/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 24, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 54 Headlines 119 LUCKY: Ortiz Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA, WPCL A. MARINE INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Infant Formulas Have Heavy Metals, Suit Says ADVANCE AUTO: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Awaits Court Approval ALCON INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in M.D. Fla. ALLSOP INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Savir Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BAUER HOCKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAYER US: Mirena IUDs Not Suitable for Birth Control, Sidhu Says BEAUTY CARE CHOICES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BED BATH: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2 BEST AMERICAN: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Maintenance Workers BLADE-TECH INDUSTRIES: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOOKSPAN LLC: Arbitration Bid in Shye Class Suit Held in Abeyance BORAL ROOFING: Meraz-Valencia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Helpers BOSCH SOLAR: N.D. California Certifies Class in Rojas Consumer Suit BRIGGS & RILEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING: Wins Securities Case in M.D. Tenn. CANOPY GROWTH: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 7 CHARLES 4 PROJECTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIRCLE OF LIFE: Garland Sues Owner Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime COBREA GOLD: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMFORT CARE: Gutierrez Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime E-FILLIATE INC: Smith Sues Over Defective Wireless Earphones ECRU INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVOLVE VACATION: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FERRARA CANDY: Gardner Files Mislabeling Suit Over Caramel Product FLEETPRIDE INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GARRETT MOTION: Faces Froehlich Securities Suit in New York Court GARRETT MOTION: Husson Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed HAWAII MEDICAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Park Suit Granted in Part HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Ford Suit Removed to C.D. California HOEK HOME: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOWIES HOCKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS: Blackfoot School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Idaho Falls Suit Says JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Roxbury Central Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, East Syracuse-Minoa Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Murray Claims JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wilder School Claims JUUL LABS: Faces Honeoye Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Faces Rich School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Faces Tintic School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces West Jefferson Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Freedom Preparatory Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: General Brown Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in New York JUUL LABS: Jefferson County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Lincoln Academy Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Canyon Rim Suit Claims JUUL LABS: North Summit Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Oneida School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Idaho JUUL LABS: Pocatello Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Traverse City Says JUUL LABS: South Jefferson Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing JUUL LABS: St. Maries Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Idaho JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Ririe School Claims JUUL LABS: West Jefferson Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Ruffin Suit LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Case in New York Dismissed LIN R. ROGERS: Walker Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in D. Md. MENASHA ENTERTAINMENT: Miller Seeks Exotic Dancers' Minimum Wages MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 ONVOY LLC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Cardenas Claims PATTERSON COMPANIES: $63MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9 POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Lollar Sues Over OSHA Standards' Compliance PROCTOR360 INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Collection of Biometrics PUBLIX SUPER: Brand Has Artificial DL-Malic Acid, McCall Alleges SCHWARTZ VAYS: Hancock Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Hastings Sues Over Telemarketing Calls SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen NYLL Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Second Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Anilao SUSHI NOZAWA: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TESTING SOLUTIONS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIFIN INC: Savir Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VOESH CORP: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAYFAIR LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEST COAST TRENDS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Suit Transferred to C.D. California WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YASSO INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ZJH HOLDINGS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* 119 LUCKY: Ortiz Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA, WPCL --------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 119 LUCKY INC., KING DRAGON COLD BEER, SEAK, INC., M V BEER DISTRIBUTORS, M&V BEER DISTRIBUTORS, BEER & MORE, INC., and LINA 1071, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00957 (E.D. Pa., March 14, 2022) contends that Defendants have improperly failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to their staff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Pennsylvania common law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, and during the course of his employment, Defendants allegedly failed to accurately track and keep records of Plaintiff’s hours worked, the Defendants failed to pay proper overtime compensation when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, and the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff proper minimum wages. The Defendants own and operate at least three (3) beer distributors known as: "Lucky Inc.," "King Dragon," and "Lina Cold Beer."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian M. Bryson, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 391-4790 E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com A. MARINE INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Marine, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. A. Marine, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02186 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A. Marine, Inc. is a boat rental service in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Infant Formulas Have Heavy Metals, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLOTTE WILLOUGHBY and LAKENDREA CAMILLE MCNEALY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01322 (N.D. Ill., March 14, 2022) sues over Defendant's alleged intentional practice of failing to fully disclose the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury ("Heavy Metals") in its Similac (TM) powdered infant formulas. The Infant Formulas are sold throughout the United States and do not conform to their packaging. The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all such substances in the Products’ packaging, and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Classes, the lawsuit says. The Defendant allegedly states the Infant Formulas contain superior ingredients such as Docosahexaenoic Acid ("DHA"), prebiotics such as human milk oligosaccharides (HMO), and lutein and beta-carotene. Based on the impression given by the packaging and the material nondisclosures, no reasonable consumer could expect or understand that the Infant Formulas contained Heavy Metals. This is especially true as the development and physical risks created by ingestion of Heavy Metals by infants is well-recognized. The Infant Formulas have been shown to contain detectable levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and/or perchlorate, all known to pose health risks to humans, and particularly to infants, says the suit. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com kae@wbe-llp.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC 1650 Market Street, 52 nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ADVANCE AUTO: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that on February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Advance Auto Parts securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive, was commenced against the company and certain of Advance Auto Parts current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about Advance Auto Parts financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 7, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part Advance Auto Parts motion to dismiss. On November 6, 2020, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 15, 2021, the company moved for reconsideration of the order denying in part Advance Auto Parts' motion to dismiss, and on October 15, 2021, the company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking full dismissal of the case. Following mediation, on November 5, 2021, the parties executed a confidential binding term sheet to settle all claims and on December 23, 2021, the parties executed a settlement agreement fully documenting their agreement. The settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the court on January 11, 2022 and remains subject to final court approval. The settlement amount of $49.3 million will be fully covered by Advance Auto Parts insurance carriers, and the settlement is subject to court approval. Advance Auto Parts is an automotive aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both professional installers and "do-it-yourself" customers, as well as independently owned operators. ALCON INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- Alcon Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that since the first quarter of 2015, more than 50 class action complaints have been filed in several courts across the US naming as defendants contact lens manufacturers, including Alcon, and alleging violations of federal antitrust law, as well as the antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws of various states, in connection with the implementation of unilateral price policies by the defendants in the sale of contact lenses. The cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the claims are being vigorously contested. Trial is set for March 28, 2022. Alcon is into over‑the‑counter ocular health products and certain surgical diagnostic medications. ALLSOP INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allsop, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Allsop, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01810-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allsop, Inc. -- https://www.allsop.com/ -- is a leader in the tech accessory industry and produces innovative monitor stands, ergonomic and desk accessories, and lifestyle products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Savir Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Eyal Savir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-20797-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS National Services Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- is one of the largest debt collection agencies in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com BAUER HOCKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bauer Hockey, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bauer Hockey, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bauer Hockey -- https://www.bauer.com/ -- is a manufacturer of ice hockey equipment, fitness and recreational skates and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BAYER US: Mirena IUDs Not Suitable for Birth Control, Sidhu Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRIYA SIDHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER U.S. LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01603 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Bayer's Mirena intrauterine devices (the "Mirena IUD"). The Defendant markets and sells the Products as suitable for use as birth control, but Mirena IUDs are not suitable for that use because they significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in users, the Plaintiff contends. The Mirena IUD is a "hormonal intrauterine device," specifically a "levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system" ("LNG-IUS"). The Mirena IUD is inserted into a woman's uterus, whereupon it releases the hormone progestin. Progestin thickens mucus in the cervix to stop sperm from reaching or fertilizing an egg and thins the lining of the uterus and partially suppresses 15 , which reduces the chances of pregnancy and decreases menstrual bleeding. The Defendant does note on its website that "Mirena isn't right for everyone" and that "an important part of your decision [to use the Product] is making sure you're aware of possible side effects." But conspicuously absent from the list of "safety considerations" is any mention of the significantly increased risk of breast cancer caused by the Product. Likewise, the packaging of the Product does not disclose that it significantly increases the risk of breast cancer that the Product significantly increases the risk of breast cancer, the lawsuit says. In 2010, a case-control study compared 329 women users of LNG-IUS with 708 controls of the same age. The study showed an increased risk for breast cancer in the LNG-IUS population with an odds rate of 1.53 at a 95% confidence interval. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: (i) breach of implied warranty; (ii) unjust enrichment; (iii) fraud; (iv) negligence; (v) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq.; (vi) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et. seq.; and (vii) violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus & Prof Code section 17500. The Plaintiff is a resident of San Jose, California and has an intent to remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of California. Between February 2019 and February 2022, Ms. Sidhu was prescribed and used the Mirena IUD in California. Ms. Sidhu paid $50 out-of-pocket for the Mirena IUD. Upon first using the Mirena IUD, Ms. Sidhu received and reviewed the patient brochure distributed by the Defendant, which did not disclose the significantly elevated risk of developing breast cancer from using the Mirena IUD. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who were prescribed and used the Mirena IUD (the "Nationwide Class"). The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class defined as all persons who reside in the state of California and who were prescribed and used the Mirena IUD (the "California Subclass").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com BEAUTY CARE CHOICES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Care Choices. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beauty Care Choices, Case No. 1:22-cv-02160 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Beauty Care Choices -- https://www.beautycarechoices.com/ -- offers the largest selection of Professional Hair and Beauty Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BED BATH: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2 ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STEPHEN AND JUNE VITIELLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES This notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. ("BBBY") during the period from September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") (the "Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at www.BedBathBeyondSecuritiesLitigation.com. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action, Kavin Bakhda, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 2, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Michael A. Hammer, either in-person at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & United States Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom MLK2C, Newark, NJ 07101, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine: (i) whether to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, to certify the Action as a class action and to grant final appointment of Lead Plaintiff as Class representative and Lead Counsel as counsel for the Class; (iii) whether to dismiss the Action with prejudice against Defendants and to enter the releases specified and described in the Settlement Agreement dated October 25, 2021; (iv) whether to approve the proposed Plan of Allocation as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether to grant Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's costs and expenses. If the hearing is held by telephone or videoconference, information on how to participate will be posted at www.BedBathBeyondSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you might be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of them by contacting the Claims Administrator at Bed Bath Beyond Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91135, Seattle, WA 98111; 866-853-5009; or www.BedBathBeyondSecuritiesLitigation.com. You can also download copies of the Notice and Claim Form from the Settlement website, www.BedBathBeyondSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than June 6, 2022 to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. If you do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and want to exclude yourself from it, you must submit a valid request for exclusion that is received no later than May 5, 2022, in accordance with the instructions in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Excluding yourself from the Class is the only option that might allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement, even if you have pending or later file another lawsuit or other proceeding against the Releasees related to the claims covered by the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, or Lead Plaintiff's application for expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 5, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you have any questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in it, please contact the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Visit www.BedBathBeyondSecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free at 866-853-5009. Do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should go to: Bed Bath Beyond Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91135 Seattle, WA 98111 Inquiries other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form should go to Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP Laurence J. Hasson Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 (212) 779 1414 lhasson@bernlieb.com seidman@bernlieb.com By Order of the Court. BEST AMERICAN: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Maintenance Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST AMERICAN INVESTMENTS, LLC; BAYMEADOWS MANAGEMENT, LLC; and ASHOK BHATT, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00300 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay appropriate overtime wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt maintenance worker from approximately May 2021 until approximately October 2021. Best American Investments, LLC is an operator of America's Best Inn located at 8220 Dix Ellis Trail, Jacksonville, Florida. Baymeadows Management, LLC is an operator of APM Inn & Suites located at 510 Lane Avenue South, Jacksonville, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3039 E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com BLADE-TECH INDUSTRIES: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blade-Tech Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blade-Tech Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02152 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blade-Tech Industries -- https://blade-tech.com/ -- is the leading manufacturer of custom, production thermoplastic, injection molded tactical holsters, knife sheaths and magazine pouches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BOOKSPAN LLC: Arbitration Bid in Shye Class Suit Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JILL SHYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOKSPAN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-12285 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, held in abeyance the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. I. Introduction The lawsuit is a putative class action seeking damages for alleged violations of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), MICH. COMP. LAWS Section 445.1711, et seq. The Plaintiff, a Michigan resident and book-club member, alleges that the Defendant, an online book seller, sold her personal information to data aggregators without her permission, resulting in "a barrage of unwanted junk mail." The Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, claiming that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims arising out of her membership. II. Background Following the enactment of similar federal legislation, in 1989, Michigan enacted the PPPA, creating a private right of action for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information related to purchase or rental of books, videos, and other materials. As relevant in the case, a business engaged in selling or renting books, videos, and similar materials may not disclose "to any person, other than the customer, a record or information that personally identifies the customer as having purchased, leased, rented or borrowed materials," except with the "written permission of the customer." Businesses that violate the PPPA may be liable for actual damages, attorney's fees, and—under the pre-July 2016 version of the PPPA -- $5,000 in statutory damages. Before (and perhaps after) July 2016, Plaintiff Shye was a member of two book clubs offered by Defendant Bookspan LLC: Doubleday Book Club and Literary Guild Book Club. During her membership, the Defendant allegedly compiled her and other members' personal information into mailing lists, which it then sold to data aggregators. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant never disclosed this practice to its members or sought their permission, despite "profiting handsomely." In September 2021, the Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated subscribers, seeking $5,000 in statutory damages per subscriber. Two months later, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. It claims that when the Plaintiff subscribed to the book clubs, she consented to a written arbitration agreement covering "any dispute between them." As a result, the Defendant argues, the Plaintiff cannot maintain this action in federal court and must submit to arbitration. In response, the Plaintiff denies awareness of and consent to an arbitration agreement. She also argues that the alleged arbitration agreement would not cover this dispute. Having reviewed the parties' briefing, Judge Ludington finds that a hearing is unnecessary and proceeds to address the Defendant's motion on the papers. III. Discussion The Defendant's motion is premised on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. The FAA creates "a substantive body of federal arbitration law that requires courts to enforce arbitration contracts 'according to their terms.'" Under the FAA, arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." Courts have treated motions to compel arbitration as jurisdictional challenges under Rule 12(b)(1) as venue challenges under Rule 12(b)(3) and as facial challenges under Rule 12(b)(6). Acknowledging this confusion, the Sixth Circuit recently held that a court reviewing a motion to compel arbitration must apply the same standard of review as it would for a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. In deciding whether the making of an arbitration agreement is "in issue," courts should apply the same standard of review that they would under Rule 56. Judge Ludington finds that the Defendant's motion relies extensively on exhibits not referenced in the Plaintiff's complaint. So even if the Defendant's motion could have been construed as a facial challenge under Rule 12(b)(6), it must be analyzed as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Accordingly, he analyzes the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration as if it was a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. A. The Defendant's motion relies largely on the personal declaration of Defendant's executive vice president, Clifton Knight. Based on his review of internal records, Knight alleges that the Plaintiff subscribed to the Book Clubs between August 2006 and August 2009. During that time, Defendant allegedly required all members, as a condition of their membership, to consent to an arbitration agreement covering "any dispute between the member and the Defendant." As evidence, Knight's declaration includes a 2008 "welcome booklet" that was allegedly mailed to new members. The booklet contains an arbitration clause and advises members that their personal information might be used for marketing purposes. Yet due to the age of the Plaintiff's membership, Knight claims that the Defendant lacks a copy of the Plaintiff's booklet. In short, the Defendant relies on a simple syllogism: All book club members consented to an arbitration agreement; the Plaintiff was a book club member; therefore, the Plaintiff must have consented to an arbitration agreement. The Plaintiff argues not with the Defendant's logic but with the evidentiary basis for its claims. Judge Ludington holds that Knight's declarations satisfy the Defendant's initial burden of showing that the Plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that by joining the book clubs she was consenting to its terms and conditions, which included an arbitration agreement. Even so, she decided to join the book clubs and remained a member for about three years. Under Michigan law, the Plaintiff's conduct demonstrates her assent to the terms and conditions of the membership agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant has met its initial burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement. B. Because the Defendant has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to set out specific facts showing "a genuine issue for trial." Specifically, the Plaintiff must point to evidence from which "a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists." As an exhibit to her response brief, the Plaintiff has filed a personal declaration denying that she ever consented to or knew of an arbitration agreement. Further, the Plaintiff claims that if an arbitration agreement had been presented to her, "she would never have expressed her agreement or consent to be bound by it." In addition to casting doubt on the Plaintiff's memory, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is "equitably estopped" from challenging the contents of her welcome booklet. Specifically, it argues that the Plaintiff cannot "invokee the membership agreement to support her claim and then deny that the agreement applies to her." Judge Ludington holds that the Plaintiff's evidence creates a genuine dispute of fact over whether she consented to an arbitration agreement. The Defendant relies on an inference from circumstantial evidence. And, the Plaintiff contests that inference with a sworn declaration "unequivocally denying" that she ever consented to an arbitration agreement. On the current record, the Court finds no reason to disregard the Plaintiff's declaration as "blatantly and demonstrably false." For these reasons, the Plaintiff's declaration creates a genuine dispute of fact. As for the Defendant's reliance on equitable estoppel, that doctrine is inapplicable in the case. The Plaintiff is not suing to enforce her book-club membership agreement; she is suing to enforce her statutory rights under the PPPA. So, the equitable considerations that are typically present in an estoppel case are not present in the case. Further, to the extent the Plaintiff's complaint can be construed as an attempt to enforce her membership agreement, she does not contest the enforceability of the agreement. C. Because the Plaintiff has successfully put "the making of the arbitration agreement in issue," Judge Ludington Court must "hold the Defendant's motion in abeyance," direct the parties to conduct "targeted discovery on the disputed formation questions," and "proceed summarily" to trial on the formation question. The "parties may not address other issues, including merit issues, before the Court resolves the formation question." Id. In the interest of efficiency, the parties will be directed to file supplemental briefing at the close of discovery to ensure that a genuine dispute of fact remains. D. The Plaintiff also argues that even if she consented to the Defendant's arbitration agreement, it does not cover her claims. To address her argument, Judge Ludington assumes, without deciding, that the Plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement provided in the 2008 welcome booklet. The Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement does not cover her claims because they "could be maintained without reference to" her membership agreement. She also argues that, because she cancelled her membership in 2009, her claims constitute a "post-expiration dispute" that is not arbitrable. Judge Ludington holds that the Plaintiff's membership agreement is a fundamental part of the case, and it is no accident that her complaint specifically mentions the "purchase" of her membership. As to the Plaintiff's second argument -- that the arbitration agreement does not cover her claims because she cancelled her membership in 2009 -- Judge Ludington holds that it presents a much closer question. Despite the "strong federal policy in favor of arbitration," the object of an arbitration clause is to implement a contract, not to transcend it. For that reason, the presumption of arbitrability survives the expiration of the underlying contract only if "(1) the dispute involves facts and occurrences that arose before expiration; (2) an action taken after expiration infringes a right that accrued or vested under the agreement; or (3) under normal principles of contract interpretation, the disputed contractual right survives expiration of the remainder of the agreement." The latter two conditions are inapplicable; there is no allegation of a post-expiration act that "infringed a right" under the agreement, and though the membership agreement mentions the Defendant's data practices, it does not appear to contain a survival clause. Hence, the only condition that might apply is the first -- whether the dispute "involves facts and occurrences that arose before expiration." Emphasizing the relevant statutory period, the Plaintiff states that her claims "involve facts and occurrences that arose between September 28, 2015 and July, 2016, long after she cancelled her membership." True as that may be, Judge Ludington finds that the Plaintiff's claims also involve facts and occurrences that arose before she cancelled her membership, including the purchase of her membership in 2006. The involvement of both pre-expiration and post-expiration facts introduces another wrinkle into the analysis. Answering that question would be difficult, as the material facts seem almost equally split between two time periods: 2006 to 2009 (when the Plaintiff purchased her membership and provided her personal information to the Defendant) and 2015 to 2016 (when the Defendant allegedly disclosed her information without permission). Yet because the parties have not squarely addressed this issue in their briefing, Judge Ludington will not decide it today. Instead, the parties will be directed to address the issue in their supplemental briefing. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Judge Ludington held in abeyance the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss until further order of the Court. He directed the parties to conduct discovery on whether the Plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement with the Defendant. The parties must complete discovery by May 9, 2022. Further, the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs after the completion of discovery, by May 27, 2022, addressing (1) whether the Plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement with the Defendant and (2) whether the Plaintiff's claims primarily involve facts and occurrences that arose before the expiration of her book-club membership. The briefs may be no longer than 15 pages. Each party may file a response brief no longer than seven pages within 14 days after being served with the opposing party's supplemental brief. A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zxjnfw9 from Leagle.com. BORAL ROOFING: Meraz-Valencia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Helpers ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEDRO MERAZ-VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and the putative Class members v. BORAL ROOFING, LLC, WESTLAKE ROYAL ROOFING, LLC, BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC., ROYAL BUILDING PRODUCTS (USA), INC., WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-at-00160 (E.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) stems from the Defendants' policies and practices of failing to pay the Plaintiff and putative Class members minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages, and failing to provide meal breaks to which they are entitled by law, and failing to pay premium compensation payment for non-compliant meal breaks pursuant to the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for various projects as a helper from October 1, 2018, to July 12, 2021. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in Lathrop, California. Boral Roofing is a nationwide manufacturer of clay and concrete roof tiles. On October 29, 2021, Boral Roofing amended its name to Westlake Royal Roofing, LLC. This name change was filed with the California Secretary of State on February 24, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Caroline N. Cohen, Esq. Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ccohen@schneiderwallace.com pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com BOSCH SOLAR: N.D. California Certifies Class in Rojas Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. I. Introduction In the putative consumer class action, Plaintiffs Steve and Andrea Rojas claim that certain solar panels manufactured by Defendant Bosch are defective and do not generate the amount of power promised. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that excessive heat generated at the panels' solder joints creates a fire hazard; delamination causes peeling and cracking of the panels' protective back sheets; and the panels' power output degrades too much over time. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment against Bosch. They seek certification of a nationwide class and a California subclass of persons and entities who are consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, and subsequent owners of Bosch's model number c-Si M 60 NA30119 solar panels. Bosch does not dispute the existence of defects in their c-Si M 60 NA30119 solar panels ("119 Panels"), also referred to as solar modules. However, Bosch argues that a class action is unnecessary in light of its voluntary recall of its 119 Panels. Bosch also argues that certification of a nationwide class would be contrary to the Court's prior ruling that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims on behalf of residents of states other than California. Finally, Bosch argues that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for certification of any class. II. Background Bosch's 119 Panels were manufactured in Korea and shipped to the United States in 2011 and 2012. Bosch provides a "Limited Warranty" for its 119 Panels, covering both material and workmanship ("Product Warranty") and loss of performance. The Product Warranty guarantees that the 119 Panels are free of defects in material and workmanship for a period of 10 years from the date of delivery. The Performance Warranty guarantees that the 119 Panels will deliver specified amount of power for a period of 25 years. In 2012, the Plaintiffs began considering a solar panel installation at their home in Moreno Valley, California. They met with a representative of a solar installment company, Sullivan Electric, at their home on Oct. 23, 2012. Later that month, the Plaintiffs entered into a Prepaid Solar Power Agreement with Kilowatt Systems, LLC, under which they acquired the use of 42 Bosch panels installed on their property by Sullivan. Sullivan installed 42 119 Panels on the Plaintiffs' property in a ground array, and Kilowatt retained ownership of the panels. The cost to the Plaintiffs was approximately $25,000. In November 2016, Bosch submitted a report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, advising that its 119 Panels posed a possible fire hazard due to overheating at the solder joints. On April 13, 2017, Bosch voluntarily recalled all roof-mounted 119 Panels due to the solder defect and potential fire hazard. An estimated 28,000 roof-mounted panels were subject to the recall. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission accepted Bosch's proposed corrective action plan as adequate. That plan required notice of the recall to distributors/installers, but not to homeowners or other end users. The Plaintiffs did not receive notification of the recall from Bosch. They learned of the recall from the putative class counsel David M. Birka-White in September 2017. Mr. Birka-White advised the Plaintiffs that he was investigating a potential lawsuit against Bosch and had gotten the Plaintiffs' name from Sullivan. The Plaintiffs called Sullivan, the company that had installed the solar panels on Plaintiffs' property, but Sullivan had not been informed of the recall. Sullivan reached out to Kilowatt, the company from which the Plaintiffs purchased solar power, but Kilowatt did not know of the recall either. The Plaintiffs then contacted Bosch, which agreed to replace the solar panels on their property even though the panels were ground-mounted. However, months passed without any action by Bosch. On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs were contacted by a company called Baker Electric Solar to schedule an inspection of their property prior to replacement of the solar panels. The inspection occurred on June 6, 2018. After the inspection, another four months passed without action. On Aug. 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs received an email from Bosch stating that the panels on their property were owned by a third party, and that a qualified installer would contact them about replacement. They previously had informed Bosch that the panels on their property were owned by a third party. The Plaintiffs felt that Bosch was simply stalling on replacing the panels. The Plaintiffs contacted Mr. Birka-White in September 2018 and requested representation. That same month, they filed the present suit against Bosch and filed a separate suit against Kilowatt. The Plaintiffs settled the action against Kilowatt in October 2018 in return for title to the 119 Panels on their property. Almost a year into the litigation, Bosch offered to replace the Plaintiffs' solar panels. The Plaintiffs declined on the grounds that the offer was "too little too late," and would impair their ability to act as class representatives in the present suit. The operative pleading is the second amended complaint ("SAC"), which asserts claims under the laws of California, Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina on behalf of residents of those states. On March 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Bosch's motion to dismiss the SAC ("Dismissal Order"). The Court determined that the Plaintiffs, who are California residents, lack standing to assert claims on behalf of residents of states other than California. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all claims asserted on behalf of residents of Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina. The Court also dismissed all claims other than Claim 1 for breach of warranty under state common law, Claim 2 for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2310, Claim 3 for breach of warranty under state statutory law, and Claim 5 for unjust enrichment. Finally, the Court found persuasive Bosch's argument that the Plaintiffs' warranty claims are governed by Michigan law under a choice of law provision contained in the Limited Warranty. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is governed by California law. Bosch filed an answer to the SAC on April 17, 2020. The Plaintiffs now seek class certification with respect to the warranty and unjust enrichment claims remaining in the SAC. However, rather than seeking certification of a California class, the Plaintiffs seek to amend their class definition to encompass a nationwide class on the warranty claims and a California subclass on the unjust enrichment claim. III. Discussion The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class on the warranty claims and a California subclass on the unjust enrichment claim, defined as follows: "All persons or entities in the United States who are the consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, and subsequent owners of Bosch solar panels module number NA30119, on breach of warranty claims. All persons or entities in the State of California who are the consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, and subsequent owners of Bosch solar panels module number NA30119, on unjust enrichment claims." The Plaintiffs acknowledge that the SAC does not allege a nationwide class, and they request leave to amend their class definition to encompass a nationwide class and a California subclass. In the alternative, they seek certification of a five-state class consisting of California, Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina. They argue that that the Rule 23 requirements are satisfied with respect to the proposed nationwide class and California subclass or, alternatively, a five-state class. In opposition, Bosch objects to the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment of the class definition as a blatant end-run around the Court's Dismissal Order. It contends that the proposed amendment would prejudice it and derail the case schedule. It also contends that the Rule 23 requirements are not satisfied with respect to any class. Judge Freeman first addresses the Plaintiffs' request to amend the class definition. Next, she summarizes evidentiary rulings the Court previously issued with respect to evidence submitted with the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification. She then turns to the Rule 23 requirements. A. Plaintiffs' Request to Amend the Class Definition In the present case, Judge Freeman has no difficulty concluding that the requested amendment goes far beyond allowable "minor" modifications to the class definition. The Plaintiffs propose to expand the California class contemplated by the Dismissal Order to a nationwide class with a California subclass or, alternatively, to the very five-state class the Court expressly rejected in the Dismissal Order. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs have not cited, and she has not discovered, any authority permitting such a major amendment to the class definition at the certification stage. The Plaintiffs' request to amend the class definition to encompass a nationwide class, or alternatively a five-state class, is denied. Judge Freeman considers the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification only with respect to a California class. Her ruling is without prejudice to a properly noticed motion for leave to amend the class definition. B. Ruling on Bosch's Objections to Reply Evidence After the Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for class certification, Bosch filed an objection to certain reply evidence. The Court ruled on Bosch's objection in a separate order issued on Nov. 23, 2021. Bosch objected to three pieces of reply evidence: (1) the affidavit of the Plaintiffs' notice expert, Todd B. Hilsee; (2) Paragraphs 2-10 and Exhibits A and D to the supplemental declaration of David M. Birka-White; and (3) the reply declaration of Michael V. Garcia. Judge Freeman sustained Bosch's objection in its entirety. Mr. Hilsee has not previously been disclosed as an expert in the case and now offers expert opinion on a key issue, the adequacy of Bosch's recall of the 119 Panels. The identified portions of Mr. Birka-White's supplemental declaration and Mr. Garcia's reply declaration contain new factual matter on the issue of damages. Accordingly, Judge Freeman has not considered Mr. Hilsee's affidavit or the identified declaration evidence submitted by Mr. Birka-White and Mr. Garcia. C. Rule 23(a) Requirements Judge Freeman holds that (i) accepting the Plaintiffs' undisputed figures, it appears that Bosch has replaced only a small fraction of the 119 panels installed in California, and that the number of end users in California exceeds 40; (ii) commonality requirement is satisfied with respect to the Plaintiffs' warranty claims and unjust enrichment claim; (iii) the Plaintiffs have established that their claims are coextensive with those of absent putative class members, and that Bosch has not identified any unique defenses that would call into doubt their ability to represent the class; and (iv) the Plaintiffs and their counsel have demonstrated the ability and the will to provide excellent representation for the putative class, in the face of notably aggressive litigation tactics on the part of Bosch. D. Rule 23(b) Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that common questions predominate with respect to liability on Claims 1-3 for breach of warranty to the extent those claims are brought under the Product Warranty, and with respect to liability on Claim 5 for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs have not established that common questions predominate with respect to liability on Claims 1-3 to the extent those claims are brought under the Performance Warranty. Judge Freeman also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 12(b)(3) commonality requirement with respect to damages. Finally, Bosch presents substantial evidence on the favorability of the recall terms, asserting that the recall affords more complete relief. However, it does not matter how favorable the terms of the recall are if it is not effective. Bosch does not offer evidence, or even argue, that it has replaced more than 9% of the 119 Panels in California to date. Under these circumstances, Judge Freeman concludes that going forward, class certification is the superior method of adjudicating the controversy. IV. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as set forth. Class certification is granted with respect to a California class as to Claims 1, 2, and 3, to the extent those claims are based on the Product Warranty, and as to Claim 5. Class certification is denied as to Claims 1, 2, and 3, to the extent those claims are based on the Performance Warranty. The following class is certified: "All persons or entities in the State of California who are the consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, and subsequent owners of Bosch solar panels module number NA30119, on claims for breach of the Product Warranty and unjust enrichment." Judge Freeman appointed Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas as the class representatives for the Class. She granted the proposed plan for providing notice to the Classes pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) within 30 days of the issuance of the Order. Judge Freeman finds that Birka-White Law Offices, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, and Levin Sedran and Berman satisfy the requirement of Rule 23(g) and are appointed as the Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs will submit a proposed plan for providing notice to the Class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) within 30 days of the issuance of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeypyh8 from Leagle.com. BRIGGS & RILEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Briggs & Riley Travelware, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Briggs & Riley Travelware, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02150 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Briggs & Riley Travelware -- https://www.briggs-riley.com/ -- is a manufacturer of luggage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING: Wins Securities Case in M.D. Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------- Brookdale Senior Living 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 15, 2022, that the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants in September 2021. Plaintiffs did not file an appeal. In June 2020, the company and several current and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The lawsuit asserted that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the company's business, operational and compliance policies that caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020. Brookdale Senior Living is an operator of senior living communities, operating and managing 679 communities in 41 states as of December 31, 2021, with the ability to serve more than 60,000 residents. CANOPY GROWTH: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP, Hagens Sobol Shapiro LLP, and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 14 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed securities class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Canopy Growth Corporation publicly-traded securities (NASDAQ: CGC): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION ("CANOPY") BETWEEN JUNE 27, 2018 AND MAY 28, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that a hearing will be held on June 7, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Kevin McNulty, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square, Courtroom PO 04, Newark, New Jersey 07102, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $13,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and Compensatory Awards to Lead Plaintiffs should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated February 4, 2022. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy Securities between June 27, 2018 and May 28, 2020, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Canopy securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Canopy Growth Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866) 274-4004, Facsimile: (610) 565-7985, or email: info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online at www.strategicclaims.net/Canopy/. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than 11:59 EST on June 14, 2022, or electronically no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on June 14, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than May 17, 2022, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and filed with the Court no later than May 17, 2022. Please also provide copies of objections to Lead Counsel and Counsel for Defendants listed below. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel listed below. Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Room 4015 Newark, NJ 07101 Lead Counsel Brian Calandra POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: bcalandra@pomlaw.com Shayne C. Stevenson HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: shaynes@hbsslaw.com Gonen Haklay THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com Counsel For Defendants Andrew Muscato Jay B. Kasner Susan L. Saltzstein SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS. Dated: February 7, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHARLES 4 PROJECTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles 4 Projects LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Charles 4 Projects LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02191 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Charles 4 Projects LLC is a business entity registered in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CIRCLE OF LIFE: Garland Sues Owner Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE GARLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JANE SPARRGROVE, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01008 (N.D. Iowa, March 10, 2022) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a caregiver from January of 2020 until November of 2021. The Defendant is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of Circle of Life Caregivers, a company which provides caregiving services to customers in their homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford , Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com april@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Thomas Newkirk, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, PLC 521 East Locust Street, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 883-2000 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com COBREA GOLD: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Cobrea Gold Incorporated. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cobrea Gold Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-02151 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cobra -- https://cobraplc.com/ -- is an exploration and mining company focused on the development of the Wudinna Gold Project.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com COMFORT CARE: Gutierrez Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gutierrez, both individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comfort Care Transportation, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00234 (W.D. Tex., March 10, 2022) seeks redress for the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as any related state law claims, for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver. She was an "employee" as that term is used in Section 203 of the FLSA because he was employed by Defendant to provide transportation for patients and elderly for non-emergency services. Comfort Care Transportation, LLC is an ambulance service provider that is located, headquartered, and conducts business in San Antonio, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 942-9415 E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com E-FILLIATE INC: Smith Sues Over Defective Wireless Earphones ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E-FILLIATE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00417-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal., March 4, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the Jobsite Pro Wireless Earphones sold under the DeWALT brand, all of which suffer from an identical defect in design, in violation of New York General Business Law; breach of implied warranty; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and unjust enrichment. Specifically, the Products are prone to overheating during charging or use and create the potential for a burn or fire hazard. Earphones that pose such a hazard are unreasonably dangerous compared to the utility of the Product. Moreover, such a defect can render the Product unusable during periods of overheating. As such, this defect rendered the Product unsuitable for its principal and intended purpose. Further, had Plaintiff been aware of this serious defect, he would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less for it. The Product that the Plaintiff purchased began to malfunction shortly after he purchased it because the Product would overheat during use. The Product that the Plaintiff purchased does not contain a manufacturer code and is included in the Product Recall. The Plaintiff reviewed the Product's packaging prior to purchase. Defendant disclosed on the packaging that the Product was an earphone and described features typical of earphones but did not disclose the defect. Had there been a disclosure, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product because the defect would have been material to him, or at the very least, he would have purchased the Product at a substantially reduced price. The Plaintiff relied on the packaging in making his purchase decision, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a pair of the DeWALT Jobsite Pro Wireless Earphones from a Lowe's hardware store located in Greece, New York. E-Filliate, Inc. is a manufacturing company that partners with several brand name companies, including DeWALT. Among the various items manufactured and sold by E-Filliate is the Jobsite Wireless Pro Earphone sold under the DeWALT brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Andrew J. Obergfell (pro hac vice forthcoming) 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aobergfell@bursor.com ECRU INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecru, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ecru, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02159 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ECRU, Inc. is a manufacturer's representative firm founded in 2006 representing quality contract furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com EVOLVE VACATION: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolve Vacation Rental Network, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Evolve Vacation Rental Network, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02116 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Evolve -- https://evolve.com/ -- makes vacation rental easy for guests and homeowners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FERRARA CANDY: Gardner Files Mislabeling Suit Over Caramel Product ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kianna Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ferrara Candy Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01272 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations of its caramel candy described as "Rich & Creamy," under the Nips brand, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and State Consumer Fraud Acts. According to the complaint, the Defendant's representation as "Caramel," described as "Rich & Creamy," causes consumers to expect a confection with a non-de minims amount of milk fat. However, the representations are false, deceptive, and misleading, because the product's fat content is almost exclusively from vegetable fat, says the suit. As a result of the alleged conduct, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.39 for 4oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the suit. The Ferrara Candy Company is an American candy manufacturer, based in Chicago, Illinois, and owned by the Ferrero Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com FLEETPRIDE INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FleetPride, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FleetPride, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02158 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FleetPride Inc. -- https://parts.fleetpride.com/ -- distributes heavy duty trucks and trailers replacement parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GARRETT MOTION: Faces Froehlich Securities Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Motion 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 14, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 5, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York bearing the caption "Joseph Froehlich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Olivier Rabiller, Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping Lu," Case No. 1:20-cv-09279-JPC. Said action also asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting technologies and is based in Switzerland. GARRETT MOTION: Husson Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Garrett Motion 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 14, 2022, that a putative securities class action complaint was filed in September 25, 2020 against Garrett Motion Inc. and certain current and former Garrett officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was dismissed after a voluntary dismissal was filed by the plaintiffs. The case is captioned "Steven Husson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping Lu," Case No. 1:20-cv-07992-JPC. The Husson Action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for securities fraud and control person liability. On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss his claim against Garrett Motion Inc. in light of the Company's bankruptcy; this request was granted. Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting technologies and is based in Switzerland. HAWAII MEDICAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Park Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PARK, SOOK JA; PARK, SOON Y.; PARK, GRACE; and KIM, JAE SOOK, Plaintiffs v. HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, CIV. No. 21-00039 JMS-WRP (D. Haw.), Judge J. Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued an Order: a. granting HMSA's Motion to Strike; and b. granting in part and denying in part HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Introduction Before the Court are two motions from Defendant Hawaii Medical Services Association ("HMSA"). The first is a Motion to Strike. In that Motion, HMSA requests that the court strike a report from the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Han-byul Chung, on the basis that Dr. Chung's report was submitted in a rebuttal posture -- i.e., responsive to a report from HMSA's expert, and past the deadline for opening reports—but contains opinions that go beyond merely rebutting the opinions provided by HMSA's expert. The second motion is a Motion for Summary Judgment that seeks judgment against all counts in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). As the Court explained in a prior order, all of the Plaintiffs' legal claims in the FAC are based on either or both of two allegations: (1) HMSA improperly denied the Plaintiffs medically necessary benefits and services to which they were entitled ("denial-of-benefits allegations"); and (2) HMSA provided deficient translations of plan documents to the Plaintiffs and thus failed to effectively address their cultural and language barriers ("deficient-translations allegations"). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, HMSA argues that both allegations require expert testimony to be proven at trial. II. Background The case concerns the State of Hawaii's Medicaid program. Hawaii's Department of Human Services ("DHS") oversees the state's Medicaid plan, i.e., the "Plan for Medicaid, QUEST Integration" or simply the "PLAN." DHS implements the PLAN by contracting with managed care organizations in order to provide medical services to PLAN enrollees. HMSA is a managed care organization; the Plaintiffs are PLAN enrollees and are beneficiaries to DHS's contracts with HMSA. The Plaintiffs were born in Korea, immigrated to the United States, and have limited English proficiency. HMSA is contractually obligated to cover "medically necessary" services for enrollees. That contractual obligation incorporates requirements from various regulations and statutes, including Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") Section 432E-1.4(a), which requires managed care organizations to cover health services recommended by an enrollee's treating physician and determined by the managed care organization's director or physician designee to be "medically necessary," as defined in HRS Section 432E-1.4(b). As one example of medical necessity, HMSA is obligated to provide certain "Long-Term Services and Supports ('LTSS')" and "Home and community-based services ('HCBS')" to enrollees that are at risk of deteriorating to the institutional level of care. HMSA completes the "at risk" determinations through quantitative health-and-functional assessments; enrollees scoring above a certain level are deemed at risk of requiring institutionalization. To illustrate, during the period from Jan. 27, 2020 through Jan. 26, 2021, enrollees scoring five or more functional points were deemed at risk of institutionalization. At other times, a score of 11 was the threshold for the at-risk classification. The Plaintiffs allege they were improperly denied medically necessary LTSS and/or HCBS benefits when they were at risk of institutionalization. They cast those denial-of-benefits allegations as various legal claims: In Count I of the FAC, the Plaintiffs assert that their denial-of-benefits allegations establish violations of the PLAN contract, Appendix K, and 42 C.F.R. Section 438.208. In Count II, the Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring the meaning and scope of the PLAN's coverage of HCBS, which will "assist the Plaintiffs in seeking relief, including specific performance and damages," to remedy the denial of their benefits. In Count V, the Plaintiffs assert that their denial-of-benefits allegations establish violations of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under the PLAN contract.And Count VII asserts that the denial-of-benefits allegations -- and, more specifically, the denials' disproportionate and adverse effects on the Korea-born Plaintiffs -- establish discrimination motivated by national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 18116. The Plaintiffs allege that when HMSA furnished PLAN documents and notices to the Korean-speaking Plaintiffs, those documents and notices were translated in a manner that was insufficient to provide the Plaintiffs proper notice regarding their rights and benefits, thus violating HMSA's cultural-competency obligations. The Plaintiffs cast those deficient-translations allegations as various legal claims: In Count III, the Plaintiffs assert that their deficient-translations allegations establish violations of the PLAN contract, HRS Section 432:1-101.5, HRS Section 431:10-109, and 42 C.F.R. Sections 431.206, 438.10, 438.71, and 438.404. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs assert that their deficient-translations allegations establish that HMSA withheld, misrepresented, and obfuscated essential information regarding their rights to file grievances and appeals, amounting to a denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(3). In Count V, the Plaintiffs assert that their deficient-translations allegations establish violations of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under the PLAN contract. And in Count VII, the Plaintiffs incorporate their deficient-translations allegations and assert that HMSA's methods for denying benefits disproportionately and adversely affected the Korean-speaking Plaintiffs, amounting to discrimination based on national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 18116. To summarize, the Plaintiffs' denial-of-benefits allegations are pertinent to Counts I, II, V, and VII of the FAC. Their deficient-translations allegations are pertinent to Counts III, IV, V, and VII of the FAC. The case was originally filed in Hawaii state court but was removed to the Court on Jan. 20, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on Oct. 28, 2021. And on Nov. 29, 2021, HMSA filed two motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Court heard those motions on Jan. 18, 2022, and issued an order on Jan. 27, 2022 dismissing Count VI with prejudice and dismissing Count VIII with partial leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' partial leave to amend Count VIII was later extended until seven days after the issuance of the Order. HMSA also filed a third motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was mooted by the parties' stipulating to the dismissal of the class allegations in the FAC. HMSA filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on Dec. 8, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on Feb. 7, 2022. In support of their Opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a Concise Statement of Facts, which included as an attachment a "Written Opinion" from Dr. Han-byul Chung that addressed the previously submitted opinion of HMSA's expert witness, Mr. Steven C. Silver. HMSA had disclosed Mr. Silver's identity and his written report to the Plaintiffs on Jan. 7, 2022, the deadline for HMSA to disclose opening expert-witness materials under the court's scheduling order. Although the Plaintiffs had identified Dr. Chung as an expert witness in their initial disclosures on March 8, 2021, they failed to provide a written report authored by Dr. Chung to HMSA before Nov. 8, 2021, the deadline for the Plaintiffs to disclose opening expert-witness materials under the court's scheduling order. On Feb. 14, 2022, HMSA filed both its Reply in support of summary judgment, and the instant Motion to Strike Dr. Chung's report. Because the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion to Strike are intertwined, the Court held a status conference on Feb. 16, 2022 and ordered that the briefing for the Motion to Strike be expedited so that the Court could decide the Motions together. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion to Strike on Feb. 22, 2022. And HMSA filed its Reply on Feb. 25, 2022. The Court held a hearing on both Motions on March 2, 2022. III. Analysis Judge Seabright will grant the Motion to Strike: By submitting Dr. Chung's report as a rebuttal report but having that report address issues outside the scope of rebuttal, the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the timing requirements for submitting expert materials pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's scheduling order. The sanction for violating those timing requirements is exclusion of the improperly submitted expert testimony. Accordingly, Dr. Chung's testimony is excluded from the case. As for HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Seabright grants summary judgment against the Plaintiffs' deficient-translations allegations because those allegations require expert testimony to be proven at trial and the Plaintiffs have failed to provide expert testimony. But as for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs' denial-of-benefits allegations, Judge Freeman denies summary judgment as to three of the Plaintiffs and grants summary judgment as to the other Plaintiff: The Plaintiffs' treating physicians can provide percipient expert testimony based on prior medical evaluations, but only three Plaintiffs have submitted relevant evaluations that could form the basis for such testimony. A. Motion to Strike (Exclude) the Report of Plaintiffs' Expert Witness In its Motion to Strike, HMSA requests that the Court precludes the Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Chung or his opinions as evidence on any motion, at any hearing, or at a trial. Because HMSA requests exclusion of Dr. Chung's testimony, Judge Seabright treats HMSA's Motion as a motion in limine to exclude. Judge Seabright grants HMSA's Motion to Strike. He finds that Dr. Chung's report does not rebut Mr. Silver's report -- instead, it is in direct support of the Plaintiffs' deficient-translations allegations. Because Dr. Chung's opinions support the Plaintiffs' claims but do not rebut Mr. Silver's opinions, they should have been disclosed "by a written report" "at the time and in the sequence that the Court orders," i.e., by the Plaintiffs' Nov. 8, 2021 deadline. The Plaintiffs failed to meet that deadline. Rule 37(c)(1) requires exclusion of Dr. Chung's testimony unless the Plaintiffs' delay was "substantially justified" or "harmless." The Plaintiffs do not attempt to (nor could they) argue that the delay was substantially justified. And HMSA would clearly be harmed by the admission of Dr. Chung's improper testimony: HMSA and its expert were forced to craft a defense without the benefit of Dr. Chung's opinions, which were required to be disclosed to HMSA before it crafted its defense, pursuant to the arrangement in the court's scheduling order. Dr. Chung's report is excluded, and the Plaintiffs are precluded from using Dr. Chung as a witness in the case. B. Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Counts The premise of HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment is simple: The Plaintiffs' claims require expert testimony to be capable of proof at trial, and because they have failed to provide expert testimony in support of their claims, summary judgment should be granted against those claims. Judge Seabright agrees as to the claims involving the deficient-translations allegations. But he disagrees, in part, as to the claims involving the denial-of-benefits allegations. First, he finds that because testimony regarding the adequacy of the Korean translations in the PLAN documents must be based on specialized knowledge, testimony from the Plaintiffs themselves cannot carry their burden in proving the deficient-translations allegations. And given that Dr. Chung's opinions have been excluded, "there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to the deficient-translations allegations in Counts III, IV, V, and VII of the FAC. As to Plaintiff Jae Sook Kim, Judge Seabright grants the Motion for Summary Judgment against the denial-of-benefits allegations in Counts III, IV, V, and VII of the FAC. He says, no claims remain as to Plaintiff Jae Sook Kim. But as to Plaintiffs Grace Park, Soon Y. Park, and Sook Ja Park, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied against the denial-of-benefits allegations in those Counts. Judge Seabright says, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence at summary judgment to support the existence of the alleged prior awards, her age, or her medical conditions at the time she was denied adult-day-care benefits. She did not provide a declaration as to those assertions, and the Court cannot base a denial of summary judgment merely on attorney argument suggesting that a plaintiff can testify in support of certain assertions. In addition, HMSA has not been afforded an opportunity to attack the sufficiency of Plaintiffs Grace Park, Soon Y. Park, and Sook Ja Park's evidence -- including their medical evaluations conducted by treating physicians -- at the summary judgment stage. HMSA was denied that opportunity because the Plaintiffs failed to name the treating physicians as expert witnesses and to serve the medical evaluations before HMSA filed its Motion. If HMSA determines that it wants to file a different motion for summary judgment attacking the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' evidence, HMSA is given leave to do so by filing a motion no later than April 8, 2022. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Seabright granted HMSA's Motion to Strike. Dr. Chung's report is excluded, and the Plaintiffs may not use Dr. Chung as a witness in the case. HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to the deficient-translations allegations in Counts III, IV, V, and VII of the FAC. And as to Plaintiff Jae Sook Kim, HMSA's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted against Plaintiff Kim's denial-of-benefits allegations in Counts III, IV, V, and VII. But as to Plaintiffs Grace Park, Soon Y. Park, and Sook Ja Park, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied with respect to the denial-of-benefits allegations in Counts III, IV, V, and VII. HMSA is given leave to file an additional motion for summary judgment by April 8, 2022, if it chooses to do so. A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/35529jp3 from Leagle.com. HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Ford Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Patrick Ford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heraeus Precious Metals North America LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03063, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01498-JAK-KS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Heraeus -- https://www.heraeus.com/en/group/home/home.html -- is a leading provider of precious metals services and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP APC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 975-1493 Fax: (310) 675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com - and - Joshua Samson Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (818) 456-6168 Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason E. Murtagh, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 346-7592 Fax: (619) 702-3898 Email: jason.murtagh@bipc.com HOEK HOME: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoek Home LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hoek Home LLC doing business as: Hoek, Case No. 1:22-cv-02120 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hoek Home -- https://www.hoekhome.com/ -- is a new line of flat-pack furniture that could be assembled and disassembled in seconds, no tools or hardware required.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com HOWIES HOCKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Howies Hockey, Incorporated. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Howies Hockey, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-02153 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Howies Hockey Tape -- https://howieshockeytape.com/ -- provides the World's Highest Quality hockey tape and skate laces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com JUUL LABS: Blackfoot School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- BLACKFOOT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01665-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Blackfoot School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 270 East Bridge Street in Blackfoot, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Idaho Falls Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- IDAHO FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01666-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Idaho Falls School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 690 John Adams Parkway in Idaho Falls, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in N.Y., Roxbury Central Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROXBURY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01679 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Roxbury Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 53729 New York State Route 30 in Roxbury, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, East Syracuse-Minoa Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EAST SYRACUSE-MINOA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01684 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 407 Fremont Road in East Syracuse, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Murray Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MURRAY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01660 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Murray City School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 5102 South Commerce Drive in Murray, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wilder School Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILDER SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01659 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Wilder School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 210 A. Avenue East in Wilder, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Honeoye Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic ------------------------------------------------------------- HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01682 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 20 Church Street in Honeoye Falls, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Rich School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICH SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01663-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Rich School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 25 South 100 West in Randolph, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Tintic School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- TINTIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01686 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Tintic School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 545 East Main Street in Eureka, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces West Jefferson Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- WEST JEFFERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01672 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. West Jefferson School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1256 East 1500 North in Terreton, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Freedom Preparatory Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------- FREEDOM PREPARATORY ACADEMY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01662 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Freedom Preparatory Academy is a unified school district with its offices located at 1190 West 900 North in Provo, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: General Brown Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL BROWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01667 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. General Brown Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 17643 Cemetery Road in Dexter, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Jefferson County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01664-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Jefferson County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 3850 East 300 North in Rigby, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lincoln Academy Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ LINCOLN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01689-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Lincoln Academy Charter School is a charter school district with its offices located at 1582 West 3300 North, #9041 in Pleasant Grove, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Canyon Rim Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CANYON RIM ACADEMY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01691 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Canyon Rim Academy is a free public charter school with its offices located at 3005 South 2900 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: North Summit Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01661 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. North Summit School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 65 South Main in Coalville, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Oneida School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Idaho --------------------------------------------------------------- ONEIDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01678 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Oneida School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 25 East 50 South in Malad, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Pocatello Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------------ POCATELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01671 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Pocatello School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 3115 Pole Line Road in Pocatello, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Traverse City Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01685 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Traverse City Area Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 412 Webster Street in Traverse City, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: South Jefferson Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH JEFFERSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01674 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. South Jefferson Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 13180 U.S. Route 11 in Adams Center, New York. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: St. Maries Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Idaho -------------------------------------------------------------- ST. MARIES JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01676 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. St. Maries Joint School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 240 South 11th Street in St. Maries, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Ririe School Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01673 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Ririe School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 260 1st West in Ririe, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: West Jefferson Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEST JEFFERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01672 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. West Jefferson School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1256 East 1500 North in Terreton, Idaho. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Ruffin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RONALD RUFFIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS P.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-05422 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii) denied their motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. I. Introduction Plaintiff Ruffin brings the putative class action against Kirschenbaum & Phillips ("K&P"), LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, Limited Partnership, and Sherman Financial Group, LLC (collectively, the "LVNV Defendants") for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., N.Y. General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349, and N.Y. Judiciary Law ("Jud. Law") Section 487. K&P and the LVNV Defendants (collectively, "Defendants") move to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56. The Defendants' joint motion is supported by attorney declarations, together with exhibits, and a memorandum of law. The Plaintiff's opposition consists of a brief and declaration in opposition. The motion was fully briefed with the service of the Defendants' attorney reply declaration and reply memorandum of law. All motion papers were filed on June 8, 2021. II. Background An Income Execution dated July 24, 2019, which was prepared and signed by K&P, was served on the Plaintiff in September 2019 with a notice dated September 5, 2019, by the Westchester County Sheriff's Civil Unit. The Plaintiff alleges that the Income Execution stated that a judgment had been "duly entered" against him, and that it directed him to "satisfy the judgment with interest together with fees and expenses." The Income Execution sought to enforce a $2,858.32 default judgment entered against the Plaintiff on Dec. 12, 2007, concerning a 2005 state court action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Westchester. The Plaintiff, however, contends that he was not served with the 2005 state court action that had been commenced by LVNV in 2005. The Plaintiff alleges that LVNV had employed Solomon & Solomon, P.C., a law firm that is not a defendant in the action, who, through a process server company called American Legal Process ("ALP"), obtained the default judgment. He alleges further that the basis for the default was a false affidavit of service signed by an ALP employee, Gene Gagliardi, and notarized by its owner, William Singler. K&P was later substituted as counsel for LVNV in the state court action, and the Plaintiff alleges that by then, K&P knew or should have known that the judgment obtained against him was based on a false affidavit because: (1) ALP is infamous for its systemic sewer service practice, which had resulted in default judgments in tens of thousands of New York state court collection actions; (2) ALP's owner, Singler, pled guilty to felony scheming to defraud in a suit brought by the State of New York against ALP and Singler based upon the sewer service scheme, which was widely reported in early 2010; (3) K&P was named as a Respondent in an Erie County Supreme Court case concerning ALP's sewer service scheme, entitled In the Matter of the Petition of Honorable Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System v. Forster & Garbus, et al. ("Matter of Pfau"), and K&P entered into a Consent Order in that action; (4) the submissions in Matter of Pfau included a chart showing that ALP process servers, including Gagliardi (the process server in Plaintiff's state court action), signed affidavits of service placing them at two or more locations simultaneously in thousands of instances; and (5) the ALP scheme was highlighted in other court decisions in which K&P was counsel of record. The Plaintiff alleges that although the Defendants had or should have had knowledge of fraudulently prepared affidavits of service by ALP since at least 2010, they continue to enforce the collection actions relating to those judgments, have not performed independent investigations of the judgments obtained based on ALP's service, and continue to affirmatively assert the veracity of the ALP affidavits in the course of enforcing the default judgment. Indeed, "when faced with Orders to Show Cause regarding vacatur of judgments obtained by means of ALP judgments, K&P doubles down, knowingly misrepresenting the law and, without reference to the ALP Sewer Service Scheme or its knowledge of Singler's guilty plea, urging the Court to rely upon the affidavits of service that it has every reason to believe are perjured." On Sept. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed such an order to show cause in the state court action alleging that, inter alia, he had not been served, and K&P responded with such an affirmation on Oct. 23, 2019. On Dec. 6, 2019, the state court judgment was vacated. The Plaintiff commenced the action on July 14, 2020. III. Analysis A. The FDCPA Claim 1. Statute of Limitations Judge Halpern finds that the Plaintiff's claim for relief alleges that the Defendants violated the FDCPA within the last year by affirmatively misrepresenting the ALP affidavits as true and proper, concealing their knowledge of the falseness of the affidavits, and continuing to collect on the underlying judgment. He says, the Plaintiff has alleged plausibly that these violations occurred within the one-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's action is not time-barred. 2. The 2019 Income Execution The Defendants argue that there was nothing false or misleading about the Income Execution, and it was not unfair or unconscionable, because: (1) judgments are presumptively valid; (2) the Plaintiff has not alleged that "K&P was aware of ALP's involvement in the Collection Action at the time the Income Execution was issued" (Def. Br. at 12); and (3) the language of the 2019 Income Execution complied with the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). The Defendants further argue that any alleged misrepresentation in the Income Execution was not material, and that the Plaintiff fails to state a "meaningful review claim" under section 1692e(3). Judge Halpern disagrees. Among other things, he opines that (i) the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Defendants were on notice as early as 2010 that default judgments based upon ALP's affidavits were potentially fraudulent and sought to enforce the default judgment despite this knowledge; (ii) he cannot say that the alleged misrepresentations were not misleading or deceptive as to the nature or legal status of the Plaintiff's debt' or that they would not `have prevented the least sophisticated consumer from responding to or disputing the action; and (iii) because "courts have generally allowed claims to proceed past the pleading stage under this theory," including under circumstances similar to that alleged in the case, the Plaintiff's section 1692e(3) will proceed to discovery. 3. The Opposition to the Order to Show Cause The Defendants argue that certain statements made in opposition to the Plaintiff's order to show cause to vacate the default judgment in the state court action cannot be deemed false under the FDCPA. The Plaintiff counters that those statements -- that he "was served with a copy of the Summons and Verified Complaint in the matter by service upon a person of suitable age and discretion" and that "another copy of the Summons and Verified Complaint was mailed to him by the process server on Oct. 01, 2007" -- are violative of the FDCPA under circumstances where the Defendants were aware at all relevant times of the ALP sewer service scheme and had no good faith basis to believe that proper service had occurred. Judge Halpern finds that the Defendants, indisputably on notice of the ALP sewer service scheme and the Plaintiff's contentions in connection therewith, continued to enforce the collection action, affirm the veracity of the affidavit of service, and urge the state court to blindly accept the validity of the affidavits. The Plaintiff plausibly alleged a violation of the FDCPA in connection with the Defendants' opposition to the motion to vacate the judgment, and accordingly, the claim proceeds to discovery. 4. Vicarious Liability As specifically regards Resurgent and Sherman, Judge Halpern holds that the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a claim because he relies merely on their purported corporate relationship with LVNV. The FAC alleges only that the LVNV Defendants' business structure subjects all three to liability, and does not allege that Resurgent or Sherman were involved in communicating with him or attempting to collect a debt from him in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims against Resurgent and Sherman are dismissed. B. The GBL Section 349 Claim Judge Halpern states that allegations that consumers are forced to respond to fraudulent lawsuits or else face the penalty of wrongful default judgments, garnished wages, restrained bank accounts and impaired credit opportunities describe the type of deceptive conduct that is prohibited by GBL Section 349. As he discussed, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the Defendants engaged in materially misleading conduct under the FDCPA that has been held actionable under GBL Section 349: The Plaintiff has described a course of debt collection practices seeking to collect upon judgments in which ALP was the process server, knowing of the ALP sewer service scheme, and representing directly or indirectly to consumers, courts, and others that the underlying affidavits of service are in all ways valid. Accordingly, for the same reasons he discussed, Judge Halpern holds that the Plaintiff's GBL Section 349 claim survives as to K&P and LVNV, but not Resurgent and Sherman. The Defendants' motion is thus granted only as to Resurgent and Sherman. C. The Jud. Law Section 487 Claim The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's allegations concerning the opposition to the motion in the state court action fails to support the Jud. Law Section 487 claim for relief. As the Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendants on this point, Judge Halpern, therefore, dismissed the claim insofar as it concerns the opposition has been abandoned. The Defendants further argue that the claim concerning the 2019 Income Execution is insufficient because the alleged deceit was not directed at a court and did not occur while the state court action was pending. "The alleged deceit forming the basis for a cause of action under Section 487, if it is not directed at a court, must occur during the course of a pending judicial proceeding." As the Plaintiff acknowledges, "several federal district courts have upheld a blanket exclusion of post-judgment restraints, levies, executions, etc." Because the Plaintiff's allegations concerning the 2019 Income Execution allege deceitful statements made in a post-judgment collection document, such statements, "by definition, did not 'occur during the course of a pending judicial proceeding.'" Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Jud. Law Section 487 claim is dismissed. D. Summary Judgment Judge Halpern opines that the Defendants failed to annex a Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts in support of their alternative motion summary judgment. The failure to submit such a statement is sufficient grounds to deny the motion. He therefore denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on that ground. Even if Judge Halpern did employ a summary judgment analysis therein, based upon the instant record, the result would be the same. The salient facts are disputed, requiring a credibility determination from the Court as noted supra, which it will not do on a motion for summary judgment. The hearsay documents upon which Defendants principally rely in support of their motion for summary judgment are inadmissible and the Court does not consider them. Finally, for the reasons the First Amended Complaint survives the motion to dismiss, Defendants have not established they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renewal after the parties have had the benefit of discovery. IV. Conclusion For the reasons he outlined, Judge Halpern granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. The Plaintiff's claims against Resurgent and Sherman are dismissed and the Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief for violation of Jud. Law Section 487 is dismissed against all the Defendants. Defendants K&P and LVNV are directed to file an Answer to the FAC within 14 days of the filing of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 58 and terminate Resurgent and Sherman as Defendants in the action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6de7ds from Leagle.com. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Case in New York Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, 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 15, 2022, that the lead plaintiff in a putative class action securities lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. On March 2, 2021, Leidos and certain current officers of Leidos were named as defendants in a putative class action securities lawsuit filed in said court. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or omissions in Leidos' public filings with the SEC and other public statements during the period from May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021 relating, among other things, to Leidos' acquisition of the SD&A Businesses. The plaintiff sought to recover from the company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages at this time. On July 30, 2021, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On September 28, 2021, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Leidos Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company. Its subsidiary and principal operating company, Leidos, Inc., is into in science, research and engineering. LIN R. ROGERS: Walker Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PAUL J. WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; ROGERS ELECTRIC SERVICE CORPORATION; JOSHUA MCCREADY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01240473-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00408 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time violations, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to pay for unused vacation time, and unfair competition. Lin R. Rogers Electrical Contractors, Inc. is a provider of electrical, lighting, and technology contracting services based in Georgia. Rogers Electric Service Corporation is an electrical contractor based in Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Douglas A. Wickham, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: dwickham@littler.com - and – Rachel T. Segal, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: rsegal@littler.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Suit in D. Md. -------------------------------------------------------- Marriott 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 15, 2022, that a putative class action lawsuit filed on December 1, 2018 against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with statements regarding the company's cybersecurity systems and controls and seeking certification of a class of affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief was consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding also included two shareholder derivative complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019, respectively, against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages and restitution, changes to the company's corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief. The company's motions to dismiss the MDL Derivative Cases were granted in June 2021. The plaintiffs in the MDL Derivative Cases have not appealed. Marriot is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of hotel, residential, and timeshare properties under numerous brand names at different price and service points. MENASHA ENTERTAINMENT: Miller Seeks Exotic Dancers' Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MENASHA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a BLU SAPPHIRES, CURT STRATTON, KEVIN WEAVER, and NEELA SATHIYAMOORTHY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00327 (E.D. Wisc., March 14, 2022) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff Miller, individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed classes arising from Sapphires denial of Plaintiff Miller and the putative class members minimum wages, tip compensation, and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well as minimum wages, agreed upon wages, tip compensation, and overtime compensation in violation of Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or were, employees of the Defendants at times since March 14, 2019. Within the statutory period of three years from the filing of this complaint, Sapphires allegedly has had uniform policies and practices of failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime premium compensation, withholding earned tips, and failing to compensate Plaintiff Miller and the putative class members for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law, says the suit. Plaintiff Miller and the putative class members have been subject to multiple illegal deductions as a result of Sapphires' policies. They work, or have worked, as exotic dancers for Sapphires at times since March 14, 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer Murshid, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 207-6079 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, 1:20-cv-05914-AT (S.D.N.Y.) If you are a former or current Morgan Stanley client who was sent a data breach notice letter in July 2020 and/or June 2021 notifying you that your Personal Information may have been compromised in Data Security Incidents, you are eligible for benefits from a class action settlement. A federal court has authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Please read this Notice carefully and completely A class action Settlement has been proposed in a case against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("Morgan Stanley") regarding its decommissioning of information technology ("IT") equipment containing customer data ("the Data Security Incidents"). Plaintiffs allege that in 2016 and 2019, Morgan Stanley failed to properly dispose of certain IT assets and, as a result, may have exposed its clients' private information, including, but not limited to, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, income, asset value, asset holding information, dates of birth and other personal information (collectively, "PII"). Morgan Stanley first disclosed the Data Security Incidents in July 2020 and June 2021. AM I INCLUDED? You are a Settlement Class Member if you have an existing or closed Morgan Stanley account established in the United States and were sent a notice letter by Morgan Stanley in July 2020 and/or June 2021 (the "Settlement Class"). If you received a notice from the Settlement Administrator about this class action Settlement addressed to you, then the Settlement Administrator has already determined that you are a Settlement Class Member. If you did not receive a notice but believe you may be a Class Member, please contact the Settlement Administrator at (855) 604-1744 to verify your identity and receive further information. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? The Settlement, if approved by the Court, would establish a Settlement Fund of $60 million, which will be used to provide at least 24-months of fraud insurance coverage for all Settlement Class Members, reimburse Class Members for out-of-pocket losses and lost time researching and remedying the effects of the Data Security Incidents, as well as to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and a service award for each of the named Plaintiffs. As part of the Settlement, Morgan Stanley will also hire and pay for a third party for a period of 12 months to attempt to locate and retrieve additional missing IT devices potentially containing customer PII. Morgan Stanley will also pay reasonable costs of notice and administration separately from the Settlement Fund. DO I HAVE A LAWYER IN THE CASE? The Court appointed Jean S. Martin of Morgan & Morgan and Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. as "Class Counsel" to represent all members of the Settlement Class. You will not be individually charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. Class Counsel intends to request up to 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Court will decide the amount of fees and expenses to award. Class Counsel will also request that a Service Award of $5,000 be paid to each of the Class Representatives for their services in the litigation as representatives of the Settlement Class. THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of the Settlement and any requests for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing at 11:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, June 8, 2022, via teleconference. The details for attending the teleconference can be found on the Settlement Website. You do not need to attend this hearing to receive benefits from the Settlement, but if you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must make a request to do so in your written objection or comment. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check www.MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com or call (855) 604-1744. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are timely objections, the Court will consider them at this hearing. The Court will also rule on the request for attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses, as well as the request for service awards for the Class Representatives. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. We do not know how long the Court will take to make these decisions. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? Submit a Claim Form Deadline: Postmarked by June 2, 2022 This is the only way to receive a monetary payment for losses suffered as a result of the Data Security Incidents. You can file a claim online on www.MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com, download a Claim Form from the Settlement Website and mail it, or you may call (855) 604-1744 and ask that a Claim Form be mailed to you. If your Claim Form is determined to be complete and valid, you will receive an email (at the email address provided in the Claim Form) after the Court grants Final Approval prompting you to select how you would like to be paid. You can receive your payment via a variety of digital options such as digital debit card or PayPal, or you can elect to receive a check. Ask to be Excluded from the Settlement Deadline: Postmarked by May 3, 2022 You will not receive a payment, but you will retain the right to bring your own action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. This is the only option that allows you to bring a separate action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. For detailed information on how to exclude yourself from the Settlement, please visit www.MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com. Object to the Settlement Deadline: Postmarked by May 3, 2022 You may write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement. You may also write to the Court about why you support the Settlement. For detailed information on how to object to or comment on the Settlement, please visit www.MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com. Appear at the Final Approval Hearing on June 8, 2022 You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement. If you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must make a request to do so in your written objection or comment. Do Nothing If you do nothing, you will not get a monetary payment from this Settlement. If the Court grants final approval, you will be entitled to enroll in Aura's Financial Shield Services for a period of at least 24 months from the Effective Date of the Settlement, which will provide broad fraud insurance coverage. You will give up rights to submit a claim in this Settlement or to bring a different action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incident. ONVOY LLC: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA LOPEZ, GREGORY KILCREASE, VERONICA HOWARD and REGINA ROGERS and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ONVOY, LLC; INTELIQUENT, INC.; IP HORIZON COMMUNICATIONS LLC; HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI (MOHELA); SOCIAL FINANCE, INC.; SOFI LENDING CORP; DOE TELEMARKETING COMPANIES 1-10 and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-01607 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) contends that the Defendants promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The class action seeks to stop Defendants from placing thousands of unauthorized telephone calls featuring pre-recorded messages with artificial voices containing highly deceptive and dangerous content that are made by VoIP Telecommunication Carriers to consumers who borrowed federal student loans, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants' illegal conduct. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are actively engaged in a scheme to prey upon federal student loan borrowers by placing tens of thousands of robocalls and transmitting direct voicemail messages featuring prerecorded artificial voice messages and delivering these robocalls to victims' cellular telephones with "spoofed" telephone numbers appearing on federal student loan borrowers-victim's caller identification using Defendants' VoIP telephone services and Voice API technology in violation of TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendants also gather biometric information from federal student loan borrowers during these calls 18 recording voiceprints in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, says the suit. The Telecommunication Defendants, as the agents or sub-agent of SoFi and SoFi's agent MOHELA, place telephonic sales calls to federal student loan borrowers whose loans are serviced by MOHELA, using an automated system for the dialing of telephone numbers that deliver alleged fraudulent prerecorded messages featuring artificial voices to consumers when they answer the call and capture biometric information from these federal student loan borrowers (i.e., voiceprints); or deliver the fraudulent prerecorded message with artificial voices directly to consumer' voicemails and provide a number where the consumer can return the illegal robocall that routes the consumer to the Telemarketing Defendants' call center where agents attempt to keep the consumer talking on the phone to gather biometric identifiers (i.e., recording their voice) and attempt to gather their personal and confidential information to be used for fraudulent purposes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Ste PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com PANADERIA CONTRERAS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Cardenas Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA CARDENAS on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANADERIA CONTRERAS, INC., PANADERIA CONTRERAS #2, INC., and MANUEL CONTRERAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00599-NYW (D. Colo., March 10, 2022) arises from the Defendants' refusal to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. Ms. Cardenas was employed by the Defendants from approximately May 2015, through approximately October 2021 as grocery store, bakery, and restaurant laborer in Defendants' Contreras Markets in Denver and Aurora in Colorado. Panaderia Contreras, Inc. is a Denver, Colorado-based Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com PATTERSON COMPANIES: $63MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PATTERSON COMPANIES INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC. ("PATTERSON") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 26, 2013 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2018, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Court"), that Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all members of the certified Class, and defendants Patterson and Scott P. Anderson (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $63 million (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on June 9, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael J. Davis, Senior United States District Judge, either in person or remotely at the Court's discretion, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Diana E. Murphy United States Courthouse, Courtroom 13E, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415 to determine, among other things, whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable. The capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as they have in the Stipulation. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and/or consider any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Members of the Class. The ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or video conference, without further written notice to the Class. To determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video conference, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person, telephonic or video conference appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to the Settlement website, www.PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference, the phone number for accessing the telephonic conference or the website for accessing the video conference will be posted to the Settlement website, www.PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com. If you are a Member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the Settlement website, www.PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Patterson Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 43391 Providence, RI 02940-3391 1-888-729-5720 info@PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form are also available by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/, or by visiting the Office of the Clerk, Diana E. Murphy United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 202, Minneapolis, MN 55415, (612) 664-5000, during normal business hours. Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice or a Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 SAXENA WHITE P.A. LESTER HOOKER 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online (no later than May 25, 2022). If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Class Member that did not previously request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court and the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice so that it is postmarked no later than May 19, 2022. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice, such that they are received no later than May 19, 2022. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: February 3, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Lollar Sues Over OSHA Standards' Compliance --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN LOLLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; POLARIS SALES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00820 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons who purchased in Texas, in the four years preceding this Complaint, Polaris Utility Terrain Vehicles ("UTVs") (they are also called side-by-sides) that Polaris claimed/advertised/marked/certified that the vehicles' rollover protection system ("ROPS") complied with the department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") requirements/standards of 29 C.F.R. section 1928.53 (which is for agricultural tractors). "Class Vehicles" include, but is not limited to the following models: Polaris RZR XP 4 Turbo S; Polaris RZR XP 4 Turbo EPS; Polaris RZR PRO XP Ultimate; Polaris RZR XP Turbo S; Polaris RZR XP Turbo EPS; Polaris RZR XP 4 1000 High Lifter; Polaris RZR XP 4 Turbo S Velocity; Polaris RZR PRO XP Premium; Polaris RZR XP 4 1000 Premium; and Polaris RZR XP 4 Turbo. The Plaintiff contends that none of the Class Vehicles sold by Polaris meet the OSHA requirements of 29 C.F.R. section 1928.53. Polaris tells all of their customers that their ROPS are safe because they meet this standard. They do not. Polaris has also staved off federal regulations by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") in part by causing the adoption of newly-created industry standards as part of the self-regulation revolution. Even after adopting farm tractor standards issued for worker safety on farms in the early 1970s, Polaris cheats and does not even meet those standards, the Plaintiff adds. Roof strength is a vital safety concern to consumers given the strong likelihood of UTVs rolling over. The failure to meet all applicable federal and state statutes, standards, regulations, and self-adopted regulations, including OSHA 29 C.F.R. section 1928.53 requirements is material information for consumers purchasing/leasing UTVs, such as the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or other applicable law, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as members of the proposed class defined as follows: "All persons in Texas that purchased a Class Vehicle in the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint." The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or other applicable law, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as members of the proposed subclass as follows: "All persons in Texas that purchased a Class Vehicle in the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint where Polaris used a load distributor when testing the ROPS strength for certification." Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class are any judges, justices or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. Ghazzaleh Rezazadeh, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES , PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com ghazzaleh@ellzeylaw.com - and - Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN 8827 W. Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 273-1230 Facsimile: (310) 858-1063 E-mail: jmartinez@cz.law - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0028 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Christopher W. Wood, Esq. DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 E-mail: cwood@dbbwc.com PROCTOR360 INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Collection of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROCTOR360 INC., Case No. 2022LA000250 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 14, 2022) seeks to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's improper and lackluster collection, storage, and protection of individuals' biometrics in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using his and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers 1 and biometric information 2 (referred to collectively at times as "biometrics"). The Defendant allegedly failed to provide the requisite data retention and destruction policies to the public, failed to procure Plaintiff's consent before collecting his biometrics, and failed to provide Plaintiff the specific purpose and length of term for which biometrics were being collected, stored, and used. The Plaintiff is an Illinois student who used Proctor360. During Plaintiff's use of the software, Proctor360 collected his biometrics, including eye movements and facial expressions (i.e., face geometry). The Defendant develops, owns, and operates an eponymous online proctoring software that collects biometric information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com PUBLIX SUPER: Brand Has Artificial DL-Malic Acid, McCall Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carnelius McCall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-00584-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2022) alleges that the Defendant includes DL-Malic Acid to help make the product taste tart and fruity, like strawberries and watermelon. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant adds artificial DL-malic acid to the Product to create, enhance, simulate, and/or reinforce the sweet and tart taste that consumers associate with strawberries and watermelon. The Defendant had the option to add naturally extracted L-Malic Acid, naturally manufactured acid such as citric acid, or natural strawberry or watermelon flavor to the Product, but intentionally used artificial DL-Malic Acid because it was likely cheaper or more accurately resembled natural flavors than citric acid or other acids, says the suit. DL-malic acid is synthetically produced from petroleum in a high-pressure, high-temperature, catalytic process. Publix manufactures, labels, markets, and sells strawberry watermelon water enhancers which purport to be flavored only with natural, and not artificial flavors, under the Publix brand (the "Product"). The Defendant markets the product with the prominent statements, "STRAWBERRY -- WATERMELON," above a picture of five strawberries and two wedges of watermelon in font and packaging in shades of red similar to these fruits. The alleged representation that the Product's flavor is from "Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavors" appeals to the more than seven out of ten consumers who avoid artificial flavors. By identifying the Product as getting its strawberry and watermelon taste from "Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavors," with pictures of five strawberries and two wedges of watermelon, consumers expect only natural flavoring ingredients will contribute to its taste, because that is what the label says. Though the ingredients listed include "Natural Flavors," they also include "Malic Acid," added the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Will Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401-4326 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com SCHWARTZ VAYS: Hancock Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROXANNE HANCOCK on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWARTZ VAYS; SCHWARTZ VAYS NY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02016 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2022) seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the law by including an amount for collection costs in the amount of the debt, in their January 10, 2022 letter, when no such amount was due at the time Schwartz Vays mailed said letter to the Plaintiff. The Defendants further violated FDCPA by falsely representing the amount of the debt in the letter, says the suit. Schwartz Vays NY, LLC is a debt collector with principal place of business in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 101065 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Hastings Sues Over Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ ST AN HASTINGS, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTMATCH INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 11, 2022) arises from the Defendant's conduct of marketing insurance services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls, including to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide classes of other persons who were sent the same illegal telemarketing calls because such calls to Plaintiff were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been allegedly harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they may have been charged for incoming calls. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC is a Medicare insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Ryburn, Esq. Zach Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 S. Shackleford Rd., Ste. 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 228-8100 Facsimile: (501) 228-7300 E-mail: jason@ryburnlawfinn.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen NYLL Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTINE CHEN, MICHAEL NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 151114/2022, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 16, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02190 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. SS&C Technologies, Inc. is an American multinational financial technology company headquartered in Windsor, Connecticut. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jay Cohen, Esq. Liza M. Velazquez, Esq. Maria H. Keane, Esq. Kim Francis, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: jaycohen@paulweiss.com lvelazquez@paulweiss.com mkeane@paulweiss.com kfrancis@paulweiss.com SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Second Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Anilao ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JULIET ANILAO, HARRIET AVILA, MARK DELA CRUZ, CLAUDINE GAMAIO, ELMER JACINTO, JENNIFER LAMPA, RIZZA MAULION, THERESA RAMOS, RANIER SICHON, AND JAMES MILLENA, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants, FELIX Q. VINLUAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS J. SPOTA, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, LEONARD LATO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, KARLA LATO, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEONARD LATO, Defendants-Appellees, SUSAN O'CONNOR, NANCY FITZGERALD, SENTOSA CARE, LLC, AVALON GARDENS REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, LLC, FRANCRIS LUYUN, BENT PHILIPSON, BERISH RUBINSTEIN, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, Docket No. 19-3949-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York's order granting summary judgment in favor of the prosecutors and the DA's Office as to the remaining claims. I. Introduction Ten nurses and their former attorney, Felix Vinluan, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as well as common-law claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution under New York law against the Defendants -- the County of Suffolk, the Office of the District Attorney of Suffolk County (the "DA's Office"), Thomas J. Spota, III, the District Attorney of Suffolk County, and Leonard Lato, an Assistant District Attorney who was at all relevant times the Chief of the Insurance Crimes Bureau at the DA's Office. The Plaintiffs allege that Spota and Lato improperly prosecuted them for child endangerment, endangerment of a physically disabled person, and related charges by fabricating evidence and engaging in other improper conduct before a grand jury, in violation of their federal constitutional rights and New York state law. The state prosecution ended only when a New York state appellate court concluded that the Plaintiffs were being "threatened with prosecution for crimes for which they cannot be constitutionally tried." The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.) found that Spota and Lato were entitled to absolute immunity for starting the criminal prosecution and presenting the case to the grand jury, and it dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims arising from any alleged misconduct during that prosecutorial stage (Anilao v. Spota, 774 F.Supp.2d 457, 466-68 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Anilao I")). The District Court later granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutors and the DA's Office as to the remaining claims after concluding that there was insufficient evidence that Spota or Lato had violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights during the investigative phase of the criminal proceedings (Anilao v. Spota, 340 F.Supp.3d 224, 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Anilao II")). And "given the absence of any underlying constitutional violation in the investigative stage," the court concluded, "no municipal liability can exist against Suffolk County as a matter of law." II. Background Sentosa Care, LLC operates health care facilities throughout New York and recruited the nurse Plaintiffs from the Philippines to work in various Sentosa nursing home facilities on Long Island, New York. Each nurse signed an employment contract that required the nurses to work for at least three years or face a $25,000 penalty. When they arrived in New York, the nurses learned that they would be working for an employment agency, not Sentosa, and that the agency had assigned them to work at Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Center, a nursing home for both adults and children. Following a relatively brief stint at Avalon, the nurses began to complain about their working and living conditions -- longer than expected work shifts, overcrowded and substandard housing, lower insurance benefits and pay, and less vacation time than their contracts provided. The nurses also voiced their concerns to the Philippine Consulate in New York, which referred them to Vinluan, an immigration and employment attorney, for advice. After speaking with the nurses and evaluating the facts, Vinluan concluded that Sentosa had breached its contracts with the nurses and advised them that they were free to resign from their positions without legal repercussion once their shifts ended. Based on Vinluan's advice, on April 7, 2006, all 10 nurses resigned either after their shift was over or in advance of their next shift. Soon after the nurses resigned, Sentosa filed a complaint with the New York State Department of Education, which licenses and regulates nurses. The company also filed a complaint in Nassau County Supreme Court to enjoin the nurses and Vinluan from speaking to other nurses about resigning. It even filed a complaint with the Suffolk County Police Department. None of Sentosa's complaints led to any action against the Plaintiffs, however, and on Sept. 28, 2006, the Department of Education closed the case after determining that the nurses had not engaged in any professional misconduct or deprived any patient of nursing care. Unfazed, Sentosa continued its campaign against the Plaintiffs. It finally found a receptive audience in Spota. Not long after representatives of Sentosa met with Spota to urge the DA's Office to file criminal charges against the nurses for imperiling the health and safety of Avalon's patients, Spota assigned the criminal investigation to Lato. Lato then quickly interviewed the Plaintiffs, as well as other witnesses, like Francris Luyun, the head of Sentosa's recruitment agency. In defense of the Plaintiffs, who were now plainly the targets of a criminal investigation, Vinluan presented Lato with "significant exculpatory information." Among other things, Vinluan pointed to the fact that the Department of Education and the New York State Supreme Court had declined to act against the nurses. He also provided "information that," contrary to Sentosa's assertion, "none of the Nurse Plaintiffs had ceased work during a shift. Mr. Lato was unpersuaded by Vinluan's arguments and presented several witnesses to a grand jury in Suffolk County. Among the witnesses were several Sentosa employees, an investigator in the DA's Office, a nurse who had also resigned but who is not a party to this appeal, and a nurse who filled in at Avalon immediately after the nurse Plaintiffs resigned. The grand jury returned an indictment charging the nurses and Vinluan with (1) conspiracy in the sixth degree, in violation of New York Penal Law (N.Y.P.L.) Section 105.00 and 105.20; (2) endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N.Y.P.L. Sections 260.10(1) and 20.00; and (3) endangering the welfare of a physically disabled person, in violation of N.Y.P.L. Section 260.25 and 20.00. Vinluan was also charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, in violation of N.Y.P.L. Section 100.00. In response, the nurses and Vinluan moved in New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County to, among other things, dismiss the charges against them. The state court rejected the Plaintiffs' claims of insufficient evidence. Having failed to persuade the state court to dismiss the indictment against them, the Plaintiffs petitioned the New York Appellate Division, Second Department for a writ of prohibition. In January 2009, the Appellate Division granted the writ after finding that the prosecution of the nurses and of Vinluan "constituted an impermissible infringement upon their constitutional rights and that the issuance of a writ of prohibition to halt these prosecutions is the appropriate remedy in the matter." The Plaintiffs started the federal litigation in 2010. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Spota and Lato acted in concert with Sentosa to secure an indictment that they knew violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and that they lacked probable cause to bring in the first instance. In particular, the complaint asserts that "the Grand Jury was not properly charged as to the law," was "falsely informed that one or more of the nurses had resigned and left the facility before completing his or her shift," and was "not informed that the Education Department had previously determined that the Nurse Plaintiffs had not violated the very regulations which they were indicted for violating." The complaint also alleges that at Sentosa's behest, Spota and Lato sought to punish the nurses for resigning from their employment at Avalon and discourage others from doing the same. Finally, the complaint claims that the County is liable under the principles of municipal liability announced in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted the motion in part as to any claims arising from Spota and Lato's actions during the non-investigative, prosecutorial phase of their case against the Plaintiffs, including the selection of charges, the initiation of the prosecution, and the presentation of testimony and evidence to the grand jury. As to those claims, the District Court concluded, Spota and Lato were entitled to absolute immunity from suit. But the District Court declined to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds the Plaintiffs' claims arising from any alleged prosecutorial misconduct by Spota or Lato during the investigative phase of the case, finding instead that the Defendants were at most entitled only to qualified immunity. For that reason, to the extent that the complaint plausibly alleged that Spota and Lato had violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights during the investigative phase, the District Court decided that the case would have to proceed past the pleading stage to discovery and summary judgment. After discovery, however, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants because "there was simply no evidence in the record that Spota and Lato engaged in any constitutional wrongdoing in the investigative stage of the case." This was so even though the District Court had previously recognized (in Anilao I) that the case involved the "highly unusual set of circumstances in which the police not only lacked involvement in the investigation of the Plaintiffs but also had expressly declined to investigate" them. The District Court then also dismissed the Monell claim against the County because there was no underlying constitutional violation. The appeal followed. III. Discussion The two questions presented on appeal are whether Spota and Lato were entitled to absolute immunity for the actions they undertook as prosecutors, and whether there was any evidence showing that they violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights during the investigative phase of the prosecution, a phase with respect to which they are entitled at most only to qualified immunity. A. The Second Circuit explains that the doctrine of absolute immunity applies broadly to shield a prosecutor from liability for money damages (but not injunctive relief) in a Section 1983 lawsuit, even when the result may be that a wronged plaintiff is left without an immediate remedy. Absolute immunity extends even to a prosecutor who "conspires] to present false evidence at a criminal trial. The fact that such a conspiracy is certainly not something that is properly within the role of a prosecutor is immaterial, because the immunity attaches to his function, not to the manner in which he performed it." Thus, unless a prosecutor proceeds in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability exists for those prosecutorial activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." "Conversely, where a prosecutor acts without any colorable claim of authority, he loses the absolute immunity he would otherwise enjoy" and is left with only qualified immunity as a potential shield. The Plaintiffs take their cue from the state appellate court's earlier conclusion in the case that "no facts suggesting an imminent threat to the well being of the children have been alleged." They also argue that Spota and Lato knew or should have known at the outset of the case that their prosecution of the Plaintiffs was constitutionally infirm. But fundamentally, in the Second Circuit's view, these arguments relate to the existence or absence of probable cause. Absolute immunity shields Spota and Lato for their prosecutorial and advocative conduct even in the absence of probable cause and even if their conduct was entirely politically motivated. The Appellate Division's issuance of a writ of prohibition complicates but does not change the Second Circuit's decision. The writ, rarely used, applies only to end a prosecution, not to undo what the prosecution has already done. The evidence that "the charges were brought for improper purposes does not deprive" the prosecutors of that immunity. The Second Circuit will therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal of the claims arising from the Defendants' actions taken in their role as advocates during the judicial phase of the prosecution. In doing so, "it recognizes, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that she undoubtedly merits." "Especially in cases, such as the present one, in which a plaintiff plausibly alleges disgraceful behavior by district attorneys, the application of this doctrine is more than disquieting." "But the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that immunity must apply in the case." B. The District Court concluded from the pleadings that Spota and Lato were not entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct during the investigative stage of the prosecution, and that the Plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face under Section 1983. The Defendants do not challenge either conclusion on appeal, and the first conclusion in any event follows from the Second Circuit's prior decisions. But the Plaintiffs do challenge the District Court's grant of summary judgment in the Defendants' favor. The Second Circuit therefore turns to whether there is a genuine factual issue about whether Spota and Lato violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights during their investigation. It reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. The District Court held that "Lato and Spota are entitled to summary judgment because no rational jury could find that they knowingly fabricated evidence during the investigation, or otherwise violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights in the investigative phase of the case." Upon review of the record, the Second Circuit agrees and affirms the District Court's grant of summary judgment. On appeal, the Plaintiffs emphasize that there is at least a factual dispute as to whether Lato conspired with Sentosa to fabricate evidence to present to the grand jury, and in particular whether Lato conspired with Luyun to testify falsely against Vinluan before the grand jury. They highlight that Lato had been provided a Philippines-based advertisement showing that Vinluan was an immigration attorney, not a nurse recruiter, but that Lato nevertheless prodded Luyun to falsely testify that he had seen an advertisement that Vinluan was recruiting nurses to the United States. Because Lato admitted that he met with all the witnesses who testified in the grand jury proceedings, the plaintiffs insist that Lato must have met with Luyun and conspired with him to lie to the grand jury. This is, in the Second circuit's view, little more than speculation. As such it poses no bar to summary judgment in the Defendants' favor. Speculation aside, the Plaintiffs fail to point to any admissible evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Lato (or Spota) conspired with Luyun to fabricate evidence. They had every opportunity to develop the record and to uncover that evidence if it existed. But during Lato's deposition, for example, when given the chance to explore the alleged plot, they declined to question Lato about his meeting with Luyun. Answers to those questions might have yielded some firm evidence of the existence of a conspiracy between the two men, such as whether they ever discussed the contradictory newspaper advertisements about Vinluan. For the reasons already explained, the prosecutors acted within their authority to charge the Plaintiffs under New York law. C. Finally, the Second Circuit turns to the County's liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Monell does not provide a separate cause of action for the failure by the government to train its employees; it extends liability to a municipal organization where that organization's failure to train, or the policies or customs that it has sanctioned, led to an independent constitutional violation." In other words, a Monell claim cannot succeed without an independent constitutional violation. "Inherent in the principle that a municipality can be liable under Section 1983 only where its policies are the moving force behind the constitutional violation, is the concept that the plaintiff must show a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation." "If the challenged action is directed by an official with final policymaking authority, the municipality may be liable even in the absence of a broader policy." IV. Conclusion For these reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. Although Spota and Lato may have unlawfully penalized the Plaintiffs for exercising the right to quit their jobs on the advice of counsel, under the Second Circuit's precedent both of them are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions during the judicial phase of the criminal process. As for the Plaintiffs' claim that Spota and Lato fabricated evidence during the investigative phase of the criminal process, the Second Circuit agrees with the District Court that there was insufficient admissible evidence of fabrication to defeat summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/47ptjf75 from Leagle.com. STEPHEN L. O'BRIEN, O'Brien & O'Brien, LLP, in Nesconset, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Thomas J. Spota, III. BRIAN C. MITCHELL, Assistant County Attorney, Suffolk County Attorney's Office, in Hauppauge, New York, for Defendants-Appellees County of Suffolk and Karla Lato, as Administrator of the Estate of Leonard Lato, OSCAR MICHELEN, Cuomo LLC, in Mineola, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant Felix Vinluan. PAULA SCHWARTZ FROME (James O. Druker , on the brief), Kase & Druker, Esqs., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants Juliet Anilao, Harriet Avila, Mark Dela Cruz, Claudine Gamaio, Elmer Jacinto, Jennifer Lampa, Rizza Maulion, Theresa Ramos, Ranier Sichon, and James Millena. SUSHI NOZAWA: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sushi Nozawa, LLC. The case is styled as Rodney Johnson, on behalf of himself, the state of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Sushi Nozawa LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 22STCV08949 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 14, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sushi Nozawa -- https://sushinozawa.com/ -- is the Los Angeles-based restaurant group behind SUGARFISH, Nozawa Bar and KazuNori.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sepideh Ardestani, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: 310-496-5818 Email: sepideh@crosnerlegal.com TESTING SOLUTIONS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Testing Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Testing Solutions LLC doing business as: Covid Testing Lower Manhattan, Case No. 1:22-cv-02077-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testing Solutions LLC doing business as Covid Testing Lower Manhattan -- https://covidtestinglowermanhattan.com/ -- offers RT-PCR Covid-19 Testing which is the most effective and widely accepted PCR COVID-19 Test.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02098 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. U.S. Money Reserve -- https://www.usmoneyreserve.com/ -- is the only gold company in the world led by a former U.S. Mint Director.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal UNIFIN INC: Savir Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eyal Savir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20798-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Unifin, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a full-service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm licensed and bonded internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@ UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL BRUMMETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PROPANE GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00037-TBR (W.D. Ky., March 10, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately November 2018 until August 2021 as an hourly employee with the title, office manager. She routinely worked overtime (i.e., in excess of 40 hours in a workweek) without receiving any overtime premium pay, says the suit. United Propane Gas, Inc. delivers propane gas and heating services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - J. Chris Sanders, Esq. BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC 1041 Goss Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 Telephone: (502) 587-2002 E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com VOESH CORP: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voesh Corp. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Voesh Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-02100 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. VOESH -- https://voesh.com/ -- is a new beauty brand bringing innovation and philosophy to every product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com WAYFAIR LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01886-AT (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wayfair Inc. -- https://www.wayfair.com/ -- is an American e-commerce company that sells furniture and home-goods.[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 WEST COAST TRENDS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed West Coast Trends, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Coast Trends, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02149 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. West Coast Trends, Inc. provides sporting and athletic goods. The Company offers golf travel bags, luggage, head covers, towels, eyewear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Suit Transferred to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tom Hargrove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wilderness Sports Warehouse LLC doing business as: Tackle Warehouse; Running Warehouse, LLC; Sports Warehouse Inc. doing business as: Tennis Warehouse; Skate Warehouse, LLC; Case No. 4:22-cv-00006, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01716-JFW-PD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wilderness Sports Warehouse LLC doing business as Tackle Warehouse -- https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/ -- offers guaranteed lowest prices on bass fishing tackle from every top brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. 2931 North Drud Hills Road Suite A Atlanta, GA 30329 Phone: (404) 380-9979 Fax: (404) 320-9978 Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. Travis C. Hargrove, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th St. Columbus, GA 31901 Phone: (706) 322-6226 Fax: (706) 322-6221 The Defendants are represented by: Alan G. Snipes, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, LLP P.O. Box 2128 1111 Bay Avenue (Zip Code 31901-2412), Suite 450 Columbus, GA 31902-2128 Phone: (706) 324-0050 WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolverine World Wide, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02108 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. or Wolverine Worldwide -- https://www.wolverineworldwide.com/ -- is a publicly traded American footwear manufacturer based in Rockford, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com YASSO INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yasso, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Yasso, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01415 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yasso, Inc. -- https://yasso.com/ -- manufactures dairy products. The Company offers wide range flavor of ice cream bars, pints, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ZJH HOLDINGS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been against filed ZJH Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZJH Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02110 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zjh Holdings, which also operates under the name Mission Belt Co. -- https://missionbelt.com/ -- sells stylish leather belts with no holes and help stop world hunger.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ********* 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 ***