/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220318.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 50 Headlines 55 CANAL LLC: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 595 BALTIC ASSET: Hardy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Infant Milk Contains Bacteria, Harkless Says AECOM: Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award Filed in Singletary Suit AETNA LIFE: Faces Howard Suit Over Denied Health Plan Benefits ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Fox Files Suit in S.D. New York ARIAS-DLABIK AGENCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Koman Suit Says ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Fisher Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey BCFS HEALTH: Restrepo Seeks to Recover Health Staff's Unpaid Wages BED BATH: Sosa Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL BRAVO CARNICERIA: Montiel Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL BWW RESOURCES: Faces Sanchez Suit Over Unpaid Tipped Wages C3.AI INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline CARTER'S INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Background Check CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN: Kelsey Files Suit in S.D. New York CLARIFAI INC: Faces Stein Suit Over Collection of Facial Geometry COPPERLEAF MANAGEMENT: Faces Rankins Suit Over Unpaid Wages CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Harris Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. CRODA INC: Baker Appeals Dismissal of Personal Injury Suit DAFNON FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aldana Suit Alleges DS SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime Under Labor Code EPLUS INC: Bylaws Limits Stockholders' Rights, Kent Suit Alleges FAMILY DOLLAR: Multiple Lawsuits Filed Against Rat Infestation FESCUM INC: Gwapadinga Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FIRST HORIZON: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit FREE SPEECH: Yan Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GARDEN CITY: Faces Talavera Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment GASBUDDY INC: Faces Luce Class Action Suit Over NSF or OD Fees GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Defective Paint, Riley Class Suit Alleges GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Laigdig Suit Over ESOP Illegal Transaction GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Levine Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal HEALTHCARE REALTY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit HONDA MOTOR: Final Settlement in Infotainment Class Suit Discussed HYATT CORP: Fails to Properly Defer Savings Plan Compensation INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Bid to Extend Deadlines Nixed INTRICON CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit IROBOT CORP: Faces Toolis Suit Over Roomba Vacuums' Design Defect JH PORTFOLIO DEBT: Gottlieb Suit Removed to D. New Jersey JP OUTFITTERS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit KEVAN MEYERS: Pennington Claims Trimmed; Class Certification Denied LOVE & SUPPORT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Locke Alleges LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $10 Million Fee Award Affirmed in Flooring Suit MASTEC SERVICES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA MAXIMUS INC: Thomas Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Candle Factory Survivors File Class Lawsuit MIKIMOTO CO: Lee Files Suit in S.D. New York MIMECAST LIMITED: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit MINNESOTA: Karsjens Appeals Dismissal of Remaining Claims MONEVO INC: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Access of Credit Reports MP MATERIALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 5 Deadline MYCOMPUTERCAREER INC: Rose TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida NATERA INC: Teamsters Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements NEW ORIENTAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 5 Deadline NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 5 Deadline NEW REZ: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Richards' 2nd Amended Suit NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION: Atkins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois P.S. MANAGEMENT: Jones Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages PARADISE EXTERIORS: Dumas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Belknap Suit PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Washington Suit Over Debt Collection PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Rebolledo Suit Over False Advertising PHILIP MORRIS: Product Litigation Suit on Appeal in 2nd Circuit PHILIP MORRIS: Shareholder Suit Pending in S.D. N.Y. PHILIP MORRIS: Three Shareholder Suits Consolidated PRETTY WOMEN: Cierra Turner Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers PRIME NOW: Mario Mabanta Loses Bid for Class Certification RBT RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cisneros Suit Alleges RENATO'S PASTRY: Monroy Seeks Minimum, OT Pay for Restaurant Staff RENEWABLE ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Adams Sues Over Smoking Hazards ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Bourassa Sues Over Smoking Hazards ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Dorion Sues Over Smoking Hazards ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Faces Kunta Suit Over Smoking Hazards ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Jacklin Class Suit Pending in Canada RPS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Stay James Class Action SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES: LTL Files Suit in D. New Jersey SARASOTA 500: Redding Files Suit in D. New Jersey SNAPDOCS INC: Yudanin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Files Suit in D. New Jersey SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Salter Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls TERM COMMODITIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cotton Futures Suit UMASS MEMORIAL: Pallotta Sues Over Withheld Wages, Data Breach UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Dismissal of Regard Suit Affirmed in Part WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell's 2nd Amended Suit ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Ward Appeals Dismissal of Illegal Fees Suit [*] Russia-Ukraine War Could Lead to U.S. Class Action Lawsuits Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Faces 3,609 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Has $7.7BB Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Has $260K Loss and LAE Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $2.1BB Est. Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $64MM Est. Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Defends 29,958 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork & Seal Faces 17,000 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Faces 200 Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Still Faces A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Records $81MM Estimated Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $11.7MM Net A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Funded Study Injects Prisoners with Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $20MM Against Ford in Exposure Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $36.5MM Against Maryland Casualty ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $52.70MM Accrued Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $2.5MM A&E Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 227 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ********* 55 CANAL LLC: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 55 Canal LLC, et al. The case is styled as Stephen Gannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 55 Canal, LLC; JFK Restaurant Equipment Supply, Inc.; John Doe 1-X, persons yet unknown, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships Corporations 1-X entities yet unknown; Case No. 1:22-cv-01603-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 55 Canal LLC was established as a domestic limited liability company type registered at 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1008 Albany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Douglas Ford, Esq. FORD & HUFF LC 228 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 287-5913 Email: adam.ford@fordcranelaw.com 595 BALTIC ASSET: Hardy Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 595 Baltic Asset LLC. The case is styled as Jeremiah Hardy, Eric Schlabs, and James Nugent, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 595 Baltic Asset LLC, Case No. 151732/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 27, 2022). 595 Baltic Asset LLC was established as a domestic limited liability company type registered at 850 Third Avenue, Suite 13d, Attn Omri Sachs, New York.[BN] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Infant Milk Contains Bacteria, Harkless Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANDRIA HARKLESS, individually and as the legal guardian of a minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., Defendant, Case: 3:22-cv-50066 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2022) is an action alleging the Defendant's unfair and deceptive acts and practices designed to mislead the public in connection with their promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, distribution and sale of Similac Infant Formula, including but not limited to Similac, Alimentum and EleCare products. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant unfairly and deceptively promoted the Products during the relevant time period as containing ingredients safe for infant consumption and being safe for use, when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal illnesses such as Cronobacter Sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea, gastrointestinal illnesses, and other serious health problems. The Defendant tells consumers that "the Promise of Similac . . . is to help keep your baby fed, happy, and healthy" and that Similac brand is "Nutrition you can trust." But recent testing at one of Abbott Nutrition's manufacturing facilities tells a different story - one of broken promises, mistrust and concealment. After receiving consumer complaints of Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella infections, the FDA's investigation along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local partners, confirmed that Abbott Nutrition's Sturgis, Michigan facility had findings to date of "several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental samples taken by the FDA and adverse inspectional observations by the FDA investigators." The Plaintiff and the Class reasonably relied on the Defendant's failure to disclose insofar as they would not have purchased the defective Products manufactured and sold by Defendant had they known they were not safe for consumption by babies. Abbott Laboratories discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad and diversified line of health care products and services. The Company's products include pharmaceuticals, nutritional, diagnostics, and vascular products. Abbott markets its products worldwide through affiliates and distributors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com AECOM: Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award Filed in Singletary Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY SINGLETARY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AECOM and AMENTUM SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00083 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2022), the Parties move the Court, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, to confirm an arbitration award rendered against Respondents in the Parties' binding arbitration proceeding styled Singletary v. AECOM, et al. Private Arbitration (the "Arbitration"). Singletary was an hourly employee of AECOM/Amentum in Washington. AECOM is a multinational corporation with headquarters in Los Angeles, California. Amentum purchased a part of AECOM's business units and is liable for the pay practice alleged by some Claimants. Amentum can be served with process by serving its attorney. The disputes underlying this petition, were brought by the Claimants on behalf of a class of hourly employees defined as: "All hourly employees of AECOM and Amentum, including any of their wholly owned business units or subsidiaries, who were, at any point from February 8, 2016 to the present, paid "straight time for overtime"." The Claimants are Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The Claimants' chief complaint was that Respondents failed to pay these employees overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Claimants maintained that they were hourly employees who were paid straight time for overtime and were not guaranteed a salary. Therefore, no white collar exemptions applied.[BN] The Attorneys in Charge for Claimants, are: Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com AETNA LIFE: Faces Howard Suit Over Denied Health Plan Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 arising from the Defendant's systemic practice of denying services for lumbar artificial disc replacement surgery (L-ADR) on the basis that such services are "experimental and investigational." Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company is in the business of insuring and/or administering group health plans within the meaning of 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 2560.503-1(m) (both fully insured and self-insured), most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by ERISA. According to the complaint, Aetna improperly denied Plaintiff's requests for L-ADR because, it said, L-ADR is experimental and investigational and therefore excluded under Plaintiff's Aetna plans. Aetna has applied and continues to apply its internal guideline in a manner which restricts access to L-ADR for individuals with degenerative disc disease, a practice wholly inconsistent with the Aetna plans' promise to provide surgical and hospital services to treat illness and injury. L-ADR is a safe and effective treatment and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for over 15 years, asserts the Plaintiff. Mr. Howard was at all relevant times covered under a fully-insured Aetna plan arranged through his employer, Shamrock Capital Advisors, through ADP TotalSource, Inc., a certified professional employer organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq. Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 Facsimile: (213) 489-1611 E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Fox Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance Company. The case is styled as Rita Fox, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-01575-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Allstate Corporation -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway, Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com ARIAS-DLABIK AGENCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Koman Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA KOMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARIAS-DLABIK AGENCY LLC d/b/a AMERICAN INCOME LIFE: SIMON ARIAS AGENCIES d/b/a ARIAS AGENCIES, AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, And BRODY EVANSON, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:22-cv-00420-CCW (W.D. Pa., March 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate all similarly situated trainees at a rate of at least minimum wage, as trainees were not provided with a base-pay rate nor provided the opportunity to receive commission. Throughout her training, Ms. Koman contends that she did not earn any commission and received no compensation whatsoever. She worked eight hours per day during training but did not receive compensation for any hours worked. On or about August 21, 2021, Ms. Koman initiated employment with Defendants at Simon Arias Agencies as a trainee until August 25, 2021. Upon her hiring, Ms. Koman was informed by Manager, Mr. Evanson, that her trainee position's compensation plan was commission-only and did not include minimum wage payments or overtime. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of the following class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class consists of all individual employees of Defendants, throughout the United States, whom Defendants failed to compensate at a rate of at least minimum wage and overtime rates. Excluded from the classes are Defendants, Simon Arias Agencies, Arias Agencies, and Mr. Evanson, as well as their past and present officers, employees, agents or affiliates, any judge who presides over this action, and any attorneys who enter their appearance in this action. The Defendants engage in the operation of insurance sales in at least twenty-four offices in 14 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. J.P. W ARD & A SSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Fisher Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Recovery Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer Fisher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions LLC, Cuzco Capital Investment Management, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01032-WJM-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC -- https://www.atlanticrecoverysolutions.com/ -- is a nationally licensed, insured, bonded debt recovery agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com BCFS HEALTH: Restrepo Seeks to Recover Health Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS RESTREPO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BCFS and KRUCIAL STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00233 (W.D. Tex., March 10, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other Health Care Workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants deployed health care workers like Restrepo to disaster areas as part of relief efforts. As a result, the Restrepo and members of this class had to travel away from their home communities and stay overnight in hotels. Allegedly, the Defendants did not pay Restrepo and other Health Care Workers for attending daily briefings held by BCFS and for time spent traveling to disaster relief sites, during normal working hours away from their home communities. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other damages owed to these workers, together with attorneys' fees, interest, and costs of these proceedings. Restrepo brings this action on behalf of similarly situated individuals who were employed by Defendants as health care workers who were allegedly not paid for attending daily BCFS briefings and for time spent traveling on overnight business trips to and from their home town. Defendant BCFS is a Texas non-profit corporation having a registered agent for service of process through Kevin C. Dinnin at 1506 Bexar Crossing, San Antonio, Texas Defendant Krucial Staffing, LLC is a Kansas LTD liability company having a registered agent for service of process through Spenserv, Inc. at 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800 West, Dallas, Texas. BCFS and Krucial Staffing, LLC, employed and/or jointly employed Restrepo and the Hourly Workers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223- 8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com BED BATH: Sosa Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- NELVY XIOMARA SOSA AND ANGEL CARREON and INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BED BATH N MORE INC and ALBERT SHAYEK and KARL DARWISH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01308 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by the Defendants to work at Bed Bath n More Inc., for some or all the time period relevant to this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked, the lawsuit says. BED BATH N MORE INC is a linens company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. www.FightForUrRights.com 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 BRAVO CARNICERIA: Montiel Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------ EUSTAQUIO MONTIEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BRAVO CARNICERIA Y GROCERY INC. (DBA CARNICERIA BRAVO) and JORGE VON ZEDTWITZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01288 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by the Defendants to work at Carniceria Bravo pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was ostensibly employed as a butcher at Carniceria Bravo located in New York. The Defendants operate a supermarket where the Plaintiff worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 www.FightForUrRights.com BWW RESOURCES: Faces Sanchez Suit Over Unpaid Tipped Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- REYANNA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BWW RESOURCES, LLC A/K/A BUFFALO WILD WINGS and INSPIRE BRANDS, INC., Case No.2:22-cv-00046 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2022) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by not paying tipped employees at least $2.13 an hour, not correctly informing tipped employees of the utilization of tip credit and requiring that their Tipped Employees give the company their tips in order to repay the company for (a) any shortages in payment left by a customer, and (b) customer walkouts. The alleged illegal tip-sharing, in this case, stems from illegal charges assessed to tipped employees for committing various mistakes or having a cash drawer short on money. As a result, the Defendants lose their right to rely on the tip credit and must compensate the Plaintiff at the full minimum wage rate, says the suit. Sanchez brings this action on behalf of similarly situated individuals who were employed by Defendants as "tipped employees" at all Buffalo Wild Wings locations at any time from the three-year period before this lawsuit until the present.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com C3.AI INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against C3.ai, Inc. ("C3.ai" or the "Company") (NYSE: AI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 22-cv-01413, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) C3.ai Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about December 9, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) C3.ai securities between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired C3.ai Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO; and/or securities during the class period, you have until May 3, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. C3.ai operates as an enterprise artificial intelligence ("AI") software company. The Company offers a variety of software-as-a-service applications for enterprises and software solutions and integrated turnkey enterprise AI applications for oil and gas, chemicals, utilities, manufacturing, financial services, defense, intelligence, aerospace, healthcare, and telecommunications market segments. The Company also purports to have strategic partnerships with Baker Hughes related to oil and gas markets; FIS related to financial services markets; Raytheon; and AWS, Intel, and Microsoft. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) C3.ai's partnership with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (ii) C3.ai's was employing a flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its Baker Hughes partnership; (iii) C3.ai faced challenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (iv) the Company overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in technology, description of its customers, its total addressable market, the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its major business partners; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 16, 2022, during pre-market hours, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") issued a report and strong sell research opinion regarding C3.ai (the "Spruce Point Report"). Specifically, Spruce Point alleged that it had uncovered, inter alia, "[e]vidence of a severely challenged partnership with Baker Hughes, a related-party and C3.ai's largest customer"; "[s]igns of problematic financial reporting and accounting regarding the Baker Hughes joint venture and a revolving door in C3.ai's Chief Financial Officer position"; that "[c]hallenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover make it unlikely that C3.ai will meet aggressive analyst estimates"; "[e]vidence of exaggerated or irreconcilable claims made by C3.ai[,]" including "numerous discrepancies" regarding "the value of and cumulative investment made by C3.ai in its technology, description of its customers, its total addressable market, the pace of its market growth and the scale of alliances with companies such as Microsoft, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Google Cloud, Intel and Amazon Web Services"; and "[w]orrisome corporate governance practices and insider enrichment." As a result, Spruce Point "conservatively estimate[d] 40% - 50% downside risk to C3.ai's share price." Following publication of the Spruce Point Report, C3.ai's stock price fell $1.01 per share, or 3.93%, to close at $24.70 per share on February 16, 2022. As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of C3.ai Class A common stock continues to trade below the $42.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] CARTER'S INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------ A proposed class action claims children's clothing retailer Carter's and several subsidiaries have failed to provide certain statutory disclosures before performing background checks on prospective employees. The nine-page complaint alleges Carter's; Carter's Retail, Inc.; the William Carter Company; and Oshkosh B'Gosh, Inc. have unlawfully used consumer reports for employment purposes without first disclosing to job applicants that a background check would be performed and informing them of their right to request a summary of their rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The lawsuit contends Carter's has violated prospective employees' privacy rights by procuring their consumer reports by way of "inadequate disclosures." The plaintiff claims to have been employed with the defendants between August and November 2021. According to the suit, Carter's performed a background investigation on the plaintiff when she applied for employment but failed to provide mandatory disclosures in connection with the background check. The lawsuit alleges the defendants' background check disclosures violate the FCRA in that they are not provided in a "clear and conspicuous" standalone document that consists only of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. According to the case, the disclosure provided by the retailers is "embedded with extraneous information," including "misleading" information concerning an applicant's FCRA rights and requests for "extensive background information," along with a disclaimer regarding the use of the requested information. "Under the FCRA, it is unlawful to procure or cause to be procured, a consumer report or investigative consumer report for employment purposes unless the disclosure is made in a document that consists solely of the disclosure and the consumer has authorized, in writing, the procurement of the report," the complaint reads. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants have failed to provide prospective employees with notice of their right to request a summary of their FCRA rights at the time they are provided with the background check disclosure as required by law. The case, which was initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 20, 2022 before being removed to California's Central District Court on March 3, looks to represent all current, former and prospective Carter's applicants for employment in the U.S. for whom a background check was performed in connection with their job application within the past five years and until the date final judgment is entered in the lawsuit. [GN] CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN: Kelsey Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Sherman, et al. The case is styled as Michael N. Kelsey, those similarly situated v. Christopher Sherman, Felix Catena, Kathy Hochul, individually and in their official capacities, Case No. CGC22598542 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Hudson Correctional Facility is located in Columbia County New York. It is a medium custody facility that houses adult males.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CLARIFAI INC: Faces Stein Suit Over Collection of Facial Geometry ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN STEIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CLARIFAI, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00314-UNA (D. Del., March 10, 2022) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In direct violation of these requirements, Clarifai -- an industry leader in artificial intelligence and machine learning – allegedly collected, captured, obtained, used, and profited from the facial geometry of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of unwitting Illinois citizens. With the assistance of its Chicago-based investors, Clarifai secretly accessed the subject profile photographs that people had uploaded to OKCupid, one of the world's largest dating websites. After obtaining these images, Clarifai scanned the facial geometry of each individual depicted therein to create unique "face templates," which it used to develop and train its facial recognition technology. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated individuals, brings this action to prevent Clarifai from further violating the privacy rights of those Illinois residents affected by its biometric-harvesting scheme, and to recover statutory damages for Clarifai's unlawful collection, storage, use, and commercial exploitation of those individuals' biometric identifiers and/or information, says the suit. Defendant Clarifai is a private, for-profit corporation organized under Delaware law and headquartered in New York, New York. Founded in 2013, Clarifai is an artificial intelligence company that offers a variety of autonomous image-recognition services including but not limited to facial recognition technology. Clarifai markets and sells this technology throughout the United States, including in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. COOCH and TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680 Telephone: 302-984-3816 E-mail: ckeener@coochtaylor.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq. Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tkuyper@keoghlaw.com gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com COPPERLEAF MANAGEMENT: Faces Rankins Suit Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN RANKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COPPERLEAF MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00299-NJ (E.D. Wisc., March 9, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant, for purposes of obtaining relief for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to compensate said employees for "off the clock" hours worked and work performed each workweek at Defendant's direction, on Defendant's behalf, for Defendant's benefit, and/or with Defendant's knowledge, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff is an adult female resident of the State of Wisconsin residing at 511 Union Street, Apartment 208, Ripon, Wisconsin. The Defendant owns, operates, and manages assisted living, memory care, and short-term care locations and facilities throughout the State of Wisconsin, including but not limited to its "Copperleaf Village of Ripon" location, located at 1002 Eureka Street, Ripon, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Harris Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff GOLDA D. HARRIS filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GOLDA D. HARRIS, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-12986-ZNQ-DEA, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action arises out of a dispute over the purchase and financing of a used 2012 Hyundai Veracruz. On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff and Plummer Harris, a non-party and cosigner, purchased the Vehicle from Best Cars R Us, LLC, and entered into a Retail Installment Contract with the Dealer. As part of the sale, Plaintiff and Harris also signed a Declaration Acknowledging the Electronic Signature Process, confirming they reviewed the Contract and signed it. By signing the E-Signature Declaration, Plaintiff acknowledged that she: (1) read, understood, and agreed to use an electronic signature to sign all documents necessary to process the retail installment transaction, including the Contract; (2) had the opportunity to review a paper version of the Contract prior to signing it; (3) had "physical control of the key board, mouse or other device" when she signed the Contract; and (4) received a fully executed copy of the Contract. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 8, 2020, Defendants "electronically signed [Plaintiff's and Harris'] names into an illegal loan contract (hereinafter loan), which contained a fraudulent arbitration agreement." Plaintiff was informed that her name had been electronically filled in and that signing the loan, arbitration, and warranty contracts were a formality for the record because Defendants' contract was electronically signed. She further alleges that Defendants presented an arbitration agreement, a separate part of the contract, for Plaintiff to electronically and physically sign. She contends the electronic signatures deprived her of the opportunity to read the Contract, including the Arbitration Clause. In sum, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "fraudulently sold plaintiff an arbitration agreement (as part of a loan contract)," and she claims that the Arbitration Clause as an "invalid and fraudulent arbitration agreement." On June 25, 2021, Defendants removed the State Court Action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on July 1, 2021, and Defendants opposed on July 15, 2021. On February 16, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Golda Harris v. Credit Acceptance Corp, et al., Case No. 22-1404, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 4, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GOLDA D. HARRIS appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP. and CEO BRETT A. ROBERTS are represented by: Eric M. Hurwitz, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 457 Haddonfield Road LibertyView, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 321-2406 E-mail: ehurwitz@stradley.com - and - Lauren A. Valle, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 100 Park Avenue, Suite 2000 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 404-0641 E-mail: lvalle@stradley.com CRODA INC: Baker Appeals Dismissal of Personal Injury Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Catherine Baker filed another appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CATHERINE BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRODA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01108-SB, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Croda owns a Delaware chemical plant that uses ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen. In 2018, Croda's plant leaked thousands of pounds of ethylene oxide into the surrounding neighborhood. Although Croda reacted quickly, residents worried that they had inhaled the chemical and now fear they will get cancer. One resident, Baker, brought a class action on behalf of her neighbors, alleging strict liability, public and private nuisance, negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and medical monitoring. She admits that no neighbor "has been currently diagnosed with cancer or illness of the kind caused by ethylene oxide." But she says they all suffer "an increased risk of illness." The Plaintiff previously sought a review of the November 23, 2021 order entered by Judge Stephanos Bibas of the District of Delaware, dismissing all claims without prejudice, in an appellate case assigned Case No. 21-3360. The Plaintiff filed her opening brief and the appendix in Case No. 21-3360 before filing a second appeal to review the Court's February 18, 2022 order, dismissing the case with prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court's November 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion. The current appellate case is captioned Catherine Baker v. Croda Inc., Case No. 22-1333, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 3, 2022. This new appeal is consolidated with the first appeal for all purposes. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CATHERINE BAKER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kimberly Evans, Esq. Adam J. Gomez, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: kevans@gelaw.com Defendant-Appellee CRODA INC, f/k/a Croda, Inc., is represented by: Athena D. Dalton, Esq. Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7437 E-mail: athenadalton@quinnemanuel.com stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com - and - Miranda N. Gilbert, Esq. Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 E-mail: knachbar@mnat.com DAFNON FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aldana Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALBERTO ALDANA ZAPATA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAFNON FOOD CORP. (D/B/A AUSTIN HOUSE DINER); MICHAEL VOULGARIS (A.K.A MIKE); and JOHN XERAKIAS (A.K.A IOANNIS), Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-01025 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Aldana was employed by the Defendants as busboy. DAFNON FOOD CORP. own, operate, or control an American Restaurant, located at Forrest Hills, New York under the name "Austin House Diner". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DS SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & Overtime Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIO CARRASCO, as an individual on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 220V395156 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failed to provide all mandated meal periods or pay additional wages in lieu under the Labor Code. As a result of the alleged unlawful acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have been deprived of wages in amounts to be proven at trial and are entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, and interest thereon. DS Services of America, Inc. provides non-alcoholic beverage. The Company offers coffee, tea, breakroom supply, and water filtration products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Jared Hague, Esq. Brady Briggs, Esq. SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C. 5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 325-0500 E-mail: brettsuttonhague.com jared@suttonhague.com bradv@suttonhague.com service@suttonhague.com EPLUS INC: Bylaws Limits Stockholders' Rights, Kent Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRUCE M. BOWEN; JOHN E. CALLIES; C. THOMAS FAULDERS, III; ERIC D. HOVDE; IRA A. HUNT, III; MARK P. MARRON; MAUREEN F. MORRISON; BEN XIANG; and ePLUS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0184 (Del. Ch., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have attempted to impose a limitation for stockholders to take corporate action by purporting to eliminate the right to act by written consent explicitly guaranteed to ePlus's stockholders under the Delaware General Corporation Law. The law prohibits Delaware corporations from restricting stockholders' right to act via consent, either written or made in an electronic transmission, unless such restriction is set forth in a corporation's certificate of incorporation. ePlus's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter") says nothing about stockholder action via written consent. ePlus's Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended as of September 1, 2021, (the "Bylaws"), however, purport to limit stockholder action via written consent to only instances where the Board has pre-approved such action. This limitation violates the Delaware General Corporation Law, hence invalid, and requires immediate corrective action, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action for a judicial declaration that the Bylaws impermissibly limit stockholders' rights in violation of Delaware law. ePlus inc. provides IT hardware, software, and services. The Company offers IT solutions for data center, cloud computing, security, managed and professional services, lease financing, proprietary software, and other related products. ePlus focuses on serving the middle market and larger commercial enterprises, as well as state and local governments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 -and- Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 -and- William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 FAMILY DOLLAR: Multiple Lawsuits Filed Against Rat Infestation -------------------------------------------------------------- actionnews5.com reports that family Dollar is facing multiple class-action lawsuits in at least three states due to the rat infestation at the company's West Memphis distribution center. Customers who filed suits say the company knew or should have known about the rat infestation and the health risks associated with it but stayed quiet due to "corporate greed." Last month, the Federal Drug Administration said it discovered thousands of rodents inside the plant and said some products shipped to Family Dollar stores in six states, including Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, may have been contaminated. One of the suits was filed in Virginia, where Family Dollar's parent company, Dollar Tree, Inc., is headquartered. In the suit, two Family Dollar customers from Memphis say over the last 13 months they bought food, diapers, medical devices, cosmetics, and dietary supplements for themselves and their families. Those same products were named in a voluntary recall. The plaintiffs accuse Family Dollar of selling the recalled products despite having knowledge of the rat infestation and knowing the products were not fit for human or animal consumption at the time of sale. Two other class-action suits were filed in Mississippi and Louisiana. The plaintiffs in those suits also say Family Dollar "knew, should have known or was reckless in not knowing, that the products were exposed to salmonella and other infectious diseases due to the rodent infestation." They also accuse the company of keeping quiet because of "corporate greed." One suit seeks damages for at least $75,000, and another for at least $5 million. The suits, which were filed, also seek to represent all Family Dollar customers in the six states where stores closed. The attorneys who filed the suits could not be reached for comment. Family Dollar has not yet responded to a request for comment about the lawsuits. Family Dollar says they are in the process of "gradually" reopening stores but do not have a timetable. Copyright 2022 WMC. All rights reserved. [GN] FESCUM INC: Gwapadinga Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- NDANGO NELSON GWAPADINGA and LOUIS NDIFOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FESCUM INC and Folorunso Ijiti, Case No. 1:22-cv-00672 (D.D.C., March 10, 2022) seeks available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Wage Collection Law, and the District Of Columbia Municipal Regulations. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to them are/were employed by Defendants as direct support professionals in Washington, D.C. and were paid for work performed in Washington, D.C. Direct support professionals are primarily charged with general caretaking responsibilities such as cleaning and preparing food at the client's residence, serving clients food, as well as transporting and accompanying clients on daily outings. FESCUM INC. is a hospital & health care company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Markovitz, Esq. Michal Shinnar, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 E-mail: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com MShinnar@jgllaw.com FIRST HORIZON: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: First Horizon Corp. (FHN), relating to its proposed acquisition by by TD Bank Group. Under the terms of the agreement, FHN shareholders are expected to receive $25.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/first-horizon-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN] FREE SPEECH: Yan Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Free Speech Systems LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Free Speech Systems LLC doing business as: Infowarsstore.com, Case No. 1:22-cv-01594-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Free Speech Systems LLC doing business as Infowarsstore.com -- https://www.infowarsstore.com/ -- provides broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com The Defendant is rpresnted by: Norman Alexander Pattis, Esq. PATTIS & SMITH, LLC 383 Orange Street, 1st Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Phone: (203) 393-3017 Fax: (203) 393-9745 Email: npattis@pattisandsmith.com GARDEN CITY: Faces Talavera Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TALAVERA and VANESSA BAILEY v. GARDEN CITY JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01309 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated seeking to recover damages for sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation for opposing discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and other appropriate relief. As a proximate result of the alleged discrimination and harassment, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial loss of past and future earnings and other employment benefits, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com GASBUDDY INC: Faces Luce Class Action Suit Over NSF or OD Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD LUCE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GASBUDDY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-06115 (W.D.N.Y., March 9, 2022) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated GasBuddy users who have been deceived into using GasBuddy's mobile app and payment card by the company's misrepresentations and omissions, in marketing materials, regarding the true operation and risks of the service. The complaint asserts that these risks include the real and repeated risk of multiple insufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") or overdraft fees imposed by users' banks as a result of automated (and often delayed) GasBuddy transfers from consumers' checking accounts. GasBuddy markets itself as a way for consumers to save money on fuel costs. By signing up for a using the GasBuddy payment card at select gas stations, users may save a few cents per gallon. GasBuddy markets itself as an effortless, simple way to guarantee savings on gas purchases. In short, GasBuddy prominently markets itself as a service that allows users to save money on gas, with no hassles and nothing but "savings." This is false -- and in fact there are huge, undisclosed risks of using the service, the lawsuit says. GasBuddy further markets itself as a service that "effortlessly deducts" funds from linked checking accounts at the time of purchase, "like a debit card." These representations are allegedly false. In fact, the service is nothing "like a debit card," and transactions may be approved even when there are insufficient funds in an account and/or payments may not occur for several days after they are made. GasBuddy's services cause unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to incur significant overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank accounts. Unfortunately, GasBuddy's operation, along with its deceptive and incomplete marketing materials, means that users like Plaintiff end up paying huge amounts of bank fees, which GasBuddy falsely assures users they will not receive and/or fails to warn users about, the lawsuit added. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by GasBuddy's practices. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, the putative Class, and the general public. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent GasBuddy from continuing to engage in its illegal practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Defective Paint, Riley Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- TOM RILEY, HEATHER SHRUM, GARY AMBROSE, AND SHERRY KILBURN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499 (M.D. Fla., March 9, 2022) is a putative class action complaint against General Motors for the design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of vehicles with defective paint. This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendant's designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles were all painted by the Defendant, and the paint has a serious latent defect that causes the exterior surfaces of the Class Vehicles to peel and delaminate without any external or environmental influence, the lawsuit says. The Defendant knew, or should have known, prior to Plaintiffs' purchases that the paint itself (and any clear coating) was defective, and that its application of the defective paint (and any clear coating) further contributed to the peeling and delamination. Although the peeling and delamination manifested over time, the Defendant knew or should have known of those issues prior to sale of the Class Vehicles; yet the Defendant continued to put the latently defective Class Vehicles on the market, says the suit. The Defendant allegedly breached its express and implied warranties by continuing to sell the defective Class Vehicles and refusing to remedy the issues; instead, it actively concealed them from the Plaintiffs and the putative class. The Defendant also was unjustly enriched at Plaintiffs' expense and fraudulently suppressed the issues with the paint on the Class Vehicles in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the vehicles at issue. Defendant also developed and disseminated the manuals, warranty booklets, advertisements, and promotional materials relating to the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Mokwa, Esq. Jason R. Fraxedas, Esq. THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A. 398 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 839-0866 Facsimile: (407) 425-7958 E-mail: jrfraxedas@maherlawfirm.com mmokwa@maherlawfirm.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com lewis@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Steve Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C. Black Diamond Building 2229 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 252-3535 Facsimile: (205) 252-3536 E-mail: steve@jacksonandtucker.com GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Laigdig Suit Over ESOP Illegal Transaction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Laidig, Peter Lewis, and Michael Robbins, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Vi-Jon Employee Stock Ownership Plan v. GreatBanc Trust Company, Berkshire Fund VI, Limited Partnership, John G. Brunner, John G. Brunner Revocable Trust dated 06-09-1992, and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:22-cv-01296 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2022) is a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly orchestrated a prohibited transaction with respect to the Plan in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants. Having acquired a controlling interest in Vi-Jon in 2006, Berkshire, a private-equity investor that typically purchases and sells businesses with relatively frequent turnover, found itself unable to unload its stake in the company after holding it for well over a decade. After failing for years to sell Vi-Jon at the inflated asking price of $400 million, Berkshire and the Brunner Defendants capitalized on the temporary surge in the sale of hand sanitizer (which Vi-Jon manufactures) during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to try again. But this time, rather than courting sophisticated buyers on the open market -- who would negotiate at arms-length and understand that the pandemic-related boost in hand-sanitizer sales was likely temporary and not a realistic predictor of long-term performance -- Berkshire and the Brunner Defendants unloaded their interest onto the ESOP. This allowed Brunner and agents of Berkshire, in their capacity as Vi-Jon directors, to hand-select their counterparty in the transaction: GreatBanc. And GreatBanc played along and approved Brunner and Berkshire's above-market asking price on behalf of the Plan, says the suit. In order to artificially support the $400 million price, the Defendants relied on overly optimistic financial projections based on temporary market conditions that had already started to expire before the deal closed. Business has only continued to slow down since, leaving the company short of the Defendants' targets while stuck paying 49-years of installments on Defendants' carelessly negotiated price, the suit added. Vi-Jon is a private-label manufacturer of personal care products, including hand sanitizer. Vi-Jon's legacy companies are more than 100 years old. In 2006, Berkshire acquired a controlling interest in Vi-Jon from Brunner and merged it with a competitor under the Vi-Jon name. Brunner retained a minority interest in the company through the Brunner Trust. In August 20, 2020, in a series of related transactions (the "ESOP Transaction"), Berkshire and the Brunner Defendants sold Vi-Jon and the ESOP acquired it, making Vi-Jon a 100% employee-owned company. The ESOP's participants are Vi-Jon's employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amit Bindra, Esq. Navdeep Gill, Esq. THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 1 East Upper Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 212-4450 Facsimile: (312) 284-4822 E-mail: abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com ngill@prinz-lawfirm.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Brandon T. McDonough, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bpsecht@nka.com bmcdonough@nka.com jschutz@nka.com GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Levine Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Stephen Levine filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC.; and GRUBHUB INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11742, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as independent contractor delivery drivers for GrubHub in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. GrubHub is a delivery service that provides delivery drivers who can be scheduled and dispatched through a mobile phone application or through its website and who will deliver food and other goods from restaurants and stores to customers at their homes and businesses. GrubHub has allegedly misclassified certain delivery drivers as independent contractors when they are actually employees, in violation of Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 section 148B. In so doing, GrubHub has violated Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 section 148 by failing to reimburse these drivers' necessary business expenses such as gas and car maintenance and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151 section 1, 7 by failing to pay these drivers the Massachusetts minimum wage after accounting for drivers' expenses and excluding their tips (as GrubHub is not entitled to take the tip credit against the minimum wage), says the suit. The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk (Case No. 2184CV01840) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 25, 2020. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of Court Orders dated January 25, 2022 and January 28, 2022, dismissing the case, and Order dated January 12, 2022, granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as STEPHEN LEVINE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC.; GRUBHUB INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 3, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance form and docketing statement were due March 17, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHEN LEVINE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com HEALTHCARE REALTY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc. (HR), relating to its proposed merger with Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, each share of HR common stock will be exchanged for one share of HTA common stock, with HR shareholders expected to own 39% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/healthcare-realty-trust-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN] HONDA MOTOR: Final Settlement in Infotainment Class Suit Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------------ carcomplaints.com reports that a Honda infotainment class action settlement is final after the automaker agreed to settle the lawsuit to end the litigation, although the automaker denies all the allegations in the lawsuit. The Honda infotainment settlement includes these models. 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey (Elite, EX, EX-L, EX-LNR and Touring) 2019 Honda Pilot (2EX-LNR, 2TRG, 2TRG 7P, 4Elite, 4EX, 4EX-L, 4EX-LNR, 4TRG and 4TRG 7P) 2019 Honda Passport (2EX-L, 2TRG, 4Elite, 4EX-L, or 4TRG) According to the class action lawsuit, the Honda infotainment system controls the climate controls, navigation, radio and other features through the use of multiple LCD screens and at least one touchscreen. But the plaintiffs claim the Honda infotainment systems freeze and crash which prevent access to important vehicle and safety features. The plaintiffs further assert Honda knew the infotainment systems were defective when the vehicles were sold but fraudulently concealed the problems. Honda filed a motion to dismiss the infotainment class action lawsuit and the judge denied in part and granted in part the motion. Honda and the plaintiffs then reached a settlement agreement which was given final approval by the judge. Honda Infotainment Class Action Settlement According to the Honda infotainment class action settlement, a customer will receive a warranty extension of two years or 24,000 miles to cover the infotainment system. But the symptoms must include crackling or popping speakers, a loss of the network, no sound or problems with the display. An owner may also be eligible for reimbursement for expenses related to transportation if the Honda vehicle was returned two or more times to the dealership due to infotainment system problems. The Honda infotainment settlement says an owner is eligible to be reimbursed if the infotainment system drained the battery and the Honda owner paid to have the battery recharged. If a Honda owner made more than one service visit to a dealer for an infotainment system problem that wasn't fixed during the initial warranty service visit, that owner may be eligible to receive two free years of HondaLink Security Service (Elite and Touring trims) or one free year of SiriusXM Select service (EX and EX-L trims). The original couple (Lesley and Tom Conti) who filed the class action lawsuit will receive $10,000, and the attorneys representing the plaintiffs will receive more than $666,000. The Honda infotainment lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division - Conti, et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Goldenberg Schneider, LPA. [GN] HYATT CORP: Fails to Properly Defer Savings Plan Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE BAIRD, individually, And on behalf of all others similarly Situated, and on behalf of the HYATT CORPORATION RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN v. HYATT CORPORATION; BENEFITS COMMITTEE and its members, Case No. 2:22-cv-01620 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) arises from the failure of Hyatt Corporation to properly defer compensation paid to Plaintiff and other participants of the Hyatt Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, as amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2017. The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34). The Plan has more than $2,130,777,033 in assets with almost 26510 active and more than 47849 total participants as of the end of 2020. The Defendants are the Plan's fiduciaries: the Plan sponsor, Hyatt, and the Plan's Benefits Committee and its members, whose names are currently unknown. Mr. Baird is a resident and citizen of Long Beach, California, and has been employed by Hyatt since March, 15, 2017. Mr. Baird is currently employed by Hyatt as a server in Huntington Beach, California. Hyatt is a multinational hospitality company that manages luxury hotels, resorts, and vacation properties that provide lodging, food, beverage, and other services. The Defendant Benefits Committee has the full and complete authority, responsibility, and control over the management, administration, and operation of the Plan pursuant to the Plan Document.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kolin C. Tang, Esq. Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 19712 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 222 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: kctang@millershah.com rskravitz@millershah.com - and - D. Joshua Staub, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF D. JOSHUA STAUB 13015 Washington Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 929-5269 Facsimile: (213) 816-1932 E-mail: josh@djoshuastaub.com INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Bid to Extend Deadlines Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Mejia v. Inglewood Sportservice, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09564-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application seeking to extend deadlines until after Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is heard to avoid wasting judicial resources." On February 16, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management Order, setting an April 4, 2022 deadline to hear motions for class certification, which, in turn, set a March 7, 2022 deadline to file such motions. The Court finds that the Mission Power standard is met because Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, on February 18, 2022, rendering it impossible for Plaintiff to obtain relief through a regularly noticed motion before the March 7, 2022 deadline to file her motion for class certification. Thus, Plaintiff would have been irreparably prejudiced by no fault of her own, had she sought relief through a regularly noticed motion. Although Plaintiff's ex parte filing is warranted under these circumstances, the Court nevertheless finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to warrant modification of the Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order advises that "the Court will rarely grant stipulations or applications to extend [the class certification motion] deadline." That the currently pending Motion for Summary Judgment could moot the class certification motion does not establish the requisite good cause to extend the class certification motion deadline because such a circumstance is common and expected. Most matters will at some point involve a filing deadline while a potentially dispositive motion remains pending. If the Court accepted Plaintiff's rationale, scheduling orders would constantly be modified, rendering them essentially useless. Additionally, the Scheduling Order instructs, "Any stipulations or applications for relief must include a specific date by which the plaintiff will move for class certification (the Court will not grant an open-ended extension)." However, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application does not include a proposed new deadline for filing her class certification motion. Thus, in addition to failing to show good cause, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought because her Ex Parte Application is not compliant with the instructions provided in the Scheduling Order. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vKOrTJ at no extra charge.[CC] INTRICON CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: IntriCon Corp. (IIN), relating to its proposed acquisition by an affiliate of Altaris Capital Partners, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, IIN shareholders are expected to receive $24.25 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/intricon-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN] IROBOT CORP: Faces Toolis Suit Over Roomba Vacuums' Design Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS W. TOOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IROBOT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01290 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2022) is a class action complaint brought to remedy violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices, and state laws governing unjust enrichment in connection with iRobot's sale of the defectively designed Roomba Vacuums. The Plaintiff has filed this class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to obtain damages and restitution for himself and the Class from iRobot. The Design Defect is a material defect because it renders the Roomba Vacuums completely inoperable. At the times Plaintiff and Class members purchased the defectively designed Roomba Vacuums, they were unaware that the Design Defect existed, says the suit. iRobot charged Plaintiff and Class members $59.00 for a wheel kit intended to address the wheel malfunction set forth supra, which did not remedy the issue because there is a defect in the vacuums' core processing unit. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages and equitable relief, including the refund of the $59.00 wheel kit fee, the replacement and/or recall of the Roomba Vacuums, civil penalties, costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys' fees, and all further relief available. The Plaintiff resides in Frankfort, Illinois. In 2018, Plaintiff purchased a Roomba Vacuum. At the time Plaintiff purchased his Roomba Vacuums, Plaintiff did not have any knowledge that iRobot had defectively designed it. Had Plaintiff known that the Roomba Vacuum that he purchased had been defectively designed, he would not have purchased the vacuum. iRobot is responsible for the design, manufacture, marketing, sale, repair, and replacement of the defectively designed Roomba Vacuums throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. Toolis, Esq. Christopher M. Jahnke, Esq. FRANKFORT LAW GROUP 10075 W. Lincoln Hwy. Frankfort, IL 60423 Telephone: (708) 349-9333 E-mail: cmj@jtlawllc.com JH PORTFOLIO DEBT: Gottlieb Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ryan Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC; JH Met Subsidiary B Liquidating Trust; JH Portfolio Debt Equities 2, LLC; JH Portfolio Debt Equities 4, LLC; JH Reviver LLC; JH Met Asset Entity Subsidiary B, LLC; JHCG Holdings LLC; JH Capital Group Holdings LLC; Jacobsen Credit Holdings LLC; Douglas Jacobsen; John Does 1 to 10; Case No. HUD-L-000382 22, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court-Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 25, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01020-JXN-CLW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC is a debt collection agency and a leader in the distressed consumer debt buyer and collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com The Defendants are represented by: Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 458 Elizabeth Ave-Suite 5371 Somerset, NJ 08873 Phone: (732) 328-9480 Email: mwilliamson@BN-lawyers.com - and - Thomas R. Dominczyk, Esq. MAURICE WUTSCHER, LLP 5 Walter E. Foran Boulevard, Suite 2007 Flemington, NJ 08822-4672 Phone: (908) 237-4550 Email: tdominczyk@mauricewutscher.com JP OUTFITTERS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JP OUTFITTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09813-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join April 5, 2022 additional parties shall be filed no later: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to March 18, 2022 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than than: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 6, 2022 no later than: -- All expert discovery, including July 6, 2022 reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- Plaintiff shall file a motion for August 6, 2022 class certification no later than: -- Any opposition shall be filed by: Sept. 6, 2022 -- Any reply shall be filed by: Oct. 6, 2022 JP Outfitters operates as an e-commerce company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CkSYxt at no extra charge.[CC] KEVAN MEYERS: Pennington Claims Trimmed; Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JONATHAN PENNINGTON AND BROOKE PENNINGTON, Plaintiffs v. KEVAN MEYERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-2591-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order: a. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint; b. denying the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class"; c. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; d. denying the Plaintiffs' "Motion for Hearing" and Motions for Order; e. denying Defendant Kevan Meyers' Motion to Dismiss; and f. denying the Plaintiffs' Applications for "Default Judgment." I. Background Pro se plaintiffs Jonathan and Brooke Pennington filed the lawsuit against 52 named Defendants alleging, generally, violations of federal law based on their alleged interference with their right to abortion and a right to access abortion clinics. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging "injury from the Defendants' intentional, known, open, and continuous violation(s) of the Laws of the United States of America." The Amended Complaint asserts six causes of action against 52 Defendants: (1) "deprivation of civil liberties" violating 18 U.S.C. Section 242, by interfering with the "right to abortion" and the "rights to access abortion clinics, the right to engage in abortion services, and freedom of unobstructed ingress and egress to and from clinic ;" (2) RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962; (3) Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 248; (4) stalking, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A; (5) hate crimes violating 18 U.S.C. Section 249; and (6) domestic terrorism violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5). The Plaintiffs seek $100 million in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and "issuance of criminal referral." The Amended Complaint itself contains only vague and conclusory allegations about the facts that allegedly support the Plaintiffs' six causes of action. Also, the caption of the lawsuit names both Jonathan and Brooke Pennington as Plaintiffs. But the first sentence of the Amended Complaint asserts that the action is brought by "Jonathan Todd Pennington, pro se class counsellor" and never names Brooke Pennington as a litigant. Also, Plaintiff Jonathan Pennington is the only plaintiff who has signed the Complaint. On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not (1) dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and (2) why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff Brooke Pennington from the case because Jonathan Pennington, as a non-licensed attorney, cannot litigate on her behalf. On Feb. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs timely filed a Response to the court's Show Cause Order. The Response shows good cause why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff Brooke Pennington from the case. So, the Court won't dismiss her. Also, the Response provides much more factual detail about events that allegedly occurred on Dec. 18, 2021, when the Plaintiffs visited a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek reproductive health services. The Court construes the Plaintiffs' Response as a supplement to the Amended Complaint. Also, it construes liberally the pro se allegations in the Amended Complaint and Response -- as it must. II. Analysis As discussed, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not (1) dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and (2) why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff Brooke Pennington from the case because Jonathan Pennington, as a non-licensed attorney, cannot litigate the case on her behalf. A. The Court Won't Dismiss Brooke Pennington As A Plaintiff. Judge Crabtree holds that the Plaintiffs have shown good cause why the Court shouldn't dismiss Brooke Pennington as a plaintiff in the case. Their Response to the Show Cause Order adequately explains that both Jonathan and Brooke are litigating the case on their own behalf. It also recognizes that the Plaintiffs erred by not "affixing a signature from Brooke to each document" they have filed. Hence, Judge Crabtree won't dismiss Brooke from the lawsuit based on an oversight. But he reminds the pro se Plaintiffs that each of them must sign the documents they file with the Court because, as non-licensed attorneys, they only can represent themselves pro se. They cannot "represent the rights or interests of others." B. The Complaint States a Plausible FACE Act Claim Against Three Defendants But Fails to State Any Other Plausible Claims Against Any Other Defendants. Next, Judge Crabtree evaluates whether the Plaintiffs have shown good cause why the Court should not dismiss their Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim for relief. As discussed, the Amended Complaint asserts six claims for relief. A. The Court Won't Dismiss Brooke Pennington As A Plaintiff. Judge Crabtree holds that the Plaintiffs have shown good cause why the court shouldn't dismiss Brooke Pennington as a plaintiff in the case. Their Response to the Show Cause Order adequately explains that both Jonathan and Brooke are litigating the case on their own behalf. He also recognizes that the Plaintiffs erred by not "affixing a signature from Brooke to each document" they have filed. He won't dismiss Brooke from the lawsuit based on an oversight. But he reminds the pro se Plaintiffs that each of them must sign the documents they file with the court because, as non-licensed attorneys, they only can represent themselves pro se. They cannot "represent the rights or interests of others." B. The Complaint States a Plausible FACE Act Claim Against Three Defendants But Fails to State Any Other Plausible Claims Against Any Other Defendants. Next, Judge Crabtree evaluates whether the Plaintiffs have shown good cause why the court should not dismiss their Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim for relief. As discussed, the Amended Complaint asserts six claims for relief. 1. Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims The Plaintiffs' first, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims assert violations of various federal criminal statutes. Judge Crabtree holds that the Plaintiffs' Response to the Show Cause Order fails to address these four statutes or whether they permit them to assert a private cause of action. The Response, in a general or conclusory fashion, alleges that the Defendants "have acted in open conspiracy toward the end of Depriving Civil Liberties" and have violated "other known laws such as those that bar Hate Crimes, acts of Terror, and Stalking." But, it never explains how the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim in their first, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims under these criminal statutes. To the contrary, none of these four statutes permit the Plaintiffs to bring a private cause of action. Thus, these four claims fail to state plausible claim for relief, and Judge Crabtree, as he is obligated to do, dismisses them. 2. Plaintiffs' Second Claim for RICO Violations The Plaintiffs' second claim asserts RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962. Subsection 1962(c) of RICO makes it unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. Judge Crabtree finds that neither the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint nor the Response to the Show Cause Order provide factual allegations supporting a reasonable finding or inference of any of RICO's required legal elements. Instead, both filings merely allege violations of the "RICO Laws" in a patently conclusory fashion. The Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations fail to allege a viable RICO claim. Thus, Judge Crabtree dismisses the Plaintiffs' second claim for RICO violations because it "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 3. Plaintiffs' Third Claim for FACE Act Violations The Plaintiffs' third claim asserts violations of the FACE Act under 18 U.S.C. Section 248. Although their Amended Complaint and Response allege that all 52 Defendants violated the FACE Act, Judge Crabtree finds that the Plaintiffs' filings assert factual allegations capable of supporting a FACE claim against just three of the Defendants. The FACE Act does not prohibit actions that "may intimidate." Instead, the statute only prohibits "actions that constitute [1] a use of force, [2] a threat of force, or [3] physical obstruction." Judge Crabtree holds that at this stage of the case, he must construe the Plaintiffs' factual allegations broadly and view them in their favor. Also, he must assume that those factual allegations are true. Giving the Plaintiffs the benefit of those procedural advantages, Judge Crabtree concludes the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for FACE Act violations against Defendants Kevan Meyers, Trey Jadlow, and Clifton Boje. So, the Plaintiffs may proceed on their FACE Act claims against those three. Whether the Plaintiffs can muster admissible evidence to support their allegations is a separate question, one that Judge Crabtree does not address today. In contrast, however, the Plaintiffs utterly have failed to allege any facts to present a plausible claim against the other 49 Defendants. They haven't pleaded facts capable of supporting a finding or inference that any of those 49 Defendants engaged in a use of force, made a threat of force, or physically obstructed plaintiffs to "intimidate or interfere with" the Plaintiffs because they were "obtaining reproductive health services." Judge Crabtree thus dismisses those 49 Defendants, i.e., all but Messrs. Meyers, Jadlow, and Boje, from the action without prejudice. C. Pending Motions Judge Crabtree now addresses a number of other motions that currently are pending in the case--filed both by the Plaintiffs and some Defendants. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification The same day the Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint they filed a "Motion to Certify Class." The motion asks the Court to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B). Then, it merely lists the causes of action that the Plaintiffs assert against the Defendants -- most of which the Court now has dismissed because they fail to state a claim. And finally, the motion asks to appoint Jonathan Pennington as the class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2). Judge Crabtree holds that there's not much "rigorous analysis" to conduct because the Plaintiffs provide so little to analyze. Their class certification motion offers nothing but conclusory assertions. Their motion doesn't provide any information for the Court to conclude that their claims (or any one of them) satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b)'s requirements. Instead, it merely asks the Court to certify a class and then lists the claims the Plaintiffs asserted in their original Complaint. As the Supreme Court has said, Plaintiffs, as the party requesting class certification, bear the burden of "`affirmatively demonstrating'" compliance with the rule's requirements. The Plaintiffs "must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc." They haven't shouldered that burden with their class certification motion. So, Judge Crabtree denies the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class." 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Related Motions The Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It seeks both a "preliminary injunction" and "restraining order" "barring Kevan Meyers and each individual Co-Conspirator from being present within 1,000 feet of any facility providing legal abortion services" and "from being present within 1,000 feet of Jonathan Pennington, Brooke Pennington, or the residence thereof." Judge Crabtree explains that a party moving for a preliminary injunction "must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest." The Plaintiffs' motion addresses none of the requirements for securing a preliminary injunction. It never explains why (1) plaintiffs are "likely to succeed on the merits," (2) they are "likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," (3) "the balance of equities tips in their favor," or (4) "an injunction is in the public interest." Importantly, their filings only describe their one visit to the Planned Parenthood clinic. Thus, the Plaintiffs haven't shown that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction barring the Defendants from "being present within 1,000 feet" of them or their residence. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of the four elements required to secure a preliminary injunction, Judge Crabtree denies their motion. The Plaintiffs also filed a "Motion for Hearing" asking the court to hold a hearing on their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Because they have failed to allege any of the required elements to secure a preliminary injunction, Judge Crabtree finds that he need not convene a hearing on the motion. Also, the Plaintiffs filed a document titled "Motion: Proposed Order re Access to Court" and another document titled "Motion re Access to Court." Both filings seek "permission to possess and bring into the Court a cellphone, tablet, laptop, or any other common clerical technology which is otherwise permitted to be used by licensed attorneys." Judge Crabtree denies the motions as moot. He construes the requests as ones arising from the Plaintiffs' motion asking for hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. He has denied that request, and the case has no in-person hearings scheduled currently. So, Judge Crabtree denies the requests to bring certain technology into the courthouse. 3. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Related Motions Next, Judge Crabtree addresses the pending Motions to Dismiss filed by some of the Defendants. First, Defendants Shawn Winslow, Sara Holder, and Eugene Fry filed Motions to Dismiss. Defendants David Daubenmire and Pass the Salt Ministries filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. And, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judge Crabtree already has concluded that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Response fail to state plausible claims against any of these defendants. And, the Order dismisses these Defendants from the case. So, he denies as moot these Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Also, he denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. Defendant Kevan Meyers also filed a Motion to Dismiss. It is a one-page document and it asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' case because, among other things, the Plaintiffs failed to serve process in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 4.1 and Rule 4.2, failed to provide the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction Rule 8, and failed to show they are entitled to relief Rule 8. Judge Crabtree declines to dismiss the FACE Act claims asserted against Mr. Meyers for any of these reasons. First, Mr. Meyers' motion doesn't explain how the Plaintiffs failed to serve him with process consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the Plaintiffs properly have invoked the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Third, the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim against Mr. Meyers under the FACE Act. Fourth, Mr. Meyers provides no factual or other support for his arguments that the Plaintiffs' filings violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Without any facts showing that they have filed the lawsuit for the purpose of harassing Mr. Meyers, the court won't find a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. For all these reasons, Judge Crabtree denies Mr. Meyers's Motion to Dismiss. As already explained, the Plaintiffs have stated a valid FACE Act claim against Mr. Meyers. He allows them to proceed on this claim. 4. Plaintiffs' Applications for Default Last, Judge Crabtree addresses several Applications for "Default Judgment" that the Plaintiffs have filed. The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against: Defendants Kevan Meyers and Grace Christian Bible Fellowship Church; Shawn Winslow; 18 of the Defendants, including Trey Jadlow; 17 of the Defendants, including Clifton Boje; Scott Roeder, Richard Schilling, and Carol Schilling; and 11 of the Defendants. As already discussed, Judge Crabtree finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state plausible claims against most of these Defendants. So, he denies as moot the Applications for "Default Judgment" against each Defendant except Kevan Meyers, Trey Jadlow, and Clifton Boje. III. Conclusion Judge Crabtree concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations -- even under the most liberal construction -- fail to state a plausible claim against most of the Defendants. But, the allegations -- liberally construed and taken for now as true -- plausibly state a claim against Defendants Kevan Meyers, Trey Jadlow, and Clifton Boje for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act under 18 U.S.C. Section 248. Judge Crabtree allows this one claim to proceed against those three Defendants. In contrast, he dismisses all other claims and the Defendants under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in part under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failing to state a claim for relief. Judge Crabtree permits the Plaintiffs to proceed only on their FACE Act claims asserted against Defendants Kevan Meyers, Trey Jadlow, and Clifton Boje. But, he dismissed all other claims and the Defendants from the action. The Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class" is denied. The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. The Plaintiffs' "Motion for Hearing" and Motions for Order are denied. Defendant Kevan Meyers's Motion to Dismiss is denied. Defendants Shawn Winslow, Sara Holder, and Eugene Fry's Motions to Dismiss are denied as moot. Defendants David Daubenmire and Pass the Salt Ministries' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs' Applications for "Default Judgment" are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yesp4a9a from Leagle.com. LOVE & SUPPORT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Locke Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Locke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Love & Support Counseling and Consulting, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00023-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., March 10, 2022) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one- half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working for Defendant paid on an hourly "straight-time" basis. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant while paid on an hourly "straight-time" basis who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward. The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about August 8, 2021. She stopped working for Defendant on or about October 2021. She was employed by Defendant as a patient care assistant in connection with Defendant's at-home healthcare business operations. The Defendant's patient care assistant employees offer assistance to clients with one or more of the following services: bathing, grooming, toileting, transfer/ambulation, exercise regimens, medication administration, feeding, meal preparation, cleaning, laundry, shopping and escort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caldwell, Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650 ATLANTA, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 979-3170 E-mail: michaelcaldwell@dcbflegal.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $10 Million Fee Award Affirmed in Flooring Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- bloomberglaw.com reports that a fee award of about $10 million for consumer attorneys in two class actions over Lumber Liquidators' allegedly subpar laminate flooring got Fourth Circuit approval two years after the court sent the request back because of the deal's "coupon" component. As they did the first time, objectors argued that the coupon portion of the settlement lacked value, making the attorneys' fees excessive in comparison to the whole recovery, according to the appeals court. But that contention "pretends that a sizable portion of the settlement negotiated by Class Counsel does not exist," Judge Robert B. King said for the panel. And this time the trial judge calculated fees based on the lodestar method. Lumber Liquidators allegedly sold defective Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring from 2009 to 2015, according to the court. Two groups of consumers, alleging excessive formaldehyde emissions and durability problems, sued. The proposed class actions were consolidated in multidistrict litigation, and a two-part settlement was reached. Under its terms, early purchasers are entitled to a limited cash settlement, and later purchasers, alleging both formaldehyde and durability issues, can choose between a cash award and vouchers. The cash fund consisted of $22 million and the vouchers had a face value of $14 million, totaling $36 million. The district court approved the deal, including $10,080,000 in attorney's fees and $797,397 in costs to be deducted from the cash fund. Several objectors appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit approved the settlement in March 2020 but sent the attorneys' fees, calculated as a proportion of the $36 million, back to the trial court. The trial court then examined the $10.08 million request under the lodestar method, based on multiplying the number of hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate, and approved it. Two objectors appealed again. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Class Action Fairness Act "authorizes use of the lodestar method in calculating attorney's fees where 'coupon' relief makes up part of a class action settlement," the court said, joining all but one of the other federal appeals court to consider the issue. The court didn't agree with the objectors that the class attorneys should have gotten a lower billing rate because they didn't show "success" for the class, measured by coupon redemption rates. There's no express requirement to consider redemption rates, and the district court indicated "that the vouchers were not the sort of valueless trifle that CAFA primarily concerns itself with," King said. The objectors also said that the cash amount left for the class after subtracting costs, notice expenses, and service awards-$9.9 million-is lower than the amount for the attorneys. But that alone doesn't require sending the issue back to the lower court, King said. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory and Judge Toby J. Heytens joined the opinion. The case is Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 2022 BL 72920, 4th Cir., No. 20-2036, 3/3/22. To contact the reporter on this story: Martina Barash in Washington at mbarash@bloomberglaw.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Steven Patrick at spatrick@bloomberglaw.com [GN] MASTEC SERVICES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO RIVERA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC., and DECISIVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-20726-XXXX (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) is class action suit against the Defendants for damages in connection to claims for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks money damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies, including injunctive relief, allowable by law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of MasTec, and a former employee of DCI which was purchased by MasTec approximately two years ago, and at all material times resided in Broward County, Florida. While employed by DCI, the Plaintiff was a full-time employee that regularly worked well beyond 40 hours per week. However, there was a failure to fully compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked at a rate of no less than one-and-one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, the lawsuit says. MasTec is power plant and renewable energy construction company specializing in building and engineering of natural gas power plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Alexander T. Harne, Esq. PERERA ALEMÁN, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (786) 485-5232 E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com brody@pba-law.com harne@pba-law.com MAXIMUS INC: Thomas Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sharey Thomas, et al. Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Maximus, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00498-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David J. Novak entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "The Defendant shall have 14 days from the entry hereof to move to certify an interloculatory appeal. Purusuant to Local Rule 7(F), the Plaintiffs shall have 14 days to respond, and the Defendant shall have six days to reply. In the interim, the Court stays all aspects of this order and accompanying opinion pending resolution of the certification issue, except the production of the personal contact information of the potential plaintiffs." The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Maximus is an American government services company, with global operations in countries including the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company contracts with government agencies to provide services to manage and administer government-sponsored programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMSInW at no extra charge.[CC] MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Candle Factory Survivors File Class Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- kfvs12.com reports that survivors of the candle factory collapse in December filed a class action complaint building on the lawsuit filed 2 months ago. An attorney representing the eight survivors is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, saying that employees were barred from leaving that night. In total, eight people died when the candle factory, Mayfield Consumer Products, collapsed the night of December 10 when a long-track EF4 tornado moved through western Kentucky. According to the National Weather Service, Cayce, Ky. in Fulton County was struck directly. The tornado then continued northeast through Mayfield between 9:25 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., where it produced widespread destruction. [GN] MIKIMOTO CO: Lee Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mikimoto (America) Co. Ltd. The case is styled as C.K. Lee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mikimoto (America) Co. Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-01923 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mikimoto (America) Co., Ltd. -- https://mikimotoamerica.com/ -- distributes and supplies jewelry products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rony Guldmann, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 148 W 24th St., Ste. 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 661-0052 Email: rony@leelitigation.com MIMECAST LIMITED: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Mimecast Limited (MIME), relating to its sale to Permira. Under the terms of the agreement, MIME shareholders will receive $80.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mimecast-limited. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN] MINNESOTA: Karsjens Appeals Dismissal of Remaining Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kevin Karsjens, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Kevin Scott Karsjens, David Leroy Gamble, Jr., Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph Braun, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne Foster, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jodi Harpstead, Kevin Moser, Peter Puffer, Nancy Johnston, Jannine Hebert, and Ann Zimmerman, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 0:11-cv-03659-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs are individuals residing at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP") who are civilly committed under Minnesota Statute Section 253D, the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act ("MCTA"). The 14 named Plaintiffs represent a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), consisting of "all patients currently civilly committed to the MSOP pursuant to Minn. Stat Section 253B." The Plaintiffs' lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the MCTA on its face and as applied, as well as various aspects of the MSOP's operation and treatment regimen. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, filed on Oct. 28, 2014, asserts the following 13 claims: (I) Minnesota Statute Section 253D is facially unconstitutional; (II) Minnesota Statute Section 253D is unconstitutional as applied; (III) the Defendants have failed to provide treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (IV) the Defendants have failed to provide treatment in violation of the MCTA; (V) the Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs the right to be free from punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (VI) the Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs the right to less restrictive alternative confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (VII) the Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs the right to be free from inhumane treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (VIII) the Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs the right to religion and religious freedom in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (IX) the Defendants have unreasonably restricted free speech and free association in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (X) the Defendants have conducted unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution; (XI) the Defendants have violated court ordered treatment; (XII) the individual Defendants have breached the Plaintiffs' contractual rights; and (XIII) the individual Defendants have tortiously interfered with contractual rights and have intentionally violated Minn. Stat. Section 253B.03, subd. 7. On June 17, 2015, the Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, granting the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief on Counts I and II. It stated, "because the Court finds the program is unconstitutional on its face and as applied (Counts I and II), and because any remedy fashioned will address the issues raised in the remaining Phase One Counts, the Court need not address Counts III, V, VI, and VII." The Court noted that its "determination that the MSOP and its governing civil commitment statutes are unconstitutional concludes Phase One of this case." It also reiterated that "Counts VIII, IX, and X, will be tried in the second phase of trial ('Phase Two')." On Oct. 29, 2015, the Court issued a First Interim Relief Order directing injunctive relief to remedy its findings of unconstitutionality. The Defendants appealed the Court's Phase One and Injunctive Relief Orders to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed the Court's Phase One order and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on Counts I and II. It also vacated the Court's Injunctive Relief Order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims. The remanded Phase One claims included Counts III, V, VI, and VII of the Third Amended Complaint. Each claim arose under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and challenged Defendants' acts and omissions relating to the creation and implementation of various policies at the MSOP. Count III raised a failure-to-provide treatment claim. Counts V and VII challenged the conditions of confinement within the MSOP facilities, and Count VI alleged that denial of less restrictive alternative confinement was impermissibly punitive. In response to Karsjens I, the parties filed supplemental briefing on the remaining Phase One claims, and the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the Phase Two claims. On Aug. 23, 2018, the Court dismissed with prejudice the remaining Phase One claims under the "shocks the conscience standard." In the same Order, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the Phase Two claims as well. The Plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling on the Phase One claims to the Eighth Circuit. On Feb. 24, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Counts V, VI, and VII after finding that the Court applied the wrong legal standard and remanded the case again for further proceedings. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 4, 2022, Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' remaining claims, Counts V, VI, and VII, in their third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Karsjens, et al. v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Case No. 22-1459, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before April 13, 2022; -- Appendix is due on April 25, 2022; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Kaine Joseph Braun, Kenny S. Daywitt, Kevin John DeVillion, Bradley Wayne Foster, David Leroy Gamble, Brian K. Hausfeld, Kevin Scott Karsjens, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer Sr., James John Rud, Dennis Richard Steiner and Christopher John Thuringer is due on April 25, 2022; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Kevin Scott Karsjens, Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph Braun, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne Foster, David Leroy Gamble, and Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Karla M. Gluek, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Anthony Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON & GLUEK 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Defendants-Appellees Jodi Harpstead, Kevin Moser, Peter Puffer, Ann Zimmerman, Nancy Johnston, and Jannine Hebert, in their individual and official capacities, are represented by: Brandon L. Boese, Esq. Scott Hiromi Ikeda, Esq. Aaron Edward Winter, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127 Telephone: (651) 296-9412 MONEVO INC: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Access of Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY J. BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEVO, INC., Defendant, Case 3:22-cv-00259-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, upon review of the Plaintiff's credit report, he noticed that on March 1, 2020, the Defendant had obtained a copy of his credit report, misrepresenting it had a "Permissible Purpose/Written Authorization" to pull, receive and review his credit report. The Plaintiff did not have an existing business relationship with the Defendant, never applied for a loan through the Defendant, and did not authorize it to run his credit report at any time. As a result of the Defendant's willful, wanton, reckless, and negligent action, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the suit. MONEVO, INC. is a B2BC personal credit platform and API focused on improving access to credit in what is currently a highly fragmented marketplace. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. B. Ginsburg, Esq. GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C. 1012 N. Bethlehem Pike, Suite 103, Box #9 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (855) 978-6564 Facsimile: (855) 777-0043 Email: aginsburg@ginsburglawgroup.com -and- Amy Lynn, Esq. THOMASSON PLLC 402 West Broadway #950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (973) 312-0774 Facsimile: (973) 559-5579 Email: amy@thomassonpllc.com MP MATERIALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 5 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. MP Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mp-materials-corp-f-k-a-fortress-value-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=24333&wire=1 MP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 1, 2020 - February 2, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 25, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mp-materials-corp-f-k-a-fortress-value-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=24333&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, MP Materials Corp. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. ("FVAC") had overstated its due diligence efforts and expertise with respect to identifying target companies to acquire; (ii) FVAC performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy MP Materials prior to the business combination, or else ignored significant red flags regarding, inter alia, Legacy MP Materials' management, compliance policies, and Mountain Pass's profitability; (iii) as a result, the Company's future business and financial prospects post-business combination were overstated; (iv) MP Materials engaged in an abusive transfer price manipulation scheme with a related party in the People's Republic of China to artificially inflate the Company's profits; (v) MP Materials' ore at the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility was not economically viable to harvest for rare earth metals; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] MYCOMPUTERCAREER INC: Rose TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Royal Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MyComputerCareer, Inc., Case No. 2022-CA-000768, was removed from the Duval County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 7, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00248-BJD-JBT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MyComputerCareer -- https://www.mycomputercareer.edu/ -- offers a precise technical education designed to position to improve life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary Joanne Dowd, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF 1717 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-5344 Phone: (202) 857-6000 Email: mary.dowd@arentfox.com NATERA INC: Teamsters Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ TEAMSTERS LOCAL 639 -- EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATERA, INC., STEVEN CHAPMAN, MICHAEL BROPHY, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, ROY BAYNES, MONICA BERTAGNOLLI, ROELOF F. BOTHA, ROWAN CHAPMAN, TODD COZZENS, JAMES I. HEALY, GAIL MARCUS, HERM ROSENMAN, JONATHAN SHEENA, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC and SVB LEERINK LLC, Case No. 152114/2022 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 10, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Natera stock directly in the Company's secondary stock offering conducted on or around July 22, 2021 (the "SPO") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. In 2012, Natera launched Horizon, a carrier screening test which helps couples determine the risk of passing on serious genetic conditions to their children. In 2013, Natera launched Panorama, the Company's non-invasive prenatal test, or "NIPT." Panorama is a blood-based genetic, prenatal screening test of the pregnant mom that screens for chromosomal conditions that affect a baby's health, such as Down syndrome. Horizon and Panorama represent the substantial majority of Company revenues. Leading up to the SPO, Natera stated that the Company was experiencing substantial growth, largely on the back of its prenatal testing products and services. For example, Natera stated that its revenues were $391 million in 2020 compared to $302 million in 2019 and $258 million in 2018. The Company's product revenues were primarily generated from testing in women's health, which, according to Natera, accounted for $367 million, $270 million and $240 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. On January 1, 2022, The New York Times published an exposé on the prenatal testing capabilities of tests offered by Natera and other companies for rare genetic disorders titled: "When They Warn of Rare Disorders, These Prenatal Tests Are Usually Wrong." The article provided extensive evidence that positive test results for rare genetic disorders detected by Natera's prenatal testing services were, in many cases, wildly inaccurate. In decline from the price at which Natera stock had been sold to the investing public in the SPO. At the time of the filing of this complaint, the price of Natera stock has remained significantly below the SPO price. Allegedly, the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. Specifically, the Registration Statement misrepresented the accuracy and quality of Natera's prenatal testing services and failed to disclose that the Company's recent growth trends were based in substantial part on Natera's provision of materially inaccurate test results and efforts to market tests for genetic conditions which could not be detected with reasonable accuracy, says the suit. The Underwriter Defendants maintain principal offices in this County and the stock issued in the SPO was issued in this County and trades in this County on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq"). Teamsters Local 639 - Employers Pension Trust purchased Natera stock directly in the SPO and has been damaged thereby. Natera is a biotechnology company specializing in diagnostic tests. Natera stock trades in New York on the Nasdaq under ticker symbol "NTRA." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com NEW ORIENTAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 5 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. EDU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/new-oriental-education-technology-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24333&wire=1 EDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2018 - July 22, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 5, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/new-oriental-education-technology-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24333&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) New Oriental's revenue and operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics and abusive business practices that flouted Chinese regulations and policies and exposed the Company to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would be imposed on the Company; (b) New Oriental had engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices, including the provision of false and misleading discount Information designed to obfuscate the true cost of the Company's programs to its customers; (c) New Oriental had falsified teacher qualifications and experience in order to attract customers and increase student enrollments; (d) New Oriental had defied prior government warnings against linking school enrollments with the provision of private tutoring services; (e) as a result of the foregoing, New Oriental was subject to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations adverse to the Company's business and interests; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable, factual basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. ("New Oriental" or the "Company") (NYSE: EDU) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-01876, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased New Oriental American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between April 24, 2018 and July 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against New Oriental and certain of the Company's senior officers and directors. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired New Oriental ADSs during the Class Period, you have until April 5, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. New Oriental provides educational programs, services, and products to students across the People's Republic of China ("China" or the "PRC") and delivers online courses through its online learning platforms. In the early 2000s, the Company entered the K-12 after-school tutoring sector. Moreover, in 2005, New Oriental commenced its online education services through its Koolearn platform. The Company now provides comprehensive online education services through its subsidiary, Koolearn Technology Holding Limited. In February 2018, the Chinese government released a set of regulations aimed at reining in excessive tutoring fees and limiting the perceived societal harm resulting from the ubiquity of for-profit tutoring programs such as those offered by New Oriental. Among other changes, the regulations prohibited after-school tutoring institutions from providing courses more advanced than the syllabus and curricula applicable to the respective primary and secondary school students, providing courses designed to enhance exam-taking skills, and linking school enrollment with tutoring results. Overall, the regulations were aimed at reducing disparities in school performance between relatively affluent students able to afford after-school tutoring and those that could not. Because New Oriental operates in a highly regulated industry within China, the impact of new laws and regulations impacting the Chinese tutoring industry and the Company's compliance with the Chinese regulatory framework and government prerogatives are of material importance to investors. In fact, New Oriental acknowledged the material importance of maintaining strict compliance with Chinese laws, regulations, and government prerogatives. In New Oriental's Form 20-F filed with the SEC on September 16, 2020, New Oriental stated that the Company was "continuously making efforts to comply with the requirements under these regulations and implementations" governing after-school tutoring businesses imposed by the Chinese government, and any failure to do so could "materially and adversely affect [New Oriental's] business and results of operations." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) New Oriental's revenue and operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics and abusive business practices that flouted Chinese regulations and policies and exposed the Company to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would be imposed on the Company; (ii) New Oriental had engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices, including the provision of false and misleading discount information designed to obfuscate the true cost of the Company's programs to its customers; (iii) New Oriental had falsified teacher qualifications and experience in order to attract customers and increase student enrollments; (iv) New Oriental had defied prior government warnings against linking school enrollments with the provision of private tutoring services; (v) as a result of the foregoing, New Oriental was subject to an extreme undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations adverse to the Company's business and interests; (vi) the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese government following China's annual "Two Sessions" parliamentary meetings were far more severe than represented to investors by Defendants and in fact posed an existential threat to the Company and its business; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis. On April 25, 2021, media reports revealed that the City of Beijing had fined four online education agencies, including the New Oriental subsidiary Koolearn, the maximum fine of 500,000 yuan (approximately $80,000) each for misleading customers with false advertising regarding course pricing. On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that an impending crackdown by the Chinese government on the private tutoring sector would be further reaching and more drastic than previously publicly known, including that regulators had already taken adverse actions against New Oriental and other for-profit tutoring companies. On this news, New Oriental's ADS price fell $2.77 per ADS, or 19.4%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $11.51 per ADS on May 13, 2021. On June 1, 2021, Chinese regulators announced that they had fined fifteen off-campus training institutions, including New Oriental, for illegal activities such as false advertising and fraud. On this news, New Oriental's ADS price fell $1.77 per ADS, or 16%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $9.32 per ADS on June 3, 2021. Then, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its education sector, banning companies that teach the school curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public, effectively ending any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring sector in China. On July 25, 2021, New Oriental published an "update" on the new regulations, which stated that the Company will "comply with relevant rules and regulations when providing educational services" and "expects such measures to have material adverse impact on its after-school tutoring services related to academic subjects in China's compulsory education system." On this news, New Oriental's ADS price fell $4.46 per ADS, or nearly 70%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $1.94 per ADS on July 26, 2021. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] NEW REZ: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Richards' 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANDA RICHARDS, On behalf of herself individually and similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NEW REZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Civil Action No. ELH-20-1282 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. I. Background In this putative class action, Plaintiff Richards lodges claims against Defendant NewRez, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, alleging deceptive and unlawful mortgage service practices. Shellpoint is a Delaware limited liability company that, according to the Plaintiff, is both a mortgage servicer and a debt collector. It is wholly owned by another limited liability company, Shellpoint Partners, LLC, which, in turn is wholly owned by NRM Acquisition, LLC and NRM Acquisition II, LLC. Both NRM Acquisition entities are wholly owned by New Residential Mortgage, LLC. New Residential Mortgage, LLC is wholly owned by a publicly-traded corporation, New Residential Investment Corporation ("NRZ"). Ms. Richards is a borrower with respect to a mortgage loan for real property located in Bethesda, Maryland (the "Property"). She acquired the Property on Aug. 31, 2005, for the sum of $169,500. To accomplish the purchase, Richards borrowed $159,030 from American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. According to the Plaintiff, this loan qualified at origination as a "federally related mortgage." Ms. Richards initially brought suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Richards, joined by Matthew Maldonado, subsequently filed an Amended Complaint in that court. Thereafter, the Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1337; diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; and federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Amended Complaint included three counts: violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Sections 2601 et seq. (Count I); violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. (Count II); as well as various claims for violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.) Sections 14-204 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article ("C.L."), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), C.L. Sections 13-301 et seq. (Count III). Counts I and II were brought on behalf of Richards and Maldonado, in their individual capacities, as well as on behalf of a putative class. Count III was asserted solely by Richards. Shellpoint moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). ECF 13. Relevant in the case, Shellpoint claimed that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Shellpoint as to Maldonado's claims as well as those brought by the out-of-state class members. In addition, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claims alleged in Counts I and II. Further, the motion posited that, to the extent Count II was predicated on Shellpoint's failure to send periodic statements to Richards, it was subject to dismissal. And, the Defendant sought dismissal of the Plaintiff's State law claims in Count III on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to allege the requisite elements of a MCDCA claim. Shellpoint also asked the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions. By Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 18, 2021, Judge Hollander granted Shellpoint's motion in part and denied it in part. In particular, she dismissed Maldonado from the suit. She also determined that Count II was subject to dismissal to the extent that it relied on Shellpoint's alleged failure to send periodic statements. And, she dismissed the Plaintiffs' class allegations, without prejudice and with leave to amend. But, Judge Hollander denied Shellpoint's motion to the extent that the Defendant claimed Richards and the putative class members lacked standing to bring claims under RESPA and FDCPA. And, she concluded that Shellpoint's contentions with respect to Richards's State law claims were also without merit. Ms. Richards has again amended her complaint. The Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserts the same three causes of action set forth in the Amended Complaint, except that Count II does not include a claim based on Shellpoint's purported failure to provide periodic statements to Richards. Richards also alleges several additional facts and proposes new class definitions. In particular, Count I is styled as a claim brought by the Plaintiff in her individual capacity and on behalf the "Untimely Hello Letter Class." The class is defined as follows, id. 204b68(a): "Those persons who are residents in the states which are within the jurisdiction of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits for whom: (i) Shellpoint provided a 12 U.S.C.A Section 2605(c) notice in the three years preceding the filing of this action; and (ii) In relation to their personal, residential mortgage loan." Concerning Count II, the Plaintiff brings a claim on behalf of herself and the "Untimely Notice Class." That class is defined in 204b 68(b): "Those persons who are residents in the states which are within the jurisdiction of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits for whom: (i) Shellpoint acquired the servicing and collection rights on their personal, residential mortgage loans no longer than one year before May 4, 2020 on behalf of another; (ii) When it believed the mortgage loan to be in default or otherwise delinquent for 30 or more consecutive days at the time Shellpoint began servicing or collecting upon it; (iii) It provided 12 U.S.C.A. Section 2605(c) notice substantially similar to the one provided to the Named Plaintiff; and (iii) It attempted or did collect alleged fees incurred before the servicing transfer to Shellpoint. Shellpoint has moved to dismiss the SAC, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). The motion is supported by a memorandum, as well as three exhibits. Richards opposes the Motion and has submitted three exhibits. The Defendant has replied. And, Richards has directed the Court's attention to supplemental authority decided after the completion of the briefing on the Motion. In addition, Shellpoint has filed a notice of supplemental authority, to which Richards has responded. II. Discussion A. Rule 12(g)(2) In Richards's view, the Motion was filed in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2). It states: "A party that makes a motion under Rule 12 must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion." Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims that Shellpoint is "not permitted a second bite at the apple designed simply to improperly tax the Court's and the Plaintiff's resources." Consequently, the Plaintiff urges the Court to deny the Motion on the ground that it is predicated on arguments that Shellpoint "has already raised or could have raised previously." The Defendant responds that Richards's claim misses the mark. It asserts that "the defense of failure to state a claim cannot be waived by failing to raise it in the first motion to dismiss" and "even if any arguments could have been raised previously, courts generally rule on the merits of a successive Rule 12 motion because those same arguments could be raised in a motion for judgment on the pleadings." In light of the substantive briefing that has been presented to the Court, Judge Hollander is persuaded that it is prudent to address Shellpoint's arguments on the merits. She opines that courts routinely exercise discretion in applying this rule as to successive motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This is because a complaint is always vulnerable to a challenge for legal sufficiency, and it is far more efficient to treat the arguments prior to more extensive discovery. Rule 12(h)(2) is also relevant in the case. Indeed, courts have found that because "the basic purpose of Rule 12(h)(2) probably is to preserve the defenses, rather than to delimit the precise timing of their assertion, this approach seems sound and within the spirit, if not the letter, of the provision." Therefore, Judge Hollander declines to reject the Motion based on Rule 12(g)(2). B. Count I: RESPA In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative "Untimely Hello Letter Class," asserts that Shellpoint, in its capacity as a mortgage servicer, failed to comply with the statutory obligations outlined in 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(c). The SAC alleges that Shellpoint violated Section 2605(c) by failing to "provide timely notice of this transfer to the Named Plaintiff and certain members of the Untimely Hello Letter Class. In the Motion, Shellpoint argues that, according to the Plaintiff's own allegations, Shellpoint complied with the obligations imposed on it by Section 2605(c) and its implementing regulations. In particular, Shellpoint contends that, within 15 days of the date it began servicing the Richards Loan, it mailed a Hello Letter to the Plaintiff at the address listed on her loan documents. Judge Hollander concludes that the Plaintiff's filing of the notice of change of address in the bankruptcy case did not give rise to a legal duty obligating defendant to utilize that address. The parties were bound by the requirements of the Deed of Trust. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts that, if proven, would establish that Shellpoint breached its duty by mailing the Hello Letter to the Property Address. Therefore, her RESPA claim is subject to dismissal. C. Count II: FDCPA In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts a claim under the FDCPA. She lodges the claim in her individual capacity and on behalf of the putative Untimely Notice Class. In the Motion, dthe Defendant does not dispute that Richards has been the subject of collection activity or that Shellpoint qualifies as a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. Rather, Shellpoint contends only that Count II must fail because the conduct complained of does not amount to a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. To that end, it argues that the Plaintiff's first two allegations amount to no more than "purported RESPA violations that are improperly bootstrapped to her FDCPA claim." Further, the Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff has pled only "regurgitated legal conclusions," rather than the kind of factual allegations necessary to support a claim arising under the FDCPA. And, the Defendant contends that "there was nothing unfair or unconscionable about charging fees to the Plaintiff or putative class members." Judge Hollander opines that in essence, the Plaintiff's claim is predicated on the allegation that Shellpoint failed to comply with its statutory obligations under 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(c). But, as explained, the Plaintiff's mailing of the Hello Letter to the Property Address did not constitute a RESPA violation. Even assuming a violation of Maryland or federal law, the FDCPA may not be used as a means to enforce such statutes. Bottom line, the Plaintiff has not alleged facts that, if proven, would establish that Shellpoint's conduct amounted to an "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt" in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. Thus, Judge Hollander is persuaded that Count II is subject to dismissal. D. Class Allegations Shellpoint also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's proposed class definitions on the ground that they are impermissibly broad. In Judge Hollander's view, the argument is moot because the Plaintiff's individual RESPA and FDCPA claims fail as a matter of law, and the Plaintiff has not put forward a separate theory of liability as to either putative class. In such circumstances, dismissal of the class claims must follow. E. Count III: State Law Claims In Count III, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's conduct violated various provisions of the MCDCA, C.L. Sections 14-201, et seq., and the MCPA, C.L. Sections 13-101, et seq. Notably, the same factual allegations undergird the Defendant's purported violations of both statutes. In particular, the Plaintiff maintains that Shellpoint violated these statutes by attempting to collect "sums" from Richards to which it allegedly was not entitled. She also complains that Shellpoint failed to credit her for the sums she paid to Shellpoint and its predecessor. Shellpoint challenges each contention. In response, Richards does not provide much substantive analysis concerning the import of many of defendant's arguments. But, contrary to the Defendant's assertion in the Reply, the Plaintiff has not abandoned Count III. The closing pages of the Opposition make clear that she opposes the dismissal of her State law claims. First, Judge Hollander opines that Richards has asserted claims for the furnishing of false information to credit reporting agencies under two State statutes, the MCDCA and the MCPA. Thus, these claims "run 'into the teeth of the FCRA preemption provision.'" Accordingly, she will dismiss Count III to the extent it is predicated on the Plaintiff's assertion that Shellpoint furnished false information to credit reporting agencies. Second, Judge Hollander holds that (i) Richards does not state that Shellpoint's conduct violated any particular subsection of Section 1692e; and (ii) the Plaintiff has alleged facts that, if proven, would establish a violation of C.L. Section 14-202(8) for Shellpoint's misrepresentations made in connection with the Loan Modification Agreement. Third, Richards does not indicate that Shellpoint made any misrepresentations to her or otherwise engaged in deceptive conduct in connection with its collection of fees or the failure to credit payments to her outstanding principal. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to state an independent claim under the MCPA for this conduct. III. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Judge Hollander granted the Motion in part and denied in part. She dismissed Counts I and II against the Plaintiff in her individual capacity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's class action claims are also dismissed. Count III is also subject to dismissal to the extent it includes a claim for Shellpoint's furnishment of false information to credit reporting agencies and Shellpoint's failure to credit partial payments to the Richards Loan. The Motion is otherwise denied. An Order follows, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memoradum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8ej8b5 from Leagle.com. NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION: Atkins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Katherine M. Atkins, Zane Fulton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Homewisedocs.com; Realmanage LLC doing business as: American Community Management; Case No. 2022-CH-00455, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 25, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00997 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc. doing business as HomeWiseDocs -- https://www.homewisedocs.com/ -- is the industry's leading document service company, specializing in Co-ops, Condos and Homeowner Associations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rusty A. Payton, Esq. PAYTON LEGAL GROUP LLC 20 N Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (773) 682-5210 Email: info@payton.legal - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey Daniel Blake, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Sharon Harris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com - and - Arthur C. Czaja, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA 7521 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Phone: (847) 647-2106 Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com - and - Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE, LLC 105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203 Schaumburg, IL 60193 Phone: (630) 460-7655 Email: jdavidson@fightbills.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Walton Prunka, Esq. Philip M. Oliss, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 586-1327 Email: aprunka@jonesday.com poliss@jonesday.com P.S. MANAGEMENT: Jones Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORY RAMEY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. P.S. MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00128 (S.D. W.Va., March 9, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid delivery driver from April of 2020 until September of 2021. The Defendant owns and operates multiple Papa John's franchises throughout West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney A. Smith, Esq. ROD SMITH LAW PLLC 108½ Capitol Street, Suite 300 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-0550 E-mail: rod@lawwv.com - and - Krista Sheets, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com PARADISE EXTERIORS: Dumas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradise Exteriors LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Dumas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Paradise Exteriors LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-80356-AMC (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Paradise Exteriors -- https://www.paradiseexteriors.com/ -- is a family owned and operated window installation service in Boynton Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Belknap Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SCOTT BELKNAP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.; THE PENSION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE; THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; and JANE/JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-11437-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as converted to a motion for summary judgment. I. Background Partners was formed in 1994 as a non-profit corporation. It operates a health system that includes, among other facilities, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH"). For more than 50 years, MGH operated a benefit plan to provide retirement income for eligible employees. The plan has been amended periodically. In 2016, the MGH plan was merged with other Partners benefit plans. Today, Partners administers the benefit plan. Under the Plan, when a participant retires, he or she can receive benefits in one of several ways. The normal retirement age under the Plan is 65. The normal form of benefit is a single-life annuity ("SLA") based on the balance of a participant's account. An SLA is a series of monthly payments that start when a participant retires and end when he or she dies. Participants can also receive a benefit in the form of a joint and survivor annuity. A joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") is a series of monthly payments that start when a participant retires and end only when both the participant and his or her spouse have died. In addition, the Plan permits participants to retire early after attaining age 55 and collect early retirement benefits. Early retirement benefit options under the Plan include an SLA and a JSA, among other benefit forms. The lawsuit is a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Plaintiff Belknap is a former employee of Defendant Partners. He retired early from Partners at age 62 and now receives a type of retirement benefit known as a joint and survivor annuity, which covers both him and his spouse. On June 28, 2019, Belknap has filed suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the way in which Partners calculates the value of his annuity violates ERISA. Specifically, he contends that under the relevant portion of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(c)(3), the type of retirement benefit he receives (a joint and survivor annuity payable at age 62) must be the "actuarial equivalent" of a more typical retirement benefit (a single life annuity payable at age 65). According to the Plaintiff, when determining whether the two types of benefits are actuarially equivalent, the underlying actuarial assumptions (the interest rate and the mortality tables) must be "reasonable." He contends that the actuarial assumptions used to determine his benefit were outdated, and thus unreasonable, and therefore Partners violated the protections of ERISA. The complaint alleged that the methodology for calculating the value of non-SLAs violates three provisions in ERISA: 29 U.S.C. Sections 1053(a), 1054(c)(3), and 1055. It sought declaratory and equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, 2202 (Count One); reformation of the benefit plans and recovery of lost benefits under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1) and (a)(3) (Count Two); and equitable and declaratory relief for a breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104, 1132(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, 2202 (Count Three). On Aug. 30, 2019, Partners moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On Jan. 24, 2020, the Court granted the motion as to all counts that were based on an alleged violation of Section 1053(a), and denied without prejudice all counts that were based on alleged violations of Sections 1054(c)(3) or 1055. On March 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On April 3, 2020, Partners moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On Aug. 5, 2020, that motion was denied without prejudice. The parties were provided an opportunity to submit additional information as to the meaning of "actuarial equivalence." After a period of expert discovery, Partners moved again to dismiss, this time for lack of standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Both parties submitted expert affidavits and supplemental briefs on the meaning of the term "actuarial equivalence." Because the parties submitted evidence outside the pleadings, the Court provided notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) that it intended to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and gave the parties "a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." II. Analysis A. Standing The Defendants here contend the Plaintiff does not have constitutional standing for essentially two reasons: That he does not allege a current injury and that the alleged harm is not redressable. As to the first argument, Judge Saylor holds that the complaint sufficiently pleads an injury in fact for purposes of the standing analysis. He says the Plaintiff's factual allegations -- including the allegation that the use of outdated mortality tables and an above-market interest rate has reduced the present value of his retirement benefits -- must be accepted as true. The complaint has sufficiently alleged that the Plaintiff's retirement benefits were reduced because of the outdated mortality assumptions and interest rates used by Partners. With respect to the second argument, Judge Saylor holds that at this stage in the proceedings, it is not for the Court to determine which calculation is appropriate. Instead, the question is whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently established that his injuries would likely be redressed by a favorable decision. And the complaint sufficiently alleges that a favorable decision would result in an increase in his benefits. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of standing will be denied. B. Actuarial Equivalence There does not appear to be any dispute that Partners followed the requirements of the Plan—specifically, by using an interest rate of 7.5% and the 1951 Adjusted Mortality Tables -- when calculating the benefit owed to the Plaintiff. Nor is it disputed that the language of the Plan states that the use of those assumptions produces a result that is "actuarially equivalent" to the benefit that would have been paid to plaintiff as an SLA. The question is whether ERISA requires that those assumptions be "reasonable" -- more precisely, whether the statutory requirement that such benefits be "actuarially equivalent" necessarily implies the use of reasonable assumptions. Put another way, the issue is not whether Partners violated the terms of the Plan; it is whether the Plan violates ERISA. The issue presented is thus one of statutory interpretation, which is a matter of law for the Court to decide. Judge Saylor holds that because Section 1054(c)(3) does not impose a requirement that an "actuarially equivalent" benefit must be based on "reasonable" actuarial assumptions, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the Defendants. He reasons that he cannot conclude that the calculation of actuarial equivalence under Section 1054(c)(3) of ERISA requires the use of "reasonable" assumptions, particularly when the plan itself specifically requires the use of particular actuarial assumptions. It therefore follows that the calculation of the Plaintiff's retirement benefit here did not violate ERISA. Nor is it by any means obvious that the result in this case is irrational or unfair. And that is true even though the actuarial assumptions used seem to be clearly out of date, at least when viewed from the perspective of 2022. It is also far from clear how often adjustments to the assumptions would need to be made to make them "reasonable," and therefore in compliance with the law. Finally, it is doubtful that changing the underlying assumptions would actually prove beneficial to many retirees. As noted, Partners contends that the Plaintiff would be worse off. In any event, Judge Saylor holds that the Court does not have the power to simply rewrite the Plan, or to create new statutory requirements. If Congress had intended Section 1054(c)(3) to require actuarial equivalence to be calculated using reasonable actuarial assumptions, or in some other specific way, it knew how to do so. It is not for the Court to impose a reasonableness standard that Congress chose to omit. And if fairness requires the imposition of a reasonableness standard, it is of course free to enact appropriate legislation. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Saylor denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing. He granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as converted to a motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9a8nn9 from Leagle.com. PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Washington Suit Over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERSOLVE RECOVERIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 145460755 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., March 10, 2022) is an action for damages for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allegedly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others who have been sued by Defendant, in an attempt to collect a consumer debt, at any point within the past one year before the filing of this Class Action Complaint and the date Defendant complied with the registration requirements of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had controlling interests. On or about March 11, 2021, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Debt. Said lawsuit was filed in County Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, with assigned Case Number 21-2201-CO (Debt Collection Lawsuit). On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant's corporate representative, Gregory Straub, in the Debt Collection Lawsuit. Persolve is a full service legal recovery and collection firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Swift, Esq. Jordan T. Isringhaus, Esq. Jon P. Dubbeld, Esq. Sean E. McEleney, Esq. SWIFT, ISRINGHAUS & DUBBELD, P.A. 8380 Bay Pines Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33709 Telephone: (727) 490-9919 Facsimile: (727) 255-5332 E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com - and - G. Tyler Bannon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICK G. BANNON, P.A. 1901 Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street N. St. Petersburg, FL 33704 Telephone: (727) 896-4455 Facsimile: (727) 895-1312 E-mail: tyler@rbannonlaw.com jessica@rbannonlaw.com - and - J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. FINN LAW GROUP, P.A. 8380 Bay Pines Blvd. St. Petersburg, FL 33709 Telephone: (727) 214-0700 Facsimile: (727) 475-1494 E-mail: ameyer@finnlawgroup.com PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Rebolledo Suit Over False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action, "Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al.," was filed against the company alleging that its subsidiaries advertise the product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads consumers by portraying the product in a positive light. In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, in April 2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of Bogota related to the marketing of the company's "Platform 1" product. Plaintiff alleged that its subsidiaries advertise the product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging second-hand effects. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes: all Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged addiction and all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal advertising). The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020, and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an allegedly harmful product). In June 2021, the company's subsidiaries answered the amended complaint. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. PHILIP MORRIS: Product Litigation Suit on Appeal in 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that plaintiffs for the class action lawsuit filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, "Rubenstahl v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.," that had been previously filed in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff due to similar allegations in these proceedings. On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims (allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's "Platform 1" product) did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to re-plead that claim by March 3, 2020. On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision; this motion was denied on September 21, 2020. On September 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to re-plead allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product. On September 10, 2021, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety. On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. PHILIP MORRIS: Shareholder Suit Pending in S.D. N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action, "In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation" was filed against the company alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about Philip Morris' business. Case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018. The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of, and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's "Platform 1" product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. PHILIP MORRIS: Three Shareholder Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that in November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder class action lawsuits with allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of, and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's "Platform 1" product, filed in the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. PRETTY WOMEN: Cierra Turner Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers ------------------------------------------------------------------ CIERRA TURNER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. PRETTY WOMEN, INC., d/b/a BEACH GIRLS, J.P. PARKING, INC., JAMES PETRY, Individually; and KENT O'CONNELL, Individually, Case No. 4:22-cv-00085-JEG-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, March 9, 2022) alleges that the Defendants required Cierra Turner to work as an exotic dancer at their adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage. Allegedly, the Defendants misclassified dancers, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors. The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons; the club paid no wages. In fact, the Defendants required Plaintiff to pay a "house fee" in order to work in the club. Essentially, the Defendants took money from Plaintiff under the premise that she had to pay for her space at the club. Plaintiff was also required to share her tips with Defendants and their employees who do not customarily receive tips outside of a valid tip pool, says the suit. As a result, Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and all other members of the class collective minimum wage compensation, which they were entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Iowa state law. The Plaintiff brings this class and collective action against Defendants seeking damages, backpay, restitution, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable, and equitable in the circumstances. Plaintiff Cierra Turner is an individual who worked for Defendant Pretty Women from January 2019 to June 2020, on a consistent basis. She lived in Iowa and was Defendants’ employee during the claimed period. Opt-in Plaintiffs are current or former exotic dancers who have worked at Defendants' adult entertainment clubs within the applicable limitations period and will file a valid consent to join this suit with the Court. The Defendants operate the adult entertainment club in West Des Moines, Iowa under the names of "Beach Girls." The Defendants employ exotic dancers and have employed hundreds of dancers over the years at Beach Girls.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timm W. Reid, Esq. REID LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. The Plaza - Suite 5 300 Walnut Street Des Moines, IO 50309-2239 Telephone: (515) 381-9842 Facsimile: (515) 219-8746 E-mail: timm@treidlawfirm.com PRIME NOW: Mario Mabanta Loses Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO MABANTA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PRIME NOW LLC AND AMAZON. COM, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02813-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Court sets a compliance deadline for March 18, 2022. Five business days prior to this deadline, the parties shall file a joint statement, setting forth their positions with respect to the scheduling of this case. If compliance is complete, the compliance deadline will be taken off calendar, Judge Rogers says. The Plaintiff Mabanta brings this wage-and-hour putative class action against the defendants, alleging that they did not compensate him and others for the time and expenses required to schedule their work shifts and did not provide rest breaks. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) unpaid wages; (2) failure to reimburse business expenses; (3) failure to pay minimum wage; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to pay for reporting time; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statement; (7) waiting time penalties; and (8) unlawful and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked as a shopper for defendants from March 2018 through December 2018. The Plaintiff submits that he "was required to login to defendants' website using his personal smart phone or personal computer and internet access in order to select from a limited number of shifts." The Plaintiff avers that he was never 19 for his personal electronic device, internet access, or time spent waiting and signing up for shifts which he "did on a regular basis." Prime Now, subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., employs non-exempt shoppers in California who receive orders from customers, shop for the requested items, and prepare those orders for delivery. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HHJZaZ at no extra charge.[CC] RBT RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cisneros Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIEGO CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RBT RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a MAIELLA; CENTER BLVD RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a AMERICAN BRASS; ROBERT BRISKIN; and TOMMY DEMARAS, Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-01035 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 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 Cisneros was employed by the Defendants as food runner. RBT RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a MAIELLA owns and operates a restaurant enterprise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 RENATO'S PASTRY: Monroy Seeks Minimum, OT Pay for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE MONROY, on behalf of herself and the Class v. RENATO'S PASTRY & TRATTORIA VENTO LLC d/b/a RENATO'S PASTRY SHOPPE d/b/a RENATO'S TRATTORIA VENTO, MICHAEL PECCERILLO, and RICHARD VENTO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01328 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime premiums, compensation for late payment of wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself, and others similarly situated that the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information returns regarding Plaintiff and Class members with the Internal Revenue Service. She further alleges that the Defendants breached their contract by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Plaintiff also contends that she was deprived of her statutory rights as a result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory practices under New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law section 292 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code of the City of New York, section 8-107 ("NYCHRL") and brings this action against the Defendants to recover (1) compensatory damages, (2) punitive damages, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or about September 2020 through January 4, 2022. She was initially hired by Defendants to work as a cashier for Renato's Trattoria Vento, located at 676 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York City. The Plaintiff's duties included working at the counter, assisting customers with purchase, and cleaning the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 RENEWABLE ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI), relating to its proposed acquisition by Chevron Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, REGI shareholders will receive $61.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/renewable-energy-group-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN] ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Adams Sues Over Smoking Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action is pending in Canada against the company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH) alleging that plaintiff's own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. In a class action pending in Canada, "Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.," The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry were named as defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class composed of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Bourassa Sues Over Smoking Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action, "Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.," is pending in Canada against the company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH) alleging that the tobacco products caused addiction and emphysema. In said class action pending in the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry were named as defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Dorion Sues Over Smoking Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action is pending in Canada, "Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.," against the company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH) alleging that plaintiff’s own addiction to tobacco products and health related problems resulting from the use of tobacco products. In said case in The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry were named as defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class composed of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Faces Kunta Suit Over Smoking Hazards --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action is pending against the company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. captioned "Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al." The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed in June 12, 2009 where Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.(RBH), and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class composed of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Jacklin Class Suit Pending in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action, "Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.," is pending in Canada against, the company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges alleging that plaintiff’s own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) resulting from the use of tobacco products In said class action pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are named as defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company. RPS HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Stay James Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIOBHAN JAMES, et al., v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00134-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge L. Patrick Auld entered an order granting the Motion to stay class action. The Court says that it will not address equitable tolling until after the Fourth Circuit resolves the interlocutory appeal, which decision could moot the issue. Because Defendant's (non-frivolous) appeal of the Order divested this Court of jurisdiction to proceed with the underlying claims (except for matters in aid of appeal), the Court must stay this action and refrain from granting the requested relief other than the stay itself. RPS is an aviation & aerospace company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CkHJ8q at no extra charge.[CC] SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES: LTL Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Diego County Employees Retirement Association. The case is styled as LTL Management LLC v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 22-01073-MBK (D.N.J., March 7, 2022). San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) -- https://www.sdcera.org/ -- administers retirement and associated benefits for eligible employees of the County of San Diego and other participating employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. DeFilippo, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12 FL New York, Ste. 12 FL New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 382-3300 Fax: (646) 403-3850 Email: pdefilippo@wmd-law.com SARASOTA 500: Redding Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarasota 500 LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joe Redding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SARASOTA 500 LLC, Case No. 2022CA001051NC (Fla. Ct., Sarasota Cty., March 8, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other." Sarasota 500 LLC provides automobiles services. The Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, finance, parts, and repairs services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4261 Phone: 954-533-4092 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com SNAPDOCS INC: Yudanin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snapdocs, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Vered Yudanin, on behalf of herself and all others, similarly situated v. Snapdocs, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22598542 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 7, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class Action Complaint)." Snapdocs -- https://www.snapdocs.com/ -- is the leading digital mortgage closing solution for eClosings, hybrid closings, and wet closings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-300-1705 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ricardo Aquino, George Crumpecker, Jonathan Piperato, Stephen Tresco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Subaru of America, Inc., Subaru Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00990-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Subaru of America, Inc. -- https://www.subaru.com/ -- based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, PC 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: (201) 391-7000 Fax: (201) 307-1086 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Salter Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------ CHIQUITTA SALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No.9:22-cv-80368-AMC (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone call to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant makes unsolicited calls using pre-recorded automated voice messages to consumers for debt collection. "Robocalls and telemarketing calls are currently the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC." Tom Wheeler, Cutting off Robocalls (July 22, 2016), statement of FCC chairman. Synchrony Bank is National Banking Association chartered as a Federal Savings Bank with headquarters at 170 Election Road, Draper, Utah. It is a subsidiary of Synchrony Financial, a consumer financial services company. Through Synchrony Bank, Synchrony Financial offers, directly to retail and commercial customers, a range of deposit products insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com TERM COMMODITIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Cotton Futures Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Term Commodities Inc., et al., are taking an appeal from a class certification ruling in IN RE: TERM COMMODITIES COTTON FUTURES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:12-cv-05126, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). Plaintiffs Mark Allen and Brian Ledwith bring this putative class action on behalf of a proposed class of traders who lost money when prices in the cotton futures market increased unexpectedly in 2011. The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Louis Dreyfus Commodities B.V., Louis Dreyfus Commodities Cotton LLC (a/k/a Allenberg Cotton Company), LDC Holdings Inc., Term Commodities, Inc., Louis Dreyfus Commodities LLC, and Joseph Nicosia (collectively, "Defendants") unlawfully manipulated the price of cotton futures by unreasonably and uneconomically demanding delivery of certificated cotton in fulfillment of futures contracts in conjunction with other manipulative behavior. The Plaintiffs argue that as a result of Defendants' market conduct, they suffered losses in liquidating their positions in the May and July 2011 Cotton No. 2 futures contracts. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2022, the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "All persons, corporations and other legal entities that (a) purchased between March 30 and May 6, 2011 a May 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position in such contract, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (b) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the May 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between March 30 and May 6; or (c) purchased between June 7 and July 7, 2011, a July 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position therein, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (d) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the July 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between June 7 and July 7, 2011." Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent or employee of any Defendant, and any co-conspirator. The Defendants are taking an appeal from this order. The appellate case is captioned as RE: TERM COMMODITIES COTTON FUTURES LITIGATION, Case No. 22-472, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 3, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Louis Dreyfus Commodities B.V.; Louis Dreyfus Commodities Cotton LLC, AKA Allenberg Cotton Company; Term Commodities Inc.; Louis Dreyfus Commodities LLC; and Joseph Nicosia, are represented by: Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3269 E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com - and - E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-5380 Plaintiffs-Respondents Mark Allen and Brian Ledwith, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON, LLP 500 5th Avenue New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com UMASS MEMORIAL: Pallotta Sues Over Withheld Wages, Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE PALLOTTA and CHERYL LAFLAMME, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER and KRONOS INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:22-cv-10361 (D. Mass., March 9, 2022) is a class and collective action seeking to redress Defendants' unlawful withholding of wages for Plaintiffs and Class Members and the negligent disclosure of over 8 million employees' personally identifiable information in a massive data breach on or around December 11, 2021. According to the complaint, Defendants' inadequate security measures allowed unauthorized individuals to access and render unusable a workforce management software application Defendants' used to process payroll and store data that contained the PII of Plaintiffs and other individuals. As a result of the alleged Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members were not timely paid the full amount of wages to which they are entitled. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members also now bear an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft. The Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur damages in the form of, inter alia, an imminent threat of identity theft, necessary mitigation expenses, loss of privacy and the value of personal information, deprivation of the benefit of the bargain. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are hourly employees who were not paid the full amount of wages to which they are entitled for all of their work in a timely fashion by Umass Memorial and Kronos. They provided their personally identifiable information ("PII") to Defendants at their request, including names, addresses, employee IDs, and social security numbers. Due to UMass Memorial and Kronos' alleged failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect Plaintiffs' PII, criminals obtained access to the Plaintiffs' PII, which resulted in substantial harm to Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendant University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center is a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at One Biotech Park, 365 Plantation St., Worcester, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Dismissal of Regard Suit Affirmed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the action captioned as UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, Appellant v. PETER REGARD, LEAH OUSLEY, HALEIGH ALEXANDRA LONG, MERIDETH MULLIN, ANNA QUINN CURRAN, MACKENZIE PUTTEET, AND KEEGAN McLARNEY, Appellees, Case No. 2021-CA-0020-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings the Franklin Circuit Court's Dec. 30, 2020 order granting in part and denying in part the University's motion to dismiss on the basis of governmental immunity. I. Background The Appellees were enrolled at the University as full-time, on-campus students for the University's 2020 Spring Semester which began in mid-January 2020 and ended in May 2020. Like all full-time, on-campus students, in addition to tuition, Appellees were charged mandatory fees by the University for the Spring Semester. The fees were allocated for various purposes, including student health, the student center, and the Johnson Center. Just as the Spring Semester was getting underway at the University, health officials began to focus on a new respiratory disease spreading and causing illness in certain parts of China, coronavirus disease 2019, an illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. After COVID-19 was detected in other parts of the world, local and national governments across the globe began to take actions to curb the spread of the virus. These actions varied in length and severity depending on the locale. Some were voluntary while others were mandated. By the late winter and into the early spring of 2020, national health officials were advising the public to maintain social distancing and to stay home whenever possible to avoid spreading COVID-19. It is against this backdrop that the University decided to implement certain emergency measures to protect its students, faculty, and staff from COVID-19. Effective March 23, 2020, the University ceased all in-person, on-campus instruction for the remainder of the Spring Semester. After this date, all classes were conducted remotely. Additionally, according to Appellees, "the campus was effectively shut down for student use and access." The University did not issue any refunds to its students to compensate them for the change in class format or their reduced access to campus-related services. On Aug. 7, 2020, the seven Appellees filed the putative class action lawsuit against the University in Franklin Circuit Court seeking a refund of the fees and tuition they paid the University for the Spring Semester. The University was served with Appellees' complaint on Aug. 24, 2020 Approximately a week later, the University filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to CR 12.02(a) and (f). As related to immunity, the University argued that summary dismissal was required because the Appellees had failed to identify a written contract between themselves and the University that would permit suit under the terms of KRS 45A.245. On the same day the University's motion to dismiss was scheduled to be heard, the Appellees filed a first amended complaint as a matter of right pursuant to CR 15.01. In addition to adding a count for unjust enrichment, they attempted to shore up their breach of contract claim by attaching a series of documents exchanged between themselves and the University. The Appellees alleged that the "documents, taken as a whole, constitute the written contract for on-campus instruction and use of facilities and other benefits related to mandatory fees" allowing them to maintain suit against the University pursuant to KRS 45A.245. After the Appellees filed their first amended complaint, the circuit court ordered the University's prior motion to dismiss withdrawn, and the University was given additional time to respond to the amended complaint. A short time later, the University filed another motion to dismiss in which it disclaimed the Appellees' allegation that the documents included as part of their amended complaint constituted a written contract. Alternatively, the University argued that even under the terms of the documents included as part of the first amended complaint, the Appellees had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because they could not show any actual breach of a promise made to them by the University. Following additional briefing and argument by the counsel, the circuit court entered an order partially granting and partially denying the University's motion to dismiss. With respect to immunity, the circuit court determined that: (1) the Appellees' breach of contract claim falls within the scope of KRS 45A.245's waiver of governmental immunity insomuch as the Statement of Financial Obligation, Exhibit 6 of the amended complaint, constitutes a written contract between the Appellees and the University and the supplemental materials relied on by the Appellees "merely reinforce the terms of that contract and the expectations of the parties"; (2) the Appellees' breach of contract claim is not barred by governmental immunity because the Appellees seek a return of money they paid to the University rather than damages from the state treasury; and (3) the Appellees' unjust enrichment claim is barred by governmental immunity because "unlike claims for breach of contract, there has been no limited statutory waiver of claims for unjust enrichment against agencies of the Commonwealth." After determining that the Appellees' breach of contract claim was not barred by immunity, the circuit court turned to the University's argument that the Appellees had failed to demonstrate that the University's decision to move classes online caused it to breach any specific, written promises made to Appellees. The circuit court determined that even though the classes were moved to an online format, the Appellees still received the benefit of their bargain with the University as related to their tuition payments because they received instruction, grades, and academic credit. However, the court determined that the Appellees had sufficiently pled a breach of contract claim as to the mandatory fees insomuch as the Appellees alleged they were denied a full semester of access to the services and facilities for which they paid the fees. The University immediately filed this appeal pursuant to Breathitt County Board of Education v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Ky. 2009), seeking review of those portions of the circuit court's order adverse to its claim of governmental immunity. II. Analysis The Court of Appeals turns to specific immunity questions presented by the appeal: (1) whether the circuit court erred as a matter of law in concluding that immunity did not bar Appellees from suing the University because they were merely seeking a return of their money and not money damages from the state treasury; and (2) whether the circuit court erred as a matter of law in concluding that Appellees' breach of contract claims fall within KRS 45A.245's waiver provision for suits based on written contracts. A. Source of Funds The Appellees included an alternative count of unjust enrichment against the University as part of their first amended complaint. This count's language makes clear that they were trying to plead their way over the immunity hurdle in the event they were determined not to have written contracts with the University. Within the allegations of their unjust enrichment count, the Appellees alleged that the University should not be protected by governmental immunity because Appellees were not seeking "money from the general fund of the Commonwealth of Kentucky but rather the return of their tuition and fee payments paid to the University." They posited that the University should be deemed to be holding their tuition and fees in a constructive trust and ordered to return it to them. The Court of Appeals opines that confusingly, the circuit court concluded that the Appellees' claim for unjust enrichment must be dismissed because "there has been no limited statutory waiver of claims for unjust enrichment against agencies of the Commonwealth," yet also determined that the remedy sought by Appellees for unjust enrichment, a return of their money under a constructive trust theory, is not barred by sovereign immunity. It is unsure how the circuit court intended these two conclusions to be reconciled with one another. However, the Court of Appeals need not concern ourselves too much about this seeming inconsistency because while the circuit court was correct on its first conclusion, it erred as a matter of law on the second. The circuit court concluded that the University's immunity was not infringed where the Appellees "are seeking a return of their money rather than payment from the State Treasury." It pointed out that the money originated with the students and was not allocated to the University by the General Assembly. Since the money was not generated "pursuant to the taxing power of the state," the circuit court concluded that the refund requested by the Appellees implicated neither the state treasury nor the doctrine of governmental immunity. The circuit court's order asserted, "in Beshear v. Haydon Bridge Company, Inc., 416 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2013), the Supreme Court of Kentucky noted that sovereign immunity in Kentucky is rooted in Sections 230 and 231 of the Kentucky Constitution." The relevant portion of Section 230 states that "no money will be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law," while Section 231 states, "the General Assembly may, by law, direct in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the Commonwealth." Because the Appellees sought relief in the form of refunded tuition and fees from the University, rather than a direct withdrawal of funds from the state treasury, the circuit court found governmental immunity was not implicated. The Court of Appeals opines that the University's immunity dictates that suit cannot be maintained against it except as authorized by the General Assembly. There is no exception for suits in equity, fraud, or bad faith or where the plaintiff is merely seeking a refund of money generated outside of the Commonwealth's taxing power. If sovereign or governmental immunity depended on whether the source of funds sought derived from the state treasury, any government agency purchasing an insurance policy would lose its immunity protection, and we know this is not correct. "A waiver of sovereign immunity will not be construed from the purchase of liability insurance or the establishment of a fund for self-insurance." To be clear, the General Assembly has not authorized suits against the state or its agencies for unjust enrichment. By the same token, the General Assembly has not excepted claims against the Commonwealth and its agencies based on the source of the funds at issue. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reverses the circuit court's order to the extent it determined that the Appellees' claims were not barred by governmental immunity "based on the nature of the damages that they seek." B. Breach of Contract The circuit court concluded the Appellees' breach of contract claim against the University "falls squarely within the waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in KRS 45A.245." The University asserts that the Appellees cannot rely on KRS 45A.245 because they do not have written contracts with it. The Appellees allege that a number of documents, which they included as exhibits to their first amended complaint, "taken as a whole" comprise their written contract with the University. The University concedes these documents were either given to the Appellees or at least referenced at some point during the Appellees' tenure with it. However, it vigorously denies ever having entered into any written contracts with Appellees. According to the University, at best, a portion of these documents may have created an implied contract, which is insufficient under KRS 45A.245. The Court of Appeals opines that when the Financial Obligation Statement is considered in conjunction with the other registration documents, all the elements necessary for contract formation are met. When boiled down to its simplest terms, through these written documents, the students and the University agreed to enter into a contractual relationship whereby the students agreed to pay the University fees and tuition in accordance with the University's fee and tuition schedule as set out in the University Bulletin. In return, the University agreed to provide the students with access to the classes selected during registration and to make its facilities available for the students' use. The terms are both "definite and certain" and set forth the "promises of performance to be rendered by each party." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals agrees with the circuit court that Appellees and the University have a written contract with each other for the payment of fees and tuition for the Spring Semester, and that the Appellees' breach of contract claim as set forth in their first amended complaint is "an action against the University on the contract" allowing the suit to proceed despite the University's governmental immunity. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the Franklin Circuit Court's order relating to a source-of-funds rationale for finding waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity, it affirmed the remaining portions of the order which find the University's immunity has been waived by execution of a lawfully authorized written contract, and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94mamb from Leagle.com. Joshua M. Salsburey -- jsalsburey@sturgillturner.com -- Donald C. Morgan -- dmorgan@sturgillturner.com -- Lexington, Kentucky, William E. Thro -- william.thro@uky.edu -- in Lexington, Kentucky, BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT. Joshua M. Salsburey, Donald C. Morgan, in Lexington, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT. Donna King Perry -- donna.perry@dinsmore.com -- Jeremy S. Rogers -- jeremy.rogers@dinsmore.com -- Alina Klimkina -- alina.klimkina@dinsmore.com -- in Louisville, Kentucky; August Johannsen, in Lexington, Kentucky; BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE, EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, AND WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY. Andre F. Regard, Ivey L. Workman, in Lexington, Kentucky, BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEES. WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell's 2nd Amended Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANDELL MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 8496 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Whole Foods' motion to dismiss. The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I. Introduction Mitchell brings the putative class action against Whole Foods, alleging that the representations regarding chocolate on the label of the Company's ice cream bars are misleading, because the bars' coating contains vegetable oil. Mitchell seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for: (1) violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (4) violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"); (5) fraud; and (6) unjust enrichment. Mitchell files the action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Before the Court is Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the SAC. II. Background Whole Foods is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Austin, Texas. It operates over 500 high-end grocery stores, which sell premium and organic groceries. Whole Foods manufactures and sells the Company's 365 Everyday Value Organic Chocolate & Almond Vanilla Ice Cream Bars (the "Product"). In 2019 and 2020, Mitchell, a citizen of Bronx County, New York, purchased the Product at Whole Foods stores, including the location at 4 Union Square S, New York, NY 10003. The Product consists of "chocolate & almond vanilla ice cream bars." The representations on the front label state that the Product is "dipped in organic chocolate" and possesses a "decadent chocolate coating." Mr. Mitchell alleges that these representations are misleading because the chocolate coating contains ingredients not found in "real chocolate," such as pressed palm kernel oil, which is identified in the ingredient list on the back label of the Product. With respect to the Product's front label, Mitchell alleges that it "creates no ambiguity about the Product's chocolate content," through the use of statements such as "chocolate," "dipped in organic chocolate," and "decadent chocolate coating," and that he understood the word, "decadent," to refer to the chocolate's richness. With respect to the ingredient list, Mitchell argues that consumers of a premium ice cream bar will not examine the fine print of the ingredient list in order to confirm that the front label is accurate. The Product is sold at a "premium price," approximately $5.49 for three bars. Mitchell contends that as a result of the misrepresentations, Whole Foods sold a higher quantity of the Product and at a higher price. Mitchell further alleges that he, as well as the proposed class members, would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it if they had known the truth. Mitchell alleges that he intends to purchase the Product again when he can do so with the assurance that the representations about its ingredients are consistent with its labeling. Mr. Mitchell filed the instant complaint on Oct. 12, 2020. On March 4, 2021, Whole Foods requested a pre-motion conference to discuss its anticipated motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) on the following grounds, among others: (1) Mitchell's claims are preempted; (2) the Product's labeling is not plausibly deceptive under Sections 349 and 350 of the GBL because the Product contains chocolate, and the mere presence of other ingredients in addition to chocolate does not render the label false or misleading; (3) he lacks standing to seek injunctive relief; (4) the complaint fails to state a claim for fraud because he has not alleged facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent; (5) his claim for express warranty fails because he did not provide notice of the alleged breach; (6) his implied warranty of merchantability and MMWA claims fail because he does not allege that the Product was not merchantable; and (7) his unjust enrichment claim fails as duplicative of his other claims. On March 9, Mitchell responded to Whole Foods' letter, noting that he intended to file an amended complaint. Mitchell filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 6. On May 27, Whole Foods again requested leave to move to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b) on the same grounds. A pre-motion conference was held before the Court on July 13. The Court directed Mitchell to file the SAC, and granted Whole Foods leave to move to dismiss the SAC. Mitchell filed the SAC on July 20. Whole Foods moves to dismiss the SAC under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). III. Discussion A. New York General Business Law Claims i. Violations of Federal Regulations As Whole Foods argues, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"), pursuant to which the United States Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") issues regulations, does not create a private right of action. While Mitchell contends that he is not pursuing a private action for violations of the FDCA, the parties dispute whether his claims are wholly predicated on purported violations of federal labeling requirements, as opposed to being separately premised on consumer protection grounds. Judge Ramos determines that Mitchell arguably alleges certain "free-standing claims of deceptiveness," separate and apart from the Product's alleged failure to comply with the FDCA. For example, Mitchell also alleges numerous dictionary definitions of chocolate, comments from consumers and individuals in the chocolate confectionary industry, and consumer surveys to support his argument that the representations on the Product's label are misleading. These allegations are arguably independent of the alleged violations of the federal regulations. Therefore, Judge Ramos proceeds to analyze the claims without reliance on the purported violations of the FDCA. ii. The Product's Label Mitchell argues that the word "chocolate" and the phrases "dipped in organic chocolate" and "decadent chocolate coating" on the Product's label are misleading to a reasonable consumer, because they imply that the Product's coating does not contain any vegetable oil, when, in fact, it contains both chocolate and palm kernel oil. As several district courts have held, Judge Ramos holds that this argument fails, because Mitchell does not dispute that the Product's coating contains chocolate and because no reasonable consumer would understand the representations on the Product's label to mean that the coating contained only chocolate. Mitchell fails to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would conclude that the representations regarding chocolate on the Product's label imply that the Product's coating did not contain any vegetable oil. iii. The Ingredient List Judge Ramos finds that the Product's label accurately indicates that the Product's coating contains chocolate. Furthermore, Mitchell does not dispute that the ingredient list accurately identifies the ingredients in descending order of predominance by weight and discloses the presence of vegetable oil in the form of palm kernel oil. Therefore, as Whole Foods argues, unlike the cases relied upon by Mitchell in which the product's packaging contained misleading representations, the "ingredient list contains more detailed information about the Product that confirms other representations on the packaging." iv. The Consumer Survey To demonstrate consumer expectations, Mitchell points to consumer survey results purportedly showing that "roughly 60% of respondents who viewed the Product's front label milk chocolate statements with a chunk of chocolate -- expected it would contain more cacao bean ingredients than it did and would not be made with chocolate substitutes." As Whole Foods argues, Mitchell does not attach the survey to the SAC, nor does he include any additional allegations regarding the survey. Judge Ramos says that contrary to Mitchell's assertion that Whole Foods' challenge to his survey is not proper at the pleading stage, while courts construe the survey in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, they must determine whether it plausibly supports the plaintiff's claim. He holds that the allegations regarding the survey are insufficient "to nudge Mitchell's claims of consumer deception from possible to plausible." v. Consumer Preferences Mitchell further alleges that consumers generally prefer chocolate made from cacao beans, as opposed to chocolate made with vegetable oils, because of greater satiety, taste, "mouthfeel," and health and nutritional benefits. The Amended Complaints in Beers and Puri include nearly identical sets of allegations, citing Beers v. Mars Wrigley Confectionary US, LLC, No. 21 Civ. 2 (CS), and Puri v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 21 Civ. 1202 (EJD). First, Judge Ramos agrees with the Beers and Puri courts that "it is simply not plausible that a reasonable consumer would purchase and eat chocolate covered ice cream bars for health or nutritive benefits or satiety value." Second, to the extent that Mitchell's allegations relate to products where cacao bean ingredients are replaced with vegetable oils, Mitchell "has not plausibly alleged that vegetable oils have been used in the Product to 'replace' cacao butter." Third, Mitchell has not adequately alleged that the Product's coating has a different taste or "mouthfeel," as the relevant allegations appear to be based on comments from individuals in the chocolate confectionary industry regarding chocolate candy, not chocolate coatings. In any event, "nowhere does Mitchell allege that the use of vegetable oils in the coating along with the chocolate changed the Product's taste or gave it a waxy or oily texture." Accordingly, Mitchell's claims pursuant to Sections 349 and 350 of the GBL are dismissed. B. Breach of Express Warranty Mitchell's only allegations as to notice are that (1) the "Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to defendant, its agents, representatives, retailers and their employees," and (2) the "Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to complaints by regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices over the past several years." Judge Ramos holds that these allegations, unsupported by any specific facts, are insufficient to show that Mitchell provided Whole Foods timely notice of the alleged breach, as he has not adequately pleaded that he, in fact, provided notice. Therefore, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss Mitchell's claim for breach of express warranty is granted. C. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under the New York Uniform Commercial Code, "a warranty that the goods will be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind." A warranty of merchantability does not mean that the product will fulfill a buyer's every expectation but rather simply provides for a minimum level of quality." "Where the sale of a food or beverage is concerned, courts have ruled that the product need only be fit for human consumption to be of merchantable quality." Pursuant to the U.C.C., the notice requirement applies to claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Therefore, Mitchell's claim similarly fails for not alleging timely notice. Accordingly, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss Mitchell's claim for breach of implied warranty is granted. D. Magnuson Moss Warranty Act The MMWA grants relief to a consumer who is damaged by the warrantor's failure to comply with any obligation under a written warranty. Pursuant to the MMWA, a "written warranty" is defined, in part, as "any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time." As Whole Foods contends, and contrary to Mitchell's arguments, Judge Ramos finds that the representations on the Product's label "do not suggest that the [Product is] defect free or that it will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time; instead, they simply describe the product." Therefore, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss Mitchell's MMWA claim is granted. E. Fraud While a fraud claim may plead scienter generally, the plaintiff "must still allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent." This inference may be established by (1) "alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud," or (2) "alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness." As Whole Foods argues, Judge Ramos finds that Mitchell's allegations fail to meet the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). Mitchell's sole allegation regarding Whole Foods' intent is that its "fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately disclose these issues when it knew not doing so would mislead consumers." This conclusory allegation, devoid of particularized facts giving rise to an inference of scienter, is insufficient, because "the simple knowledge that a statement is false is not sufficient to establish fraudulent intent, nor is a defendants' 'generalized motive to satisfy consumers' desires or increase sales and profits.'" Courts have found allegations of this nature insufficient under Rule 9(b). Moreover, while the existence of accurate information regarding the product's ingredients on the package does not stymie a deceptive labeling claim as a matter of law, it is certainly a substantial barrier to a plaintiff seeking to plead a claim of fraud. In the case, there is no dispute as to whether the Product's ingredient list accurately discloses the presence of vegetable oil in the Product's coating. Therefore, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss Mitchell's fraud claim is granted. F. Unjust Enrichment As Whole Foods argues, Mitchell's unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of his other claims. The allegations underlying his claim state: The "Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits." Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim is wholly premised on and duplicative of the very same factual allegations and theory of liability as relied upon by Mitchell's other claims. Therefore, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss Mitchell's unjust enrichment claim is granted. G. Standing to Pursue Injunctive Relief Mr. Mitchell alleges that had he known the truth about the Product, he would not have purchased it or he would have paid less for it. He further alleges that he "will purchase the Product again when he can do so with the assurance that [the] Product's representations are consistent with its labeling." Therefore, he makes the conditional promise to only purchase the Product again if the allegedly misleading representations are consistent with the Product. Thus, Mitchell lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief, because he cannot show that he will be harmed again in the future in a similar way. Therefore, Judge Ramos dismisses Mitchell's request for injunctive relief. H. Leave to Amend Judge Ramos states that Mitchell has already amended the complaint twice, after having the benefit of Whole Foods' pre-motion letters stating the grounds on which it would move to dismiss. Furthermore, he has not proposed any specific amendments to the complaint to cure the specified pleading deficiencies. Nevertheless, in accordance with the liberal spirit of Rule 15, Judge Ramos grants Mitchell leave to amend. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he discussed, Judge Ramos granted Whole Foods' motion to dismiss. Mitchell is directed to file an amended complaint, if at all, by March 18, 2022. If he does not, the case will be closed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckkzwee from Leagle.com. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Ward Appeals Dismissal of Illegal Fees Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lee Ward filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Lee Ward, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A., an Arizona credit union, Case No. 3:21-cv-08103-MTL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Prescott. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17, 2021, the lawsuit is brought to challenge two improper practices of the Defendant with regard to two automated practices of the Defendant which generate excessive unearned fee income for the Defendant primarily at the expense of its customers who are least able to pay such fees. First, Zions holds deposited funds in a manner inconsistent with the plain language of the Bank's contract, says the complaint. The Bank acts like these funds--which are being held by the Bank--are unavailable, resulting in massive improper fee income for Zions. Second, the Bank assesses more than one fee based on a customer's lack of funds to pay a single debit item, such as a check. Thus, Zions charges two or more fees as to one check or other debit item. This too is done in violation of the terms of the Bank's contracts with customers. These practices breach contractual promises, violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and result in the Bank being unjustly enriched. Zions customers have been injured by the Bank's improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in violation of their agreements with Zions, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February 3, 2022 and Judgment dated February 4, 2022, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned as Lee Ward v. Zions Bancorporation, Case No. 22-15334, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Lee Ward Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 11, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 4, 2022; -- Transcript is due on May 3, 2022; -- Appellant Lee Ward opening brief is due on June 13, 2022; -- Appellee Zions Bancorporation answering brief is due on July 12, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LEE WARD, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD, PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 615-3948 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED 14646 N. Kierland Blvd. Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: azdocketing@zimmreed.com Defendant-Appellee ZIONS BANCORPORATION, an Arizona credit union, is represented by: Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8016 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com - and - John D. Freed, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 E-mail: jakefreed@dwt.com [*] Russia-Ukraine War Could Lead to U.S. Class Action Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 set the wheels in motion for the largest ground battle in Europe since WWII and also opened the door for potential class action lawsuits here in the United States. Countries around the world responded to the escalation by imposing strict economic sanctions on Russia and its president Vladimir Putin, as well as members of his inner circle, ABC News reports. The sanctions, which include depriving Russia's central bank from being able to access its foreign currency reserves, could ultimately have an impact on U.S. consumers, as well. Russia's Invasion Results in Higher Gas Prices Perhaps most notably, what makes the strength of Russia's economy important to the world is the vast amount of oil reserves it possesses. The price of oil has increased by around 20% since the start of the invasion, CNN Business reports, with foreign buyers concerned about buying oil from Russia and tanker operators nervous to have their ships venture into the Black Sea. Major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, have said they plan to abandon their Russian ventures, Business Insider reports. The volatility of the oil market and the spur-of-the-moment moves and decisions could end up affecting oil companies' stock prices, and investors will surely be keeping an eye on the situation. Just last month, investors targeted Exxon with a class action lawsuit alleging the company was dishonest in reporting its assets, causing its stock price to drop when the truth was ultimately revealed. All of this is also likely to lead to even higher prices at the pump for U.S. consumers who have already been paying record amounts, CNN Business reports. War Stretches Global Supply Chain Even Thinner The conflict is also exacerbating an already-stretched-thin global supply chain still attempting to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Futures for wheat, as one example, have spiked since the invasion with Russia and Ukraine combining to produce 14% of the world's supply. Consumers, as is often the case, can expect to feel the brunt of this with foodmakers likely to pass on the higher costs to them. Businesses may want to be careful, however, as consumers can be notoriously finicky about what they are willing to pay and what they believe could be unlawful when it comes to the price of food. In 2018, for example, McDonald's had to ask a federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit arguing the company should legally be required to lower the price of its Quarter Pounder if a customer chooses to order it without cheese. Several U.S. governors, including those in Utah, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio, meanwhile, have even taken the unusual step of ordering liquor stores in their states to cease the sale of Russian vodka, iHeartRadio reports. Russia Can't Fly in U.S. Airspace Russian airlines won't be seen flying around in U.S. skies with President Joe Biden announcing during his Mar. 1 State of the Union address that the country is closing its airspace to all Russian air carriers, the Washington Examiner reports. The move hurts Russia by cutting it off from well-traveled global aviation paths; however, the move could also end up leading to class action complaints in the United States. Airline passengers dealing with flight cancellations are no strangers to filing class action lawsuits against the carriers they feel inconvenienced them. In July 2020, British Airways had to fight back against claims the airline had failed to properly refund tickets for passengers who had their flights canceled due to COVID-19. Immigration Concern as Ukrainians Flee Country in Record Time With more than 1 million Ukrainians reportedly already having fled the country since the start of the conflict, immigration policies are being hurriedly addressed. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would be extending immigration relief to Ukrainians citizens who are currently in the country as a form of humanitarian aid, CNN reports. Ukrainians in the United States, with the majority living in New York, are being given what is referred to as Temporary Protected Status, allowing them to stay in the country since being forced to return home would place them in danger. The treatment of immigrants is a closely watched subject when it comes to the potential for class action lawsuits. In 2018, for example, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was the target of a class action lawsuit claiming it illegally targeted the spouses of immigrants. While it remains to be seen how things progress, immigration issues for both Ukrainian and Russian individuals either in, or coming into the United States, could end up playing a role in future class action claims. Russian Cyberattacks Could Target U.S. Amid Rising Tensions When it comes to Russia, cyber warfare is also a legitimate concern, with the country being near the top of the list of those who have pumped resources into increasing their hacking capabilities, reports The Washington Post. With tensions between Russia and other countries, including the United States, reaching a boiling point, the potential for retaliatory cyberattacks targeting U.S. companies and businesses is not out of the question. It also wouldn't be the first time. Last year, a Russian hacking group breached the systems of the Colonial Pipeline, shutting down its operations and demanding a ransom. The move not only forced Colonial to temporarily shut down its pipeline, but also led to a class action lawsuit being filed against the company by consumers affected by the breach. Consumers argued Colonial should have done more to secure its servers and should thus be required to reimburse them for the higher price for gas they had to pay on account of the breach. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Faces 3,609 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp., as of December 31, 2021, is a defendant of 3,609 claims brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2021 we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,980 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $10.5 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/363G4Zc ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Has $7.7BB Reserves at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Financial Group, Inc.'s unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses reserve liabilities net of reinsurance recoverables, net of allowance, ("reserves") totaled $7.66 billion, at December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "This liability represents management's best estimate of the ultimate net cost of all unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses and is determined by using case-basis evaluations, actuarial projections, and management's judgment. Estimating the reserves is inherently judgmental and is influenced by factors that are subject to significant variation, particularly for lines of business that develop or are paid over a long period of time or that contain exposures with high potential severities, such as workers' compensation, other liability, and asbestos and environmental." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3qa8FCW ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Has $260K Loss and LAE Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- AMERISAFE, Inc., has reported $260,000 reserves for loss and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) at end of year, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Reserves established for workers' compensation insurance includes the exposure to occupational disease or accidents related to asbestos or environmental claims. The exposure to asbestos claims emanates from the direct sale of workers' compensation insurance. These claims resulted from industry workers who were exposed to tremolite asbestos dust and electricians and carpenters who were exposed to products that contained asbestos. There has been no known exposure to asbestos claims arising from assumed business. The emergence of these claims is slow and highly unpredictable. The Company estimates full impact of the asbestos exposure by establishing full case basis reserves on all known losses. Reserves for losses incurred but not reported (IBNR) include a provision for development of reserves on reported losses. Reserves are established for loss adjustment expenses (LAE) associated with these case and IBNR loss reserves. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3q41PPi ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $2.1BB Est. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has reported an estimated net claim liabilities for environmental, asbestos and other latent injury exposures of approximately $2.1 billion at December 31, 2021 and 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These liabilities are subject to change due to changes in the legal and regulatory environment. We are unable to reliably estimate additional losses or a range of losses that are reasonably possible for these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tY8Pyq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $64MM Est. Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, at December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $81 million and $89 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2021, approximately $17 million of this amount related to 211 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $64 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tWB6p0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Defends 29,958 Pending Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co., as of December 31, 2021, is one of a number of defendants in cases involving 29,958 pending claims filed in various state and federal courts that allege injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, 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 lawsuits for asbestos-related personal injury. Estimation of our ultimate exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims. Our estimate of the future expense of these claims is derived from assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs which are based on experience during the last few years and which may not prove reliable as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial or on appeal. A legislative solution or a structured settlement transaction could also change the estimated liability. These uncertainties may result in our incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if the number of claims and settlements and defense costs escalates or if legislation or another alternative solution is implemented; however, we are currently unable to predict such future events. The resolution of these claims may take many years, and the effect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in any given period from a revision to these estimates could be material." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KPPo1F ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork & Seal Faces 17,000 Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "During the year ended December 31, 2021, Crown Cork received approximately 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately 1,000 claims, and had approximately 57,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period. Of the Company's outstanding claims, approximately 17,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 40,000 relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 1,500 were filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted asbestos legislation and 19,500 were filed in other states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2021 also exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims, as well as claims in Texas filed after June 11, 2003. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute. The Company devotes significant time and expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or distractions from operating the Company's businesses arising from these defenses will not increase materially. "As of December 31, 2021, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $237 million, including $198 million for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period. Assumptions underlying the accrual include that claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the subsidiary's insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement payouts and that state statutes described under Note O to the Company's audited consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report, including Texas and Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against asbestos-related claims in those states and other states where Pennsylvania law may apply. "Crown Cork made cash payments of $19 million, $21 million and $22 million in 2021, 2020 and 2019 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs. These payments and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt payments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3CIrAK0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Faces 200 Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------- Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc., currently have approximately 200 lawsuits involving approximately 325 claimants alleging exposure to asbestos while working at Entergy facilities between 1955 and 1980, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Entergy is being sued as a premises owner. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Management believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tUB8xG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Still Faces A&E Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd., continues to receive claims under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos. "Our reserves include an estimate of our ultimate liability for A&E claims. Our A&E liabilities emanate from Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business. Liabilities related to Mt. McKinley's direct business, which had been ceded to Bermuda Re previously, were retroceded to an affiliate of Clearwater Insurance Company in 2015, concurrent with the sale of Mt. McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company. There are significant uncertainties surrounding our estimates of our potential losses from A&E claims. Among the uncertainties are: (a) potentially long waiting periods between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage; (b) difficulty in identifying sources of asbestos or environmental contamination; (c) difficulty in properly allocating responsibility and/or liability for asbestos or environmental damage; (d) changes in underlying laws and judicial interpretation of those laws; (e) the potential for an asbestos or environmental claim to involve many insurance providers over many policy periods; (f) questions concerning interpretation and application of insurance and reinsurance coverage; and (g) uncertainty regarding the number and identity of insureds with potential asbestos or environmental exposure." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3MM1n21 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Records $81MM Estimated Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation, at December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $81 million and $89 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2021, approximately $17 million of this amount related to 211 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $64 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tfogDh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $11.7MM Net A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2021, has reported $11.7 million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised of $9.6 million of direct reserves and $2.1 million of assumed reinsurance pool reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $39.8 million and $37.9 million as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by our insurance companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability were $9.6 million, $8.3 million and $8.4 million, net of reinsurance of $16.7 million, $17.9 million and $17.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Activity for our direct asbestos and environmental reserves was not significant to our 2021, 2020 or 2019 financial results. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks, past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred experience. Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific policy exclusions, we have been, and may continue to be, subject to claims related to these exposures. "In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental damage liability. As of December 31, 2021, we have $31.0 million of gross reserves and $2.1 million of net reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business. This compares to gross and net loss and LAE reserves of $31.5 million and $29.5 million at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. These reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation; however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in which we were a participant. Results of operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our gross pool reserves relates to our participation in the ECRA voluntary pool. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in run-off. During 2021, we entered into an agreement to transfer our ECRA pool participations to a third-party reinsurer. This transfer was executed through a 100% reinsurance arrangement for our ECRA claim liability participations written during the period 1950 to 1982. This transaction had no significant impact on our 2021 results of operations. "We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are not known, current law, and methodologies currently available. Although these outstanding claims are not believed to be significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period, or on our financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tfTgmr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Faces Multiple PI Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll Rand Inc. has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits wherein the plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products described above; the Company's experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets include a reserve of $136.9 million and $131.4 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, for asbestos-related indemnification. Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from this liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $145.1 million and $132.1 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. There were no material recoveries received in the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3u1XtcP ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Funded Study Injects Prisoners with Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------------- Global Cosmetic News reports that 'Unsealed documents' have revealed that Johnson & Johnson once funded a study in which prisoners were injected with asbestos in order to compare its effect on their skin versus talc, according to a report published by Bloomberg. The baby powder manufacturer has not been linked to the controversial 1960s study in the past – its involvement was revealed during the talc litigation the health care manufacturer has been battling over the past few years. The company did not deny its involvement, per Bloomberg, but contended that the tests conformed to contemporary research standards when they were conducted. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, Kim Montagnino, told Bloomberg in an emailed statement, "We deeply regret the conditions under which these studies were conducted, and in no way do they reflect the values or practices we employ today. As the world's largest health care company, our transparent, diligent approach to bioethics is at the heart of all we promise our customers and society." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $20MM Against Ford in Exposure Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ HarrisMartin reports that a Missouri jury awarded a couple $20 million against Ford Motor Co. after finding the company failed to warn them of the dangers of asbestos exposure posed by its brakes. In a March 11 verdict, the St. Louis Circuit Court jury awarded Bill Trokey, 76, $10 million in compensatory damages and his wife $10 million for loss of consortium. Judge Christopher E. McGraugh presided over the two-week trial. William Trokey alleged in his lawsuit that his exposure to asbestos while working on Ford brakes as a gas station mechanic in the 1960s led to him being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $36.5MM Against Maryland Casualty -------------------------------------------------------------- JD Supra reports that a Great Falls, Mont., jury awarded $36.5 million dollars to Ralph Hutt, an Oregon man who worked at the Libby mine. Hutt's matter is a bellwether case, which is the first of more than 800 cases filed against Maryland Casualty Company (MCC), provider of workers' compensation coverage to Grace from 1963 until 1973, to go to trial. The Montana Supreme Court previously issued an order establishing the Asbestos Claims Court following the Grace federal bankruptcy proceedings. In its order dated November 28, 2017, the Montana Supreme Court consolidated pending asbestos-related claims for pretrial purposes and appointed District Court Judge Amy Eddy as the Asbestos Claims Judge. Hutt worked in the mill and at a mine site at the Libby facilities over a sixteen month period from 1968 to 1969. While he was provided with a paper mask, Hutt testified that a Grace supervisor told Hutt that he could wear the paper mask if he wanted because the dust "would not hurt him." Grace also denied Hutt's request for a respirator. Following a review of x-rays screenings of Grace employees which showed fibrotic changes (including Hutt), MCC noted that the Grace employees could safely continue their work if protected. Hutt testified that he was never informed of the results of any x-rays he underwent directed by Grace. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries were defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as part of the merger of EFH with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra were defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. These cases alleged illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death. They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of February 18, 2022, no lawsuits are pending. Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding. The costs to defend or resolve these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be imposed or incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3q9hlJC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $52.70MM Accrued Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2021, has recorded an accrued asbestos liabilities of $52.70 million, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KvF9iz ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $2.5MM A&E Loss Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- United Fire Group, Inc., at December 31, 2021 and 2020, has reported $2.5 million and $2.5 million, respectively, in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Included in the other liability and assumed reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other environmental losses and loss settlement expenses. "The estimation of loss reserves for environmental claims and claims related to long-term exposure to asbestos and other substances is one of the most difficult aspects of establishing reserves, especially given the inherent uncertainties surrounding such claims. Although we record our best estimate of loss and loss settlement expense reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon settlement of such claims may be more or less than the amount of the reserves, because of the significant uncertainties involved and the likelihood that these uncertainties will not be resolved for many years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KLmIGR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 227 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Univar Solutions Inc., as of December 31, 2021, has reported an approximately 227 asbestos-related cases for it has the obligation to defend and indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Once certain conditions have been met, Univar will have the ability to pursue insurance coverage, if any, that may be available under McKesson's historical insurance coverage to offset the impact of any fees, settlements, or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay because of its obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson. Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with an immaterial settlement payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KNi3UT ********* 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 ***