 3,000 vehicles in
Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant M&T Bank ("M&T")
violated Pennsylvania’s Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), 13
Pa.C.S.A. §§9601, et seq., independently, and in pari materia
with Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act ("MVSFA"),
relating to the statutory content requirements for the (form)
post-repossession consumer disclosure notices ("" or "NOR's") that
must be sent after a vehicle is repossessed and prior to
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3peq7pq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC.
6550 Lakeshore St.
West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1429
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
James Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER &
KUPERSMITH, LLC.
1801 Market St, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 361-0569
E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com
MARATHON REFINING: Must File Class Cert. Opposition by March 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, WARREN
KOSTENUK, ANTHONY ALFARO and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS
SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No.
4:19-cv-04287-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order granting joint stipulation requesting
continuance of class certification briefing and hearing as
follows:
1) The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
continued to March 25, 2022;
2) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply shall be
continued to April 22, 2022; and
3) The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be continued to May 24, 2022 (or other date
available to the Court). at 2:00 p.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C2SvAd at no extra charge.[CC]
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Opt-Out Deadline in Class Suit Set as April 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO ACQUIRED MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
("MAXAR") COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR DIGITALGLOBE, INC. ("DIGITAL
GLOBE") COMMON STOCK IN CONNECTION WITH MAXAR'S OCTOBER 2017
ACQUISITION AND MERGER WITH DIGITALGLOBE (THE "CLASS").
A California court authorized this Notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION CASE PENDING IN
COURT.
You Are Hereby Notified that your rights may be affected by a
lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara (the "Court"), against Maxar Technologies,
Inc. ("Maxar"), Howard L. Lance, Anil Wirasekara, Angela Lau,
Robert L. Phillips, Dennis H. Chookaszian, Lori B. Garver, Joanne
O. Isham, Robert Kehler, Brian G. Kenning, and Eric Zahler
("Individual Defendants" and with Maxar collectively,
"Defendants"). In October 2017, Maxar, a satellite manufacturer,
acquired and merged with DigitalGlobe, Inc. ("DigitalGlobe"), a
satellite imagery company (the "Merger"). Plaintiff alleges that in
connection with the Merger, Maxar issued approximately 21 million
new shares of common stock pursuant to a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively,
with the documents incorporated therein, the "Offering Materials").
You may read a copy of the Complaint here:
www.MaxarSantaClaraCountyLitigation.com.
The Court has determined that this litigation, titled In re Maxar
Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 19CV357070 (Cal.
Super. Ct.) ("Litigation"), may proceed as a class action on behalf
of the Class, except for certain persons and entities that are
excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of Class Action. This Summary Notice provides only
limited information about the Litigation. The full printed Notice
of Class Action ("Notice") is currently being mailed to known Class
members. If you have not yet received a full printed Notice, you
may obtain a copy from the website for the Action at
www.MaxarSantaClaraCountyLitigation.com or by contacting A.B. Data,
Ltd. ("Administrator"). The Administrator's contact information
is:
In re Maxar Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Notice Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173131
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@MaxarSantaClaraCountyLitigation.com
Toll-Free Number: (877) 888-9470
If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you believe you are a
member of the Class, please send your name and address to the
Administrator so if any future notices are disseminated in
connection with the Action, you will receive them.
Who is Included in the Class? You are a Class member if you
acquired Maxar common stock in exchange for DigitalGlobe common
stock pursuant to the Offering Materials issued in connection with
Maxar's October 2017 merger and acquisition of DigitalGlobe.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families; the
officers, directors, and affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant
times; members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded
from the Class are any former DigitalGlobe shareholders who entered
into a release of claims in connection with the DigitalGlobe
appraisal actions. See, e.g., In re Appraisal of DigitalGlobe, Inc.
Common Stock and Preferred Stock, Consol. C.A. No. 2017-0810 (Del.
Ch.).
What are my Rights and Options? If you are a Class member, by doing
nothing you will keep the possibility of getting money or benefits,
if any, from this Litigation. If you stay in the Class and
Plaintiff obtains money or benefits, you will be notified about how
to apply for a share. By staying in the Class, you will also be
legally bound by all orders the Court issues and the judgment the
Court makes in this Litigation. If you do nothing now, regardless
of whether Plaintiff wins or loses, you will give up your right to
sue or continue to sue Defendants as part of any other lawsuit
about the same legal claims in this Litigation.
If you do not want to be a member of the Class, you must opt out
pursuant to the instructions below. If you opt out of the Class,
you may not be able to assert individual claims asserting
securities law violations against Defendants, as such claims may no
longer be timely. You will need to decide whether to pursue any
individual lawsuit, claim, or remedy that you may have at your own
expense. You are encouraged to seek legal advice concerning the
potential impact of opting out on your legal rights, including to
determine if your claims would be barred by the applicable statutes
of limitation or repose. If you do not want to be a member of the
Class, you must send a signed letter by U.S. Mail saying you want
to be excluded from the Class and include the information listed
below.
Your request must contain the following information: (a) your name,
telephone number, email address, and mailing address, (b) your
statement that you believe you are a Class member and you wish to
be excluded from the Class, (c) the name and docket number of this
case: In re Maxar Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No.
19CV357070 (Cal. Super. Ct.), and (d) be personally signed by you.
Your request to exclude yourself may not be signed by a lawyer or
anyone acting on your behalf.
Mail the form to the following address:
In re Maxar Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Notice Administrator - EXCLUSIONS
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173001
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Be sure to sign the form and complete all required information. To
be valid, opt-out requests must be postmarked no later than April
23, 2022.
This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court as to
the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party
in this Litigation.
If you have any questions concerning the matter raised in this
Summary Notice or the full Notice, you may contact the
Administrator or address your questions to:
Court-Appointed Class Counsel
Adam E. Polk
Makenna Cox
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
apolk@girardsharp.com
mcox@girardsharp.com
David W. Hall
Armen Zohrabian
Hedin Hall llp
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
Central case documents can be found online at:
www.MaxarSantaClaraCountyLitigation.com. The pleadings and other
records in this Litigation may be examined (a) online on the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara's Electronic
Filing and Service Website available on the Court's website
(https://www.scscourt.org/) or through the Santa Clara Superior
Court Portal at https://portal.scscourt.org/, or (b) in person at
Records, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191
N. 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court
holidays and closures.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR CONTACT THE COURT OR CLERK OF THE COURT,
DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY NOTICE. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MAY BE A MEMBER
OF THE CLASS, YOU ARE URGED TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE FULL NOTICE,
WHICH IS ACCESSIBLE AT WWW.MAXARSANTACLARACOUNTYLITIGATION.COM OR
BY CONTRACTING THE ADMINISTRATOR AT (877) 888-9470 OR AT
INFO@MAXARSANTACLARACOUNTYLITIGATION.COM.
Dated: February 28, 2022
By Order of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara
The Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni
MILK STUDIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILK STUDIOS, LLC; MILK STUDIOZ INC.; and
"JOHN DOES I-V", Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-00894 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as driver.
Milk Studios, LLC was founded in 1998. The company's line of
business includes still or video portrait photography for the
general public. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
MLS PROPERTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Bauman Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Jane Bauman, et al v.
MLS Property Information Network, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-12244 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an
order setting scheduling order deadlines:
-- Motion for Class Certification May 5, 2023
due by:
-- Responses to Motion for Class Aug. 4, 2023
Certification and Any Daubert
Motions by:
-- Reply to Motion for Class Nov. 10, 2022
Certification and Opposition
to Daubert Motions due by:
-- Sur-Reply to Motion for Class Nov. 22, 2023
Certification due by:
-- Fact Discovery to be completed Feb. 1, 2024
by:
The nature of suit states other statutes -- antitrust.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
MOWI ASA: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Salmon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: FARM-RAISED SALMON AND SALMON
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-21551-CMA (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order amending
the amended Nov. 5, 2021 scheduling order as follows:
1. Parties exchange expert witness May 16, 2022
summaries or reports on issues of
class certification:
2. The Plaintiffs file motion for May 16, 2022
class certification:
3. The Defendants file combined July 21, 2022
response to motion for class
certification:
4. The Parties exchange rebuttal July 21, 2022
expert witness summaries or
reports on issues of class
certification:
5. Deadline for completing class Aug. 12, 2022
certification discovery:
6. Plaintiffs file their reply Aug. 25, 2022
memorandum:
7. Parties exchange expert witness Oct. 6, 2022
summaries or reports:
8. Parties exchange rebuttal expert Nov. 17, 2022.
witness summaries or reports:
9. All discovery, including expert Dec. 21, 2022.
discovery, is completed:
10. All pre-trial motions and Jan. 26, 2023.
Daubert motions (which include
motions to strike experts) are
filed:
11. Parties submit joint pre-trial April 4, 2023
stipulation, proposed jury
instructions and verdict form,
or proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law, as
applicable, and motions in
limine (other than Daubert
motions).
Th Defendants are Mowi ASA; Mowi USA, LLC; Marine Harvest Canada,
Inc.; Mowi Ducktrap, LLC; Grieg Seafood ASA; Grieg Seafood BC Ltd.;
Ocean Quality AS; Ocean Quality North America Inc.; Ocean Quality
USA Inc.; Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc; SalMar ASA; Lerøy
Seafood AS; Lerøy Seafood USA Inc.; Cermaq Group AS; Cermaq US
LLC; Cermaq Canada Ltd.; Cermaq Norway AS; and entities owned or
controlled by them.
The Plaintiffs are Euclid Fish Company; Euro USA Inc.; Schneider's
Fish and Sea Food Corporation; Beacon Fisheries, Inc.; Cape Florida
Seafood; The Fishing Line LLC; and Hesh's Seafood, Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C2USD7 at no extra charge.[CC]
NATERA INC: Prenatal Test Results Not Accurate, Davis Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATERA, INC., Defendant, Case
3:22-cv-00985-AGT (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2022) is an action alleging
the Defendant's misrepresented the accuracy of the test results of
its noninvasive prenatal testing or NIPT for pregnant women.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells
noninvasive prenatal testing or NIPT tests for pregnant women that
screen for various chromosomal and genetic conditions affecting a
baby’s health. The Defendant markets its NIPT tests as the most
reliable non-invasive method of screening for genetic conditions.
Although NIPT testing is generally effective at screening for Down
syndrome, an investigation by the New York Times has revealed that
positive test results for some rare genetic conditions are
incorrect 85 percent of the time or more, up to 98 percent.
The Defendant has known for years that its NIPT tests are
susceptible to false positives, yet it continues to promote its
NIPT test as a reliable detector of rare abnormalities. It also
claims that its NIPT test produces fewer false positives than
competing tests without revealing the extent to which pregnant
women and their doctors may be induced to make health decisions
based on inaccurate test results, the suit added.
Natera, Inc. operates as a diagnostics company. The Company
provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services.
Natera also offers pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, aneuploidy
screening, translocation, and single gene testing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Trevor T. Tan, Esq.
Nina R. Gliozzo, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
ttan@girardsharp.com
ngliozzo@girardsharp.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dent Appeals Summary Judgment Relief Bid Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Dent, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled RICHARD DENT, J.D. HILL, JAMES
MCMAHON, JEREMY NEWBERRY, RON PRITCHARD, RON STONE, KEITH VAN
HORNE, AND MARCELLUS WILEY, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Case No.
3:14-cv-02324-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
In this personal injury action, the Plaintiffs, eight former
professional football players, allege Defendant professional
football league voluntarily undertook a duty to them to ensure the
proper recordkeeping, administration and distribution of
medications by their teams and that Defendant was negligent in
discharging such duty, causing them musculoskeletal and internal
organ injuries, and drug addiction. The Defendant now moves for
summary judgment on all claims on the grounds that the claims are
barred by the relevant statutes of limitations; fail for
insufficient proof of causation; or are preempted by Section 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act.
On January 4, 2022, the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant against all
Plaintiffs.
On February 18, 2022, Judge Alsup entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment.
The Court held that the motion was granted only to the extent that
the summary judgment record is retroactively augmented to include
the correct version of the declaration of Plaintiffs' expert.
Otherwise, the motion was denied, it added.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as RICHARD DENT; JEREMY NEWBERRY;
ROY GREEN; J. D. HILL; KEITH VAN HORNE; RON STONE; RON PRITCHARD;
JAMES MCMAHON; MARCELLUS WILEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE, a New York unincorporated association,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-15261, filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 23, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due March 2, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 25, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be filed by April 25, 2022;
-- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served on June 3, 2022;
-- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served on July 5, 2022; and
-- The optional appellants' reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure
of the appellants to comply with the Time Schedule Order will
result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
NETFLIX INC: Estate of B.H. Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs THE ESTATE OF ISABELLA "BELLA" HERNDON, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled The Estate
of B.H, John Herndon, J.H., a minor, T.H., a minor, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. NETFLIX, INC., Case
No. 4:21-cv-06561-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs lost their family
member, B.H., to suicide on April 28, 2017. More than four years
later, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to hold Netflix
responsible for her death because it disseminated an acclaimed,
award-winning fictional television series, "13 Reasons Why." Based
on the New York Times bestselling young adult novel, "13 Reasons
Why" grappled with the issue of teen suicide and depicted a lead
character taking her own life.
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint after Netflix moved to
dismiss the original complaint on the ground that the First
Amendment and numerous state law grounds bar each of Plaintiffs'
claims. The Plaintiffs allege that B.H. watched "13 Reasons Why"
and later "experienced emotional and psychological distress and
harm."
Decedent's estate, her father (John Herndon), and her two brothers
(J.H. and T.H.), brought this putative class action against
Netflix. Decedent's estate and her father assert two survival
claims for strict liability and negligence while her brothers
assert a claim for wrongful death.
The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of Forsyth County
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Aug. 25, 2021.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated
November 12, 2021, denying their motion to remand and motion for
jurisdictional discovery; Court's Order dated January 12, 2022,
granting Defendant's special motion to strike pursuant to
California Anti-SLAAP Statute, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section
425.16, or, in the alternative motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and Court's Order dated January 19, 2022,
dismissing case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as The Estate of Isabella "Bella"
Herndon, et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-15260, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February
23, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants John Herndon, J.H., T.H. and The Estate of
Isabella "Bella" Herndon Mediation Questionnaire is due on March 2,
2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 21, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on April 21, 2022;
-- Appellants John Herndon, J.H., T.H. and The Estate of
Isabella "Bella" Herndon opening brief is due on May 31, 2022;
-- Appellee Netflix, Inc. answering brief is due on July 1,
2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants The Estate of B.H, John Herndon, J.H., a
minor, T.H., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Andrew Grimm, Esq.
DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
15287 Pepperwood Drive
Omaha, NE 68154
Telephone: (531) 210-2381
E-mail: andrew@digitaljusticefoundation.org
- and -
Ryan Andrew Hamilton, Esq.
HAMILTON LAW LLC
5125 S. Durango, Suite C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Telephone: (702) 818-1818
E-mail: ryan@hamlegal.com
- and -
Gregory William Keenan, Esq.
DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
81 Stewart Street
Floral Park, NY 11001
Telephone: (516) 633-2633
E-mail: gregory@digitaljusticefoundation.org
- and -
Rory Lawrence Stevens, Esq.
4303 SW Cambridge Street
Seattle, WA 98136
Telephone: (206) 850-4444
E-mail: rorystevens@hotmail.com
Defendant-Appellee NETFLIX, INC. is represented by:
Cory Batza, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
350 S Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9574
E-mail: cory.batza@mto.com
- and -
Blanca Young, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4019
E-mail: blanca.young@mto.com
NFP RETIREMENT: Court Certifies 401(k) Plan Participant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Lauderdale et al.
v. NFP Retirement, Inc. et al., Robert Lauderdale et al v. NFP
Retirement, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00301-JVS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order regarding
motion for class certification as follows:
1. certifying the following class:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Wood 401(k)
Plan from February 16, 2015 through the date of judgment,
excluding Defendants and members of the Committee of the
Wood 401(k) Plan;"
2. appointing Robert Lauderdale, Joshua Carrell, Ting Sheng
Wang, Leonard Dickhaut, Robert Crow, Aubin Ntela, and
Rodney Aaron Riggins as class representatives; and
3. appointing Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP as class
counsel.
This case concerns the management of the Wood 401(k) Plan. The Plan
is a multiple employer defined contribution employee pension
benefit plan. The Plaintiffs are former employees of adopting
employers and are participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.
Wood Group Management was the Plan sponsor and administrator until
June 1, 2016. Wood Group U.S. has been the Plan sponsor and
administrator since June 1, 2016. Wood Group U.S. appointed the
Wood Committee to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities with
respect to the Plan. The Wood Committee is responsible for the
selection, monitoring, and removal of Plan investments and service
providers, including the investment consultant.
NFP and flexPATH are both registered investment advisers.
The Plaintiffs' SAC brought claims for (1) breach of fiduciary
duties related to the flexPATH funds under 29 U.S.C. section
1104(A)(1); (2) breach of fiduciary duties related to the use of
higher-cost versions of plan investments under 29 U.S.C. §
1104(A)(1); (3) prohibited transactions related to the flexPATH
funds under 29 U.S.C. section 1106; (4) failure to monitor
fiduciaries; and, (5) breach of fiduciary duties related to the
selection of flexPATH under 29 U.S. C. section 1104(A)(1).
A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 16, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JVJlrY at no
extra charge.[CC]
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Nyanjom Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KELLIE JO NYANJOM filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Kellie Jo Nyanjom, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 6:21-cv-01171-JAR-ADM, in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas - Wichita.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28, 2021, the
lawsuit is a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), for the benefit of Kansas consumers whose private,
debt-related information NPAS Solutions, LLC disclosed to an
unauthorized third party, in connection with the collection of
consumer debts.
This unnecessary practice exposes private information regarding
alleged debts to third parties not exempted by the FDCPA, the
Plaintiff contends. The Defendant routinely provides, in connection
with the collection of consumer debts, protected information
regarding consumer debts to third-party mail vendors in violation
of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and on behalf of similarly
situated Kansas consumers to whom Defendant sent debt collection
letters that were prepared, printed, or mailed by a third-party
mail vendor.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Wichita, Kansas, and is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to
pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor
other than Defendant.
On March 5, 2021, the Defendant caused a written communication to
be sent to Plaintiff at her Wichita address, in connection with the
collection of the Debt. The March 5, 2021 letter disclosed the
"Outstanding Account Balance" on the Debt.
On August 23, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction which the Court granted on January 19, 2022 through a
Memorandum and Order and Judgment signed by Judge Julie A.
Robinson.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Nyanjom v. NPAS Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 22-3032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, filed on Feb. 22, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance are due on March 8, 2022 for Kellie Jo Nyanjom; and
-- Notice of appearance is due on March 8, 2022 for NPAS
Solutions, LLC.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KELLIE JO NYANJOM, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL
7601 North Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
LACROIX LAW FIRM
1600 Genessee, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 399-4380
E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com
Defendant-Appellee NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented by:
Ryan C. Hardy, Esq.
SPENCER FANE
One North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63105-3925
Telephone: (314) 863-7733
E-mail: rhardy@spencerfane.com
- and -
Michael W. Seitz, Esq.
SPENCER FANE
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 474-8100
E-mail: mseitz@spencerfane.com
PEARL BANYAN: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas v. Pearl
Banyan Capital LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09863-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed June 23, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including Aug. 8, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of March 25, 2022
documents shall be served by:
-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule March 25, 2022
33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of
the Southern District of New York
shall be served by:
-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall May 24, 2022
be completed by:
-- Requests to admit shall be served by: July 7, 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M2kPHa at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
www.mizrahikroub.com
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Steven Samuel, Esq.
SAMUELS LAW FIRM
www.thesamuellawfirm.com/
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
PEARL BANYAN: Pretrial Conference Adjourned in Tavarez-Vargas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas v. Pearl
Banyan Capital LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09863-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that the initial
pretrial conference in this matter is adjourned sine die.
The Court will issue the parties' case management plan and a
mediation referral order under separate cover. If Plaintiff wishes
to file a motion for class certification following mediation or
discovery, he may file a pre-motion letter in accordance with Rule
4.A of this Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
The Plaintiff brings this action, on both an individual basis and
on behalf of a nationwide class, against defendant Pearl Banyan
Capital LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").
Specifically, the Defendant failed to design the website that it
owns and operates, www.banyanbotanicals.com, to be equally
accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted
individuals. The Defendant's website offers an array of products
that consumers can purchase online such as different herbs, oils,
and formulas. Defendant's website also provides information about
itself and the products it sells.
The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses a screen-reader. The
Defendant's website is not properly designed and operated to be
read by screen-reading software. Because of this, Plaintiff
encountered multiple barriers that denied Plaintiff access to the
website equal to the access sighted individuals enjoy. The
Plaintiff could not, for example, learn about the goods and
services offered for purchase on Defendant's website.
The Defendants' position is that a website without a brick and
mortar store is not covered under the ADA. In addition, it is the
Defendant's contention that the plaintiff is not a bona fide
customer and therefore to entitled to an injuction. Finally, the
Defendants do not believe that a class of sight impaired
individuals would be ascertainable.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IfeAh0 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
www.mizrahikroub.com
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
PERSHING LLC: Ochoa Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Judith Ochoa, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Judith Ochoa, Wendy P. Eckert,
And Brenda Gold, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pershing, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-CV-1485, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.
The lawsuit commenced on May 3, 2016 seeks to recover unpaid
back-wages, declaratory relief, liquidated damages and attorney's
fees and costs over Defendant's aiding and abetting fraud, common
law fraud and breach of third-party intended beneficiary contract.
Pershing, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company doing
business in Florida, with its principal place of business at 1
Pershing Plaza, Jersey City, New Jersey, 07399. It allegedly
breached a third-party beneficiary contract by failing to comply
with its contractually-imposed obligations by perpetuating the
Stanford Ponzi scheme. Pershing facilitated the clearing of trades
and wiring funds to purchase Stanford International Bank, Ltd.
certificate of deposits.
Stanford International Bank, Ltd. was raided and shut down by
federal authorities amid allegations that it violated federal
securities laws by its integral involvement in the second largest
Ponzi scheme in American history.
On June 3, 2016, the case was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.
On June 20, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
On November 1, 2021, the Court granted a joint motion to stay
action pending resolution of motion for judgment on the pleadings
order.
On November 5, 2021, Judge David C. Godbey entered an order
granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Ochoa v. Pershing, LLC, Case No.
22-10183, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed
on February 24, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Judith Ochoa, Wendy P. Eckert, and Brenda
Gold, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Defendant-Appellee Pershing, L.L.C. is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Chapman, Esq.
Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 548-7060
E-mail: jchapman@mcguirewoods.com
pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
600 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 353-6677
E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Susan E. Groh, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
77 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-0000
Telephone: (312) 849-8184
QUALVOICE LLC: Frederick Seeks Initial Nod of Class Action Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. QUALVOICE LLC, and
RODNEY NEDD, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-MMH (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement
Agreement;
(2) approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
Settlement;
(3) certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two
overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b);
(4) appointing him as the Class Representative for both
Classes;
(5) appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;
(6) appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
Administrator for this settlement; and
(7) approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing
of a motion for final approval, for Class Members to
submit a Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the
proposed settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.
QualVoice is a full service communications contractor serving
cable, phone and utility.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3skjrIq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
Justin R. Marino, Esq.
J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
75 Maiden Lane, Suite 1821
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com
REBELZ CLUB: Harris Files Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA RAE HARRIS, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v. REBELZ
CLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00111-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff Briana Rae Harris, on behalf of herself and other
similarly-situated past and current Dancers employed by Defendant,
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a class of:
"all persons who are working or have worked as a Dancer at
Rebelz Club, LLC, d/b/a Rebelz Gentlemen's Club at 601
Spruce Road, Moshannon, Pennsylvania, 16859, at any time
since February 16, 2019 ;"
2. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's
counsel the names, last known addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses of all potential members of
the FLSA Class within 10 days of the date of Order;
3. Permitting the Plaintiff to issue notice to all potential
members of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class by
first-class mail, email, and text message informing them
of their right to opt in to this case;
4. Directing an opt-in period of 60 days, beginning from the
date of the Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;
5. Allowing the Plaintiff to send reminder notices by email
and text message to all potential members of the FLSA
Class who have not yet responded to notice within 30 days
of the first issuance of notice;
6. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and
Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form, to be included
in the issuance of notice.
Rebelz Club is part of the other amusement and recreation
industries industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjJpjx
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
james@gmlaborlaw.com
SAILORS' TAILOR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas v. Sailors'
Tailor, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09857-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows
-- All fact discovery shall be completed June 23, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including August 8, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of March 25, 2022
documents shall be served by:
-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule March 25, 2022
33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of
the Southern District of New York
shall be served by:
-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall May 24, 2022
be completed by:
-- Requests to admit shall be served by: July 7, 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IjRupH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
www.mizrahikroub.com
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Karla Del Pozo Garcia, Esq.
DENTONS' EMPLOYMENT & LABOR PRACTICE
E-mail: karla.delpozogarcia@dentons.com
SPCP GROUP: Gamino Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE GAMINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPCP GROUP, LLC, Defendant, and KPC HEALTHCARE, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, the Nominal Defedant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01466-SB-SHK
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1),
(b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to
Counts I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against SPCP Group LLC:
"All participants in the KPC Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan from August 28, 2015 or any time thereafter
(unless they terminated employment without vesting in the
ESOP) and those participants’ beneficiaries."
Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendants in Gamino v. KPC
Healthcare Holdings, Inc., (b) any fiduciary of the Plan; (c)
the officers and directors of KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
or of any entity in which one of the individual Defendants
has a controlling interest; (d) the immediate family members
of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the legal
representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded
persons.
SPCP Group LLC as an investment management firm.
KPC Healthcare provides health care services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vgijXX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com
colin@blockleviton.com
- and -
Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
Nina Wasow, Esq.
Darin Ranahan, Esq.
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN &
WASOW LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
nina@feinbergjackson.com
darin@feinbergjackson.com
- and -
Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
William E. Donahoo, Esq.
DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC.
440 W. First Street, Suite 101.
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 953-1010
E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
skokonas@donahoo.com
wdonahoo@donahoo.com
- and -
Major Khan, Esq.
MK LLC LAW
1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (646) 546-5664
E-mail: mk@mk-llc.com
SPEED NORTH: Parties in Brown Suit Seek Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BROWN, et al., On
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SPEED
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02535-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an a final order approving, as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, the settlement of this collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the settlement
of Settlement Class Members' state-law claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e).
The settlement requires Defendant Speed North America, Inc. to make
a total settlement payment of $311,500.00 plus any payroll taxes
(such as, for example, the employer's share of federal, state and
local taxes, worker's compensation insurance, unemployment
insurance, or the employer's social security contributions)
ordinarily borne by Defendant as an employer pursuant to normal
payroll practices.
If approved, the settlement will be distributed as follows:
(i) $182,205.00 will be paid to the 412 class members;
(ii) a $2,000 service award will be paid to each of the
Representative Plaintiffs Michael Brown and Tomah
Nelson (for a total of $4,000);
(iii) a total of $102,795.00 ($101,287.71 in attorneys' fees
(representing 32.52% of the settlement fund) and
$1,507.29 in costs) will be paid to Interim Class
Counsel; and
(iv) $22,500.00 will be paid to Settlement Class
Administrator Settlement Services, Inc. as necessary
costs of settlement administration.
Speed North's line of business includes manufacturing lawn and
garden equipment.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tfNC2E at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric T. Michener, Esq.
Kimberly L. Hall, Esq.
CRITCHFIELD, CRITCHFIELD & JOHNSTON,LTD.
225 North Market Street; P.O. Box 599
Wooster, OH 44691
Telephone: (330) 264-4444
Facsimile: (330) 263-9278
E-mail: michener@ccj.com; khall@ccj.com
ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Protective Order Vacated in Baqer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, KLABERT
JOSEPH GUILLOT, JR., and KLABERT JOSEPH GUILLOT, SR., v. ST.
TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, a/k/a ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL, ST.
TAMMANY PARISH SHERIFF'S MAGISTRATE CURRAULT OFFICE, RANDY SMITH,
in his official and individual capacity, RODNEY J. STRAIN, in his
official and individual capacity, GREG LONGINO, in his official and
individual capacity, and LACEY KELLY, in her official and
individual capacity, the Court entered an order that:
-- the previously issued Protective Order is vacated as it
pertains to limiting discovery to class certification
issues only; and
-- the parties are permitted to conduct any and all
discovery permissible under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hdGcXV at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Elegant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELEGANT
MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-265, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at
Norfolk.
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.
On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit. On July 21,
2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff stated that Elegant Massage has owned and
operated Light Stream Spa since 2016, which provides therapeutic
massages in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Raymond
Jackson entered an order on February 11, 2022, which, among other
things, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification of a
class comprised of:
"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."
The Defendants now seek a review of this ruling entered by Judge
Jackson.
The appellate case is captioned as State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company v. Elegant Massage, LLC, Case No. 22-119, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on
February 23, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY are represented
by:
Theodore Ira Brenner, Esq.
Alexander Spotswood de Witt, Esq.
FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP
901 East Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 644-1300
E-mail: tbrenner@freeborn.com
adewitt@freeborn.com
- and -
Douglas Webber Dunham, Esq.
Bert Wolff, Esq.
DECHERT, LLP
3 Battery Park
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6797
Telephone: (212) 698-3500
- and -
Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
1900 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-1110
Telephone: (202) 261-3465
Plaintiff-Respondent ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC, d/b/a Light Stream Spa,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
James Edward Cecchi, Esq.
Donald Andrew Ecklund, Esq.
Zachary Allen Jacobs, Esq.
Lindsey Handley Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEON, BRODY
& AGNELLO, PC
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Eric Gerard, Esq.
Tyler Stephen Graden, Esq.
Jordan Elizabeth Jacobson, Esq.
Jamie Mitchell McCall, Esq.
Lauren McGinley, Esq.
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087-0000
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
- and -
Michael Andrew Glasser, Esq.
Marc Christian Greco, Esq.
Kip Andrew Harbison, Esq.
William Hanes Monroe, Jr., Esq.
GLASSER & GLASSER
Crown Center
580 East Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-0000
Telephone: (757) 625-6787
E-mail: michael@glasserlaw.com
marcg@glasserlaw.com
bill@glasserlaw.com
TRANSUNION LLC: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Morrone Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MORRONE v.
TRANSUNION, LLC, and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-01120-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered a case
management and scheduling order as follows:
-- Mandatory Initial Disclosures: Feb. 28, 2022
-- Certificate of Interested Persons Completed
and Corporate Disclosure Statement:
-- Motions to Add Parties or to Amend April 4, 2022
Pleadings:
-- Disclosure of Expert Reports
Plaintiff: July 8, 2022
Defendant: Aug. 1, 2022
Rebuttal: Aug. 10, 2022
-- Discovery Deadline: Aug. 31, 2022
-- Move for class certification: April 27, 2022
-- Mediation Deadline: May 2, 2022
-- Dispositive and Daubert Motions Sept. 30, 2022
(Responses due 21 days after
service)
-- Motions In Limine: Feb. 8, 2023
-- Responses to Motions In Limine: Feb. 15, 2023
-- All Other Motions: Feb. 15, 2023
-- Joint Final Pretrial Statement: Feb. 15, 2023
Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from
credit score, credit report and credit alert.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hj9mzt at no extra charge.[CC]
TREK RETAIL: Stipulation to File First Amended Complaint OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GREEN, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. TREK RETAIL CORPORATION, a Wisconsin Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-07004-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order approving the
joint stipulation to file first amended complaint as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is to be filed
within 10 days of this Order.
2. Defendants shall have until March 18, 2022 [30 days from
the Court's Order]; to file its responsive pleading.
The Plaintiff asserts claims in three capacities in this Complaint:
(1) individually, (2) on behalf of an FCRA Class, and (3) on behalf
of a class of exempt managers or supervisors.
This is a Class Action, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule
23(b)(1) and (b)(3), on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of managers
or supervisors, however, titled, employed by Defendants in the
State of California who were misclassified as exempt at any time
from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint (as tolled by
Emergency Rule 9) through resolution or trial of the matter.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3skneWa at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer N. Lutz, Esq.
Rio F. Schwarting, Esq.
PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 755-8500
Facsimile: (858) 755-8504
E-mail: jlutz@pettitkohn.com
rschwarting@pettitkohn.com
UNITED STATES: Lewis Appeals Denial of Prelim. Injunction Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carol Lewis, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CAROL A. LEWIS, and DOUGLAS B.
SARGENT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. ALEX AZAR, in his capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929, in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit arises from the denial of coverage of the Plaintiffs'
Medicare claim.
According to the Plaintiffs, the suit is brought to right this
wrong and to provide the coverage relief Congress specified in the
Medicare program. They allege that over a considerable period of
time, the Secretary has defied Congress' will by refusing to
provide Medicare coverage for diabetic patients needing continuous
glucose monitors (CGMs). These FDA-approved, life-saving devices
continuously test glucose levels and alert patients to changes.
Without these devices, the Plaintiffs contend, many diabetes
patients suffer a risk of slipping into a diabetic coma and death.
The Plaintiffs had sought certification of a class comprised of
"all persons whose claims for Medicare continuous glucose monitor
(CGM) coverage (whether Part B or Part C) were denied on the
grounds that a CGM is not "durable medical equipment", and not
subsequently reversed on appeal, from December 13, 2012 through the
conclusion of this case." The Plaintiffs also sought appointment of
their counsel as class counsel.
On September 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction which the Court denied on January 13, 2022,
through a Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge Reggie B.
Walton.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Carol Lewis, et al. v. Xavier
Becerra, Case No. 22-5048, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on Feb. 22, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carol A. Lewis and Douglas B. Sargent, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Telephone: (202) 624-2500
- and -
James Charles Pistorino, Esq.
PARRISH LAW OFFICES
788 Washington Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Telephone: (412) 561-6250
Defendant-Appellee Xavier Becerra, in his capacity as Secretary of
the United States Department of Health and Human Services, is
represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
VITAMINS BECAUSE: Gmax, Squared Seek More Time to Respond
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORI ANN GINSBERG, NOAH
MALGERI, KALYN WOLF, BILL WILSON, SHANNON HOOD, ERIC FISHON, and
ROBERT MCKEOWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. VITAMINS BECAUSE LLC, CT HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, GMAX
CENTRAL LLC, ASQUARED BRANDS LLC, INSPIRE NOW PTY LTD d/b/a
BoostCeuticals, HEALTHY WAY RX LLC, KHAKIWARE INC,and JOLLY DOLLAR
SUPPLY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22702-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
Squared Brands LLC and GMAX Central LLC, ask the Court to enter an
Order granting them a 14-day extension of time, through March 8,
2022, to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
motion for class certification.
On February 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and a motion for class certification. The current
deadline for the Moving Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs'
motions is February 22, 2022.
On February 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an
extension of time to respond to all Defendants' motions.
On February 16, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' own motion for
an extension of time, setting March 8, 2022 as Plaintiffs' deadline
to respond to all of defendants' motions.
The Moving Defendants seek a 14-day extension of time extension of
time, through March 8, 2022, to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and motion for class certification.
The Moving Defendants make this request in order to respond to
Plaintiffs' motions, which seek case dispositive relief and to
certify multiple classes in this lawsuit.
The Moving Defendants do not make this extension request for the
purposes of delay, they seek an extension in order to sufficiently
respond to the arguments put forth by Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LWjXUH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for aSquared Brands, LLC, are:
Alessandro A. Apolito, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
10151 Deerwood Park Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Telephone: (904) 660-0020
E-mail: aaapolito@lippes.com
- and -
Brendan H. Little, Esq.
Sean M. O'Brien, Esq.
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: 716-853-5100
E-mail: blittle@lippes.com
sobrien@lippes.com
ZURN WATER: Courts OKs Settlement in Plumbing Product Row
---------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Water Solutions Corporation disclosed in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that
certain Zurn Water subsidiaries were named as defendants in a
number of individual and class action lawsuits in various United
States courts claiming damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on its PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures. In fiscal 2013, the company
reached a court-approved agreement to settle the liability
underlying this litigation.
Zurn Water Solutions Corporation specification-driven water
management solutions based in Wisconsin.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Faces Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and its Western Auto subsidiary, together
with other defendants, have been named as a defendants in lawsuits
alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs have alleged that certain
products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending
against us are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial, we believe many of these claims are at least partially
covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against us
have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial. We
do not believe the cases currently pending will have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3twEV4e
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 127 Pending Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., has 127 asbestos cases pending
as of December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death and seeking various
monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in building materials,
products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are
pending in Illinois state courts.
Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
December 31, 2021, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3IDTysJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Intl. Group Faces Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to receive claims
asserting injuries and damages from toxic waste, hazardous
substances, and other environmental pollutants and alleged claims
to cover the cleanup costs of hazardous waste dump sites, referred
to collectively as environmental claims, and indemnity claims
asserting injuries from asbestos, 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 asbestos and
environmental losses emanate from policies written in 1984 and
prior years. Commencing in 1985, standard policies contained
absolute exclusions for pollution-related damage and asbestos.
"The majority of our exposures for asbestos and environmental
losses are related to excess casualty coverages, not primary
coverages. The litigation costs are treated in the same manner as
indemnity amounts, with litigation expenses included within the
limits of the liability we incur. Individual significant loss
reserves, where future litigation costs are reasonably
determinable, are established on a case-by-case basis."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3pwOHlz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, has been named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Morse TEC, a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was the
obligor for the Company's previously recorded asbestos-related
liabilities and the policyholder of the related insurance assets.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3puD6DG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Numerous PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by the Company's discontinued Motion Control business
between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits.
The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of December
31, 2021, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it
reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future
asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance
policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of coverage
and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance
coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for indemnity
and defense costs in particular periods if and when it becomes
probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/35JJz6o
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 171 Talc Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike
the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of
December 31, 2021, there were 171 individual cases pending against
the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United
States, as compared to 136 cases as of December 31, 2020. During
the year ended December 31, 2021, 74 new cases were filed and 39
cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal
by the court. The value of the settlements in the years presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each
such period’s results of operations.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolvencies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3sALxPy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Defends Pending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. has been named as a defendant in pending asbestos
litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants,
in several states, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The majority of these claims arise out of
alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania, former
employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric generation
plants. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances are,
and may continue to be, present at currently owned facilities where
suitable alternative materials are not available. We believe that
any remaining asbestos at our facilities is contained and properly
identified in accordance with applicable governmental regulations,
including OSHA. The continued presence of asbestos and other
regulated substances at these facilities, however, could result in
additional actions being brought against us. This is further
complicated by the fact that many diseases, such as mesothelioma
and cancer, have long latency periods in which the disease process
develops, thus making it impossible to accurately predict the types
and numbers of such claims in the near future. While insurance
coverages exist for many of these pending asbestos litigations,
others have no such coverages, resulting in FirstEnergy being
responsible for all defense expenditures, as well as any
settlements or verdict payouts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3szUMQ8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc.'s affiliates, since approximately 1990, have
been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc allegedly
contained in industrial products such as electrical wire and cable,
raw materials such as paint and joint compounds, talc-based
lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos contained
in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated
by affiliates of FCX, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these suits involve a large number of
codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts
currently known, FCX believes there is a reasonable possibility
that losses may have been incurred related to these matters;
however, FCX also believes that the amounts of any such losses,
individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its
consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that
future developments will not alter this conclusion.
"There has been a significant increase in the number of cases
alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based
cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure
to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964
until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a
third party in two related transactions. Those transactions
involved (1) a transfer by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc
business to a newly formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and
post-sale talc liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and
(2) a sale of the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In
2011, the third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America
(Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A. In accordance with the terms
of the 1992 transactions and subsequent agreements, Imerys
undertook the defense and indemnification of Cyprus Mines and CAMC
in talc lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3hx4FYq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl. Paper Records $103MM Total Future Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company, as of December 31, 2021, has a total
recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims of $103 million, net of estimated insurance
recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company. As of
December 31, 2021, the Company's total recorded liability with
respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $103
million, net of estimated insurance recoveries. While it is
reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of
its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we
are unable to estimate any loss or range in excess of such
liability, and do not believe additional material losses are
probable.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3pwXoMu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $29.9MM Future Litigation Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, has
estimated future asbestos-related litigation costs to be $29.9
million and $27.9 million, respectively, before consideration of
probable insurance recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are involved in various claims and lawsuits
incidental to our business, including those involving product
liability, labor relations, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials and environmental matters, some of which claim
significant damages. Estimates related to our claims and lawsuits,
including estimates for asbestos-related claims and related
insurance recoveries, involve numerous uncertainties. Given the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and estimates, we cannot be
certain that existing claims or litigation or any future adverse
legal developments will not have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/36RoMhP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 2,709 Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2021, is a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 2,709 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,614 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,009 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.
"Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3sBLRO9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Has $218.6MM A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation, at December 31, 2021, has recorded A&E reserves
of $218.6 million and $66.2 million on a gross and net basis,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims
primarily resulting from policies written by acquired insurance
operations before their acquisition by the Company. The Company's
exposure to A&E claims originated from umbrella, excess and
commercial general liability insurance policies and assumed
reinsurance contracts that were written on an occurrence basis from
the 1970s to mid-1980s. Exposure also originated from claims-made
policies that were designed to cover environmental risks provided
that all other terms and conditions of the policy were met. A&E
claims include property damage and clean-up costs related to
pollution, as well as personal injury allegedly arising from
exposure to hazardous materials. Development on A&E loss reserves
is monitored separately from the Company's ongoing underwriting
operations and is not included in a reportable segment.
The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values based on statistical analysis of these
reserves by the Company's actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to
significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and
frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal
climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future,
however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E
reserves at December 31, 2021 are adequate.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Kax9DB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Records $372MM Liability at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., has updated its recorded liability for
asbestos-related claims to $372 million at December 31, 2021,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its
exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims
experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3HCDmXa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 1,675 Trauma Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's subsidiary Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC, was named as a defendant in 1,675 cumulative trauma
lawsuits comprised of 4,554 claims at December 31, 2021, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. A reserve has been
established with respect to estimated amounts for cumulative trauma
product liability claims currently asserted, as well as, incurred
but not reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability
claims. Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is
subject to inherent uncertainties, and since MSA LLC is largely
self-insured, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not
ultimately incur losses in excess of presently recorded
liabilities. Many factors affecting cumulative trauma product
liability claims may change over time or as a result of sudden
unfavorable events within a single reporting period. Associated
losses could have a material adverse effect on our business,
operating results, financial condition and liquidity, or could
result in volatility from period to period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3HHObXX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company
will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.
We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any
of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not
require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate
cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since
inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs
of defense for these cases, excluding cases against our
subsidiaries AMCOL International Corporation or American Colloid
Company, which we acquired in 2014, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
liabilities related to sales prior to the initial public offering.
The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL or American Colloid prior to
completion of the acquisition). At this time, management
anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and
the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect
on its financial position or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3pygGkF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,161 Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is a defendant in lawsuits involving approximately
1,161 claims, arising from exposure to asbestos-containing
materials included in products that it is alleged to have
distributed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Each claim involves allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials by a single individual, his or her
spouse or family members. The complaints in these lawsuits
typically name many other defendants. In the majority of these
lawsuits, little or no information is known regarding the nature of
the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or their connection with the
products we distributed. The potential liability associated with
asbestos claims is subject to many uncertainties, including
negative trends with respect to settlement payments, dismissal
rates and the types of medical conditions alleged in pending or
future claims, negative developments in the claims pending against
us, the current or future insolvency of co-defendants, adverse
changes in relevant laws or the interpretation of those laws and
the extent to which insurance will be available to pay for defense
costs, judgments or settlements. In addition, applicable insurance
policies are subject to overall caps on limits, which coverage may
exhaust the amount available from insurers under those limits. In
those cases, the Company is seeking indemnity payments from
responsive excess insurance policies, but other insurers may not be
solvent or may not make payments under the policies without
contesting their liability. Further, while we anticipate that
additional claims will be filed against us in the future, we are
unable to predict with any certainty the number, timing and
magnitude of future claims. Therefore, pending or future asbestos
litigation may ultimately have a material adverse effect on us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3C7yIj1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $54 Million Total Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves totaled $54
million and $190 million, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As a result of the Company's fourth quarter 2021 review of its
asbestos-related liabilities, income of $133 million was recorded
in the consolidated statement of income to reduce the reserve to
reflect the Company's current estimate of potential liability for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims through December 31, 2057.
As of December 31, 2021, the Company was aware of certain
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries, consisting of Products Claims, Premises Claims
and claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired in 2013
("Subsidiary Claims").
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3MiZ6Ll
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.0MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers, L.P., as of December 31, 2021, has an accrued
liabilities of $9.0 million for its Pro-rata share of environmental
remediation, including its Investments in real estate partnerships,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
primarily to specific chemicals historically used by certain
current and former dry cleaning and gas station tenants and the
existence of asbestos in older shopping centers. We believe that
the few tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas
stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations.
Generally, we endeavor to require tenants to remove dry cleaning
plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more
environmentally friendly systems, in accordance with the terms of
our leases. We have a blanket environmental insurance policy for
third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers
that currently have no known environmental contamination. We have
also secured environmental insurance policies, where appropriate,
on a relatively small number of specific properties with known
contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk. We
monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in
certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites. We also have legal
obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of
doing so."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ka2Ahf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has 27,770 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc., as of December 31, 2021, had pending approximately
27,770 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 30,710 as of
December 31, 2020 and 30,950 as of December 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "During 2021, we received approximately 3,050
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately
5,990 claims. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups,
which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number
of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period
to period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. We
report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order
has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors. Our total costs for the years 2021 and 2020 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately $63 million and $35
million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3IFgZSs
*********
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 ***