/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 58 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Doxie Balks at Metal Content in Infant Formula ABBVIE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Sharma Files Suit in S.D. Indiana AHC MEDICAL: Choi Sues Over Physical Therapists' Unpaid Wages ALPINESTARS USA: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Accord Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal ARD GROUP: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages AXOS BANK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AZTAR INDIANA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Adams Suit BAYER US: Faces Class Action Over Mirena IUD Breast Cancer Risk BEAUTY TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOYAR ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRAINSTORMPRODUCTS LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BREWERS RETAIL: Judge Certifies Pension Class Action Lawsuit C3.AI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess COVID Outbreak Class Action Grows CBH INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CERENCE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 26 Deadline CHARLES KOMAR & SONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHIP COOKIE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CIOX HEALTH: Can Litigate Class Action in Federal Court COGNOSPHERE LLC: Faces A.T. Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Shareholder Suit in S.D. Tex. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Vargas Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Homeopathic Products DECATHLON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DIAZ AND ASSOCIATES: Rastelli Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California DIVINE ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DSIL INVESTMENT: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York E.I. DU PONT: Court Refuses to Certify Nationwide PFAS Class Suit ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ELECTRIC & ROSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FAT BRANDS: Faces Matthews Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop FGX INTERNATIONAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. California FREEWAY INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in Arizona FRESH MARKET: Ramsey Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA GONG CHA TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HALSBROOK INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARDY WAY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEIDE WASHINGTON: Robinson Files Suit in W.D. Michigan HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California HOST INT'L: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd HOUSE FOODS AMERICA: Zuniga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California HYATT CORP: Hartstein Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Chandler Labor Suit Goes to W.D. Washington JUUL LABS: Alexander Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Alpine Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads in Cal. JUUL LABS: Basin School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Caro Community Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Au Gres-Sims Suit Says JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Unified School Claims JUUL LABS: Chandler Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Clark County Suit Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Canton Claims JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Bartholomew Claims JUUL LABS: Faces Benzie County Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Faces Evart Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Faces Lanesville School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces RSU-2 Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Frankton-Lapel Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Cheektowaga-Maryvale Says JUUL LABS: Memphis Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Monroe 2-Orleans Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in N.Y. JUUL LABS: Plymouth Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Potlatch School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Lake Ridge Says JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Southwest Alleges JUUL LABS: Roscommon Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mishawaka Alleges JUUL LABS: Wasatch County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: West Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction KROGER CO: Cochran Suit Removed to D. Kansas L3HARRIS TECH: Faces Stengl Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT: Maravilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIFELOCK INC: Giddings Balks at False Identity Theft Protection Ads LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania MEOW WOLF: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Navez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MERIDIAN LODGING: Faces Banks Suit Over Collection of Biometrics META PLATFORMS: Logan Suit Transferred to N.D. California MISSISSIPPI POWER: Wins Suit Over Overcharged Fees MNG 2005 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NEW ORLEANS, LA: Residents Win $75.3MM Court Judgment NEW YORK FAST: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PEABODY ENERGY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in NY Court PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Phelps Derivative Suit PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York PHH MORTGAGE: Pretrial Deadlines in Salter Extended by 60 Days PINNACLE FOODS: Raczkowski Sues Over Deceptive Olive Oil Label PLAYERS TRUNK: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRESTIGE HOMECARE: Hill Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Driggins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Junks Cho ERISA Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Doyle Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Griffin RICO Suit in S.D. Fla. RAYTHEON COMPANY: Curry Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida RETROSPECTIVE GOODS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SALEM FIVE BANCORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SBS SPORTS: Sanchez Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store SESSOMS & ROGERS: Hall Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina SHEN BEAUTY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOFT SURFBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATE FARM MUTUAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois STEVES MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STRONGS MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SWISS FARMS PRODUCTS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TIKTOK INC: High Court Allows Data Protection Claim to Proceed TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Cline Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls TRUSTEES OF UNITE HERE: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Illinois UNITED AIRLINES: Loucks Suit Asserts Breach of Separation Program UPHOLD HQ: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Crypto Class Action VALLEY PROTEINS: Settlement in Hollis Suit Wins Initial Nod VARIETY COFFEE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settlement Deal in Wolther Suit Underway VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Trust Appeals Dismissal of Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sherrod Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles WEATHERFORD FIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEST CAPITAL LENDING: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Suit Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over New Dev't Impact Fees WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Continued in Ramirez XL FLEET: Request for Pre-Motion Conference Due Jan. 12, 2023 YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Burgos FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ZIONS BANCORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 29 ZWIFT INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York [*] Financial Sector No Longer Australia's Biggest Suit Target [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Doxie Balks at Metal Content in Infant Formula ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAYLYNN DOXIE, BRITTNEY GRAY, KATALEENA HELMICK, LANI HOLLOWAY, ASHLEY POPA and, DENIEGE REVORD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, (a Delaware corporation), Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01376 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its knowing, reckless, and/or intentional practice of failing to fully disclose the presence of arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury in its Similac(R) powdered infant Formula. According to the complaint, the Infant Formula's packaging does not include any type of disclaimer or disclosure regarding the presence of heavy metals that would inform consumers of their presence. Likewise, nothing on the packaging states that heavy metals can be unsafe or accumulate over time resulting in developmental issues, poisoning, injury, and/or disease. Instead, to justify a premium price, the Defendant chose to focus on promoting its Infant Formula as high quality, made with superior ingredients and not made with detrimental and genetically engineered ingredients, says the suit. As a result of this conduct, the Defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, asserts the complaint. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com kyle@lcllp.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com - and - Michael Liskow, Esq. Janine L. Pollack, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 899-1765 E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - David J. George, Esq. Brittany L. Brown, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Telephone: (561) 232-6002 E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com ABBVIE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------ AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving "Niaspan" entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits pending in federal court consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan end-payors. The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as "In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 2460. In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of Niaspan. In June 2020 and August 2021, the court denied the end-payors' motion to certify a class. In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court ------------------------------------------------------ AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in August 2019, direct purchasers of "AndroGel" filed a lawsuit captioned "King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc., et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.," against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that 2006 patent litigation settlements and related agreements by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) with three generic companies violated federal antitrust law, and also alleging that 2011 patent litigation by Abbott with two generic companies regarding AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of those litigations violated federal antitrust law. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Sharma Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accutech Systems Corporation. The case is styled as Nivedita Sharma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accutech Systems Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00551-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., March 22, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Accutech -- https://www.trustasc.com/ -- delivers innovative trust and wealth management solutions with exceptional, personalized service to over 250 banks and wealth management companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@milberg.com AHC MEDICAL: Choi Sues Over Physical Therapists' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- BONGYONG CHOI on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHC MEDICAL SERVICES, PLLC, and ATAUL AKIM CHOWDHURY, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01450-MKB-JRC (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Choi was employed as a physical therapist by the Defendants from August 20, 2021, through December 4, 2021. AHC Medical Services, PLLC is a New York Corporation that owns and operates a medical office in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (718) 573-1111 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com ALPINESTARS USA: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpinestars USA. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpinestars USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-02341 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alpinestars -- https://www.alpinestars.com/ -- is a manufacturer of technical, high performance protective gear for motorcycle and auto racing in addition to other action sports.[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 ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Accord Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gary Accord filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al. Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00077, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff Accord was arrested by Tennessee Highway Patrolman Paul Kilday in Cocke County, Tennessee. Kilday prepared a complaint-affidavit on a State of Tennessee Uniform Citation Form. The Plaintiff then was prosecuted using the Uniform Citation Form/Affidavit of Complaint as a charging instrument. He was charged with a DUI, which was eventually reduced to reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail, with a suspended sentence. The Plaintiff filed the present case on Feb. 1, 2021 as a class action complaint against every county in Tennessee (but no one else). Thereafter, he filed an Amended Complaint against the same Defendants, which asserted (in Counts I-III) several claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for various kinds of alleged violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a Tennessee common law claim for false light invasion of privacy (in Count IV). Upon motion of the Plaintiff, the Court dismissed Counts II and III. This left remaining a single count asserting claims under Section 1983 (as well as the state-law claim in Count IV). That count (Count I) was styled as one for violations of the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and of Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 7. Various Defendants then filed motions to dismiss, including the Motion whereby Defendant Cocke County (and various other counties) requested dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ultimately, during its review of some of these motions, the Court determined that the Plaintiff had failed to establish standing to bring a claim against any Defendant except Cocke County. Accordingly, it ordered that all Defendants except Cocke County be dismissed (and administratively terminated as parties) and that the present Motion remain pending only as to Cocke County. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2022, Judge Eli Richardson of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted Defendant Cocke County's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Gary Accord v. Anderson County, TN, et al., Case No. 22-5206, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 16, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, LLC 7001 Old Kent Drive Knoxville, TN 37919 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com Defendants-Appellees ANDERSON COUNTY, TN, et al., are represented by: Arthur F. Knight, III, Esq. TAYLOR & KNIGHT 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 971-1701 E-mail: amber@taylorknightlaw.com - and - Howard Luxon Upchurch, Esq. UPCHURCH & UPCHURCH P.O. Box 381 Pikeville, TN 37367-0000 Telephone: (423) 447-2903 E-mail: upchurchlaw@bledsoe.net - and - Gary M. Prince, Esq. Jeffrey R. Thompson, Esq. O'NEIL, PARKER & WILLIAMSON 7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200 Knoxville, TN 37919 Telephone: (865) 546-7190 E-mail: gprince@opw.com jthompson@opw.com - and - J. Austin Stokes, Esq. PENTECOST, GLENN & MAULDIN 162 Murray Guard Drive, Suite B Jackson, TN 38305 Telephone: (731) 668-5995 E-mail: astokes@pgmfirm.com - and - Allison L. Bussell, Esq. METROPOLITAN DEPARTMENT OF LAW P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 880-3759 E-mail: allison.bussell@nashville.gov - and - Michael Todd Schmitt, Esq. ORTALE, KELLEY, HERBERT & CRAWFORD 330 Commerce Street, Suite 110 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 256-9999 E-mail: mschmitt@ortalekelley.com - and - James Exum, III, Esq. CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL 605 Chestnut Street, Suite 1700 Chattanooga, TN 37450 Telephone: (423) 756-3000 E-mail: jfexum@chamblisslaw.com - and - Brad A. Fraser, Esq. 900 S. Gay Street, Suite 1800 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 342-4904 E-mail: brad.fraser@leitnerfirm.com - and - David S. Wigler, Esq. KNOX COUNTY LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 400 Main Street, Suite 612 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 215-2327 E-mail: david.wigler@knoxcounty.org - and - Jeffrey G. Jones, Esq. WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES 1420 Neal Street Suite 201, P.O. Box 655 Cookeville, TN 38503-0655 Telephone: (931) 372-9123 E-mail: jjones@wimberlylawson.com - and - Nicholas C. Christiansen, Esq. HUDSON, REED & MCCREARY 16 Public Square, N. Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Telephone: (615) 893-5522 E-mail: nchristiansen@mborolaw.com - and - Emmett Lee Whitwell, Esq. SHELBY COUNTY ATTORNEY 160 N. Main Street, Suite 950 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 222-2145 E-mail: lee.whitwell@shelbycountytn.gov - and - Benjamin Charles Allen, Esq. SUMNER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 355 N. Belvedere Drive, Room 303 Gallatin, TN 37066 Telephone: (615) 451-6060 E-mail: ben@sumnercountytn.gov - and - Robert Oliver Bratcher, Esq. STANLEY & BRATCHER P.O. Box 568 McMinnville, TN 37111 Telephone: (931) 473-7000 E-mail: robert@stanleyandbratcher.com - and - Lisa M. Carson, Esq. BUERGER, MOSELEY & CARSON 306 Public Square Franklin, TN 37064 Telephone: (615) 794-8850 E-mail: lcarson@buergerlaw.com ARD GROUP: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN GALICIA BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARD GROUP LLC d/b/a SLIDE BAR-B-Q, ROBERT MELLER and ANNA MELLER, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01438-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages as well as spread of hours compensation and failed to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2021 until September 2021 as a dishwasher, food preparer, and kitchen worker while performing related miscellaneous duties. ARD Group LLC, d/b/a SLIDE BAR-B-Q, is a barbecue restaurant located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 AXOS BANK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Axos Bank. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Axos Bank, Case No. 1:22-cv-02336 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Axos Bank -- https://www.axosbank.com/ -- is an American federally chartered savings and loan association and direct bank headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal AZTAR INDIANA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Adams Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANITA F. ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TROPICANA EVANSVILLE, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00143-RLY-MPB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. This class action was brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, and the Indiana Wage Deductions Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to properly inform them of the required tip credit provisions prior to paying a sub-minimum direct cash wage, and making improper deductions from their paychecks for gaming license fees and other deductions. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a table games dealer at a casino located at 421 NW Riverside Drive, Evansville, Indiana from approximately March 2012 through the present. The Defendant now requests that the Court exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the District Court's February 25, 2022 Order granting Plaintiff's request for class certification. The question presented is: Whether this Court should permit an appeal of the District Court's Order certifying three Rule 23 classes where the District Court (a) rejected Supreme Court precedent that requires courts to engage in a rigorous analysis even when such inquiry goes to the merits and (b) performed no rigorous analysis with regard to the contradictory evidence presented by Tropicana Evansville showing countless dissimilarities between the class members, the existence of uninjured class members, and an unmanageable number of individualized inquiries that would need to be performed in order to resolve the Rule 23 claims? The appellate case is captioned as ANITA ADAMS Plaintiff-Appellee v. AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TROPICANA EVANSVILLE Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 11, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TROPICANA EVANSVILLE is represented by: Charles B. Jellinek, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: cbjellinek@bclplaw.com BAYER US: Faces Class Action Over Mirena IUD Breast Cancer Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that pharma giant Bayer makes and sells the birth control Mirena but does not adequately advise women that it greatly increases their risk of getting breast cancer, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Priya Sidhu filed the class action lawsuit against Bayer U.S. LLC Mar. 14 in a California federal court, alleging negligence and violations of state and federal consumer laws. She's looking to represent those who were prescribed and used Bayer's Mirena IUD, which is inserted into a woman's uterus. "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 class action states. Sidhu says Bayer does note on its website that "Mirena isn't right for everyone" and warns people to check for possible side effects. However, "conspicuously absent" from the list of safety considerations is any mention of the significantly increased risk of breast cancer caused by the product. Mirena-Type Birth Control Increases Breast Cancer Risk, Studies Show Sidhu says Bayer has long been aware of the increased risk of breast cancer from using the product. The lawsuit states that in 2010, a case-control study compared 329 women users of the product type with 708 controls of the same age. The study showed an increased risk for breast cancer in the population using the Mirena-type product. The lawsuit also cites other studies from around the world that came to the same conclusion. Sidhu says she would not have purchased the product— or, at minimum, would have paid significantly less for it—had Bayer disclosed that it carried with it a significantly elevated risk of breast cancer. "Plaintiff and Class Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendant's deceptive and fraudulent omissions," she says. She's looking to represent anyone who used Mirena nationwide plus a California subclass and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Earlier this year, separate class action lawsuits were filed against Bayer Healthcare and Unilever over allegations the companies sold products contaminated with the chemical benzene, a known human carcinogen, without informing consumers. Did you know about these possible side effects of Mirena? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The Bayer U.S. Class Action Lawsuit is Priya Sidhu v. Bayer U.S. LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01603, in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California. [GN] BEAUTY TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Trend USA Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beauty Trend USA Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02328 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Beauty Trends USA Inc. is located in New York and is part of the Personal Care Services Industry.[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 BOYAR ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyar Asset Management, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boyar Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02337 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boyar Asset Management -- https://www.boyarassetmanagement.com/ -- is an investment management company based out of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BRAINSTORMPRODUCTS LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brainstormproducts, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brainstormproducts, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02320 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BrainStormProducts LLC -- https://brainstormproducts.com/ -- is USA based producer of outdoor toys, kites for kids and adults, collectible glass figurines and miniatures, outdoor decor and more.[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 BREWERS RETAIL: Judge Certifies Pension Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Julius Melnitzer, writing for Benefits Canada, reports that in certifying a pension class action by Brewers Retail Inc., an Ontario Superior Court judge denounced the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario for defying a decision of its predecessor, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Justice Ed Morgan certified the class on Feb. 10, 2022, setting the stage for a settlement approval hearing. In March 2021, Brewers Retail brought a court application for certification of the class action following five years of negotiations with the FSCO over the company's 2008 decision to de-index its pension plan for salaried employees that concluded in early 2019. The agreement stated the parties would use a class action to request court approval of a methodology to identify, compensate and bind individuals potentially affected by the indexing issue. The FSCO, which indicated it wouldn't participate in the court action, confirmed it would accept Brewer's amendments for registration if the court approved the settlement. When the FSRA took over as regulator in June 2019, it confirmed the FSCO's support for the settlement and its implementation. But in October 2019, the FSRA -- without providing any rationale -- advised it would object to the settlement. In June 2020, Brewers filed new plan amendments that rescinded all of the indexing changes the company had implemented since 1974 and that the FSRA had determined were non-compliant. The FSRA wasn't mollified. In November 2020, the regulator issued a notice of intended decision to reject the plan amendments. Brewers responded by requesting a hearing at the Financial Services Tribunal. It also confirmed its intention to proceed with a court application for certification of the class action for settlement purposes. Over the FSRA's objections, the FST adjourned the regulatory application to allow the court to make the first ruling on the proposed settlement. It accepted Brewers' proposal to return to the FST to seek its approval once the court had made its decision. The FSRA intervened in the case, arguing that the amendments deviated from other plans that the FSRA oversaw and from the Pension Benefits Act, that the court didn't have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the amendments and that the FST hearing should proceed first. Citing a jurisprudential history that had determined the court had jurisdiction to decide pension-related disputes in the face of opposition by the regulator, Morgan determined that the parties had met the criteria for certification -- more particularly, that the class action was the "preferable procedure" for resolving the issues between the parties. As the FSRA had admitted, Morgan also noted the regulator's concern wasn't for the Brewers pensioners, who had agreed to the settlement. Rather, the FSRA's counsel "expressed concern for the implications of this settlement for pensioners of other companies." It was evident, added Morgan, that the Brewers' pensioners were only a "small cog and not the driving hub" for the FSRA. "In taking the position that [the] FSCO's approval and the parties' reliance thereon amounted to nothing more than discretionary advice that can be changed at will, is itself a disregard of the class members' interests," stated Morgan. The court, however, couldn't decline jurisdiction on the basis "that it should subordinate the interests of the parties before it to that of parties other than those before it." The FSRA is seeking leave to appeal Morgan's decision. The regulator didn't respond to questions from Benefits Canada as the "issue is still being litigated and before the courts." [GN] C3.AI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI) and Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI) Class Period: December 9, 2020 IPO; December 9, 2020 - February 15, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2022 The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) C3.ai's partnership with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (2) C3.ai's was employing a flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its Baker Hughes partnership; (3) C3.ai faced challenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (4) the Company overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in technology, description of its customers, its total addressable market ("TAM"), the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its major business partners; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the C3.ai class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AI Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN) Class Period: November 10, 2021 IPO Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2022 Rivian is an electric vehicle company that in 2018 unveiled its first consumer EV's, the R1T electric pickup truck, and the R1S electric SUV. On November 10, 2021, Rivian offered 153 million shares to the public through an IPO at a price of $78.00 per share for total proceeds of $11.93 billion. According to the Registration Statement, the "R1T and R1S introduce our brand to the world and will serve as our flagship vehicles as we continue to expand our offerings." Rivian's focus on its reputation for transparency and devotion to its customers, along with Rivian's R1T and R1S, including the large number of preorders and potential for increased demand were key selling points to IPO investors. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the R1T and R1S were underpriced to such a degree that Rivian would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO and that these price increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as a trustworthy and transparent company and would put a significant number of the existing backlog of 55,400 preorders along with future preorders in jeopardy of cancellation. As a result, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the Offering. For more information on the Rivian class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RIVN About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess COVID Outbreak Class Action Grows -------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that as Australia's cruise ship ban prepares to lift, the number of people who have signed up to the Ruby Princess class action has increased to well above 1,000. Later this year, Carnival and Princess Cruise Lines will face court over their handling of a coronavirus outbreak on the Ruby Princess that resulted in deaths and potential "long-COVID" symptoms for at least 30 per cent of its passengers. Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said the action filed in July 2020 had grown to 1,100 members. For the passengers who are feeling the long-term coronavirus effects of being stuck onboard, Ms Antzoulatos said the prognosis remains uncertain, which is a "very bleak outlook for many to live with". In April, the federal government will officially reopen the cruise ship industry, in circumstances where "Carnival is still vigorously defending this class action". "Carnival is getting on with their business, however, the lives of many passengers and their loved ones will never be the same," Ms Antzoulatos said. "These are people that put their trust in Carnival to keep them safe. The very least these passengers deserve is for Carnival to compensate them and their loved ones for injuries many of them will never recover from as a result of contracting COVID." Shine Lawyers will allege that the defendants broke Australian consumer laws by breaching consumer guarantees when they engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive. The firm also alleges that the operators of the cruise ship were negligent and failed a duty of care to provide passengers with a safe environment. In the last two years, an inquiry was held and a report released into the Ruby Princess COVID-19 disaster. In August 2020, then-NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian said the tragedy "should and never will happen again" in the state. The inquiry commissioned by the NSW government into the Ruby Princess laid blame on NSW health officials, who made "inexcusable, inexplicable" mistakes. [GN] CBH INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBH International, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CBH International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02343 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CBH International -- https://www.cbhintl.com/ -- is located in Beverly Hills, California and is part of the Health and Personal Care Stores Industry.[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 CERENCE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 26 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC), Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFRM), Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: CABA), and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC) Class Period: February 8, 2021 - February 4, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2022 Cerence is a Burlington, Massachusetts-based company that focuses on building artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants primarily for the automotive market. Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, supply-chain issues, and the semiconductor shortage, which reduced the global production of automobiles, Cerence continued to report growing revenues and strong demand for software licenses for its products. Cerence even touted its "visibility" into demand for its products by providing revenue guidance for fiscal year 2024, guidance that was a focus of securities analysts and that the Company raised significantly during the Class Period. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the global semiconductor shortage had a materially negative impact on demand for Cerence's software licenses; (2) that Defendants masked the impact of the semiconductor shortage on demand for the Company's software licenses by pulling forward sales; and (3) that, as a result of the above, Defendants' statements about Cerence's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth began to emerge during Cerence's earnings call on November 22, 2021 for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2021 ended on September 30, 2021, causing Cerence's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial losses. On that call, Cerence announced revenue guidance for fiscal year 2022 that was well below analysts' expectations. In response to this revelation, Cerence's stock price fell more than 20 percent from a closing price of $104.06 the prior trading day, to a close of $82.59 on November 22, 2021. The Company's stock price continued to fall another 5% the following day to close at $78.27 on November 23, 2021. Then, approximately three weeks later, Cerence's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Sanjay Dhawan abruptly resigned. On this news, Cerence's stock price fell an additional 11% from a closing price of $78.08 on December 14, 2021 to a closing price of $69.20 on December 15, 2021. Finally, on February 7, 2022, the Company announced results for its fiscal first quarter of 2022 ended on December 31, 2021 and shocked the market with three disclosures. First, the Company announced that Chief Financial Officer Mark Gallenberger would be retiring, effective March 11, 2022. Next, during its earnings conference call, new CEO Stefan Ortmanns announced he had conducted a review of each of the Cerence business units' plans, forecasts, and assumptions, and determined the "conversion from bookings to revenue will take longer than expected." As a result, Cerence was forced to lower its fiscal year 2022 guidance, only a few months after providing disappointing guidance for the same period. Finally, Cerence completely withdrew the closely watched fiscal year 2024 guidance. On this news, Cerence's stock price fell an additional 30%, from a closing price of $63.58 on the prior trading day of February 4, 2022, to close at $43.61 on February 7, 2022. For more information on the Cerence class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CRNC Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFRM) Class Period: February 10, 2022 after 1:15pm Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2022 Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform for digital and mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, the Company offers "buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm represents itself "a more flexible and transparent alternative to credit cards." At approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a Tweet from its official account in which the Company disclosed certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The Tweet, which was published prior to the Company's planned release of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter, which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading. The Tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results. Indeed, the Company deleted the Tweet and released its full second quarter financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results were lackluster - with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share. On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per share, or approximately 32%. For more information on the Affirm class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AFRM Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: CABA) Class Period: October 24, 2019; October 24, 2019 - December 13, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2022 According to the lawsuit, the IPO offering documents and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) top-line data of the Phase 1 Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other things, worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (2) accordingly, DSG3-CAART was not as effective as the Company had represented to investors; (3) therefore, the Company had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Cabaletta class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CABA Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC) Class Period: April 27, 2017 - February 25, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 2, 2022 The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Ericsson overstated the extent to which it had reformed its business practices to eliminate the use of bribes to secure business in foreign countries; (2) Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq; (3) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in at least substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 15, 2022, during intraday trading hours, Ericsson issued a press release disclosing media inquiries into its business dealings in Iraq. That press release assured investors of the Company's "transparency" regarding these inquiries, while vaguely alluding to having undertaken its own investigative and compliance efforts. Then, on February 16, 2022, Ericsson's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") told a Swedish newspaper that the Company may have made payments to ISIS to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq, noting that the Company had identified "unusual expenses dating back to 2018" but had not yet determined the final recipient of the funds for those expenses, although Defendants could "see that it disappeared[,]" and that Ericsson has spent "considerable resources trying to understand this as best we can." Following these disclosures, Ericsson's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.44 per ADS, or 11.57%, to close at $11.01 per ADS on February 16, 2022. Finally, on Sunday, February 27, 2022, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") published a report on Ericsson's alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq, citing a leaked internal investigation that revealed that Ericsson had reportedly made "tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments" over nearly a decade to keep its business in the country. The ICIJ report also alleged that "a spreadsheet lists company probes into possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by employees in Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia, Libya, Morocco, the United States and South Africa[,]" which "have not been previously disclosed." On this news, Ericsson's ADS price fell $0.84 per ADS, or 8.3%, from its closing price on February 25, 2022, to close at $9.28 per ADS on February 28, 2022, the next trading day. For more information on the Ericsson class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ERIC About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN] CHARLES KOMAR & SONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles Komar & Sons, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Charles Komar & Sons, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02331 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Charles Komar & Sons, Inc. -- https://www.komarbrands.com/ -- is a global leader in the design, sourcing, manufacturing and distribution of 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 CHIP COOKIE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chip Cookie Corp. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Chip Cookie Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01530-WFK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chip Cookie -- https://www.chipcitycookies.com/ -- offers sweet seasonal specials from the best cookie shop in NYC.[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 CIOX HEALTH: Can Litigate Class Action in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ciox Health LLC and ProHealth Care Inc. can litigate a proposed class action over allegedly unlawful charges for electronic medical records in federal court, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 16 rejected arguments that the local controversy exception didn't apply to the case. It was the first time the Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the contours of the exception to federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The local controversy exception requires a federal district court to send a removed lawsuit back to state court where certain criteria are met. [GN] COGNOSPHERE LLC: Faces A.T. Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ A.T., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNOSPHERE, LLC d/b/a/ HOYOVERSE and MIHOYO CO., LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01761-JLS-JPR is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who disaffirm their entire contract with the Defendant and seek restitution in the amount already paid to Defendant on their now-void contracts pursuant to the California Business & Professional Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered injury due to deceptive and misleading trade practices by Defendant in marketing and selling in-game items and in-game currency for its popular video game, Genshin Impact (GI). These items and in-game currency are frequently purchased by minors who are unable to exercise their unrestricted rights under state laws to rescind contracts into which they entered with Defendant, says the suit. Allegedly, GI is monetized through "gacha" game mechanics where players can obtain new characters, weapons, and other resources. A "gacha" game is a video game that implements a gacha (toy vending machine) mechanic. Put differently, gacha games induce players to spend in-game currency to receive a random virtual item. The in-game currency can be gained by game play, or by purchasing it from the game publisher using real money. Most "gacha" games are free-to-play (F2P) mobile games, and the "gacha" entices players to spend real-world money. The Plaintiff, under his own name and using his own money, made multiple in-game purchases in GI. Cognosphere, LLC is a fully owned subsidiary of miHoYo Co., Ltd., a Chinese video game developer based in Shanghai, China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, 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 CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Shareholder Suit in S.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that it is facing a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging that the company and its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations. In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against Concho Resources Inc., certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor. On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs. On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such other relief that may be deemed appropriate. ConocoPhillips is an exploration and production company based in Texas. On January 15, 2021, it completed the acquisition of Concho Resources Inc. (Concho), an independent oil and gas exploration and production company with operations in New Mexico and West Texas focused on the Permian Basin. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Vargas Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DIANA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 37-2022-00003327-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00379-L-DEB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unjust enrichment/quasi contract, negligent misrepresentation/omission, breach of express warranty, strict product liability, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an operator of a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores, with its principal place of business in Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Renee D. Wasserman, Esq. Merri A. Baldwin, Esq. Alecia E. Cotton, Esq. Emily A. Wieser, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 311 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 956-2828 Facsimile: (415) 956-6457 E-mail: rwasserman@rjo.com mbaldwin@rjo.com acotton@rjo.com ewieser@rjo.com CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Homeopathic Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Page, writing for Law Street, reports that on March 15 a case was removed from California state court to the Northern District of California. The case was filed by Joyce Benton, Melissa Greco, Anthony Swetala, and Ralph Milan on behalf of a class action against CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy Inc. The lawsuit seeks to block CVS from the sale of homeopathic products that are labelled as drugs. The complaint explained that homeopathy is an alternative medical practice based on a theory that an exposure to a small amount of a substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person can be used in diluted form to treat symptoms and illness. The plaintiffs note that there has been little to no scientific trials regarding the efficacy of these treatments and that many of the claims are considered implausible by the greater medical community. These products, per the complaint, are specifically included in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's Section 301. According to the filing, "A nonprescription (i.e., OTC) drug is misbranded if it has not been approved by FDA as being safe and effective, or if it does not comply with any of the previously approved monographs for OTC drugs. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 352(ee). 14 An OTC monograph is a rule book for each therapeutic category establishing conditions, such as active ingredients, uses (indications), doses, labeling, and testing, under which an OTC drug is generally recognized as safe and effective ("GRAS/E") and can be marketed without a new drug application ("NDA") and FDA pre-market approval." The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of selling homeopathic compounds that are labeled as being drugs (and not as nutritional supplements). The compounds are also labeled as being for the treatment of conditions such as skin tags. The plaintiff holds that the labeling and choice to sell in the pharmacy department encourages consumers to think the product meets efficacy and use circumstances as regular medications and can cause consumers to chose a homeopathic compound instead of a medication. Plaintiffs are suing for unfair competition and unlawful business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. and seeks an injunction to prevent further sale of homeopathic compounds as currently labeled and marketed. Plaintiffs are represented by Vozzolo LLC. Defendants are represented by Norton Rose Fulbright. [GN] DECATHLON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decathlon USA LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Decathlon USA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02319 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Decathlon -- https://www.decathlon.com/ -- is one of the world's largest sporting goods designers, manufacturers, and retailers with a mission to make sports more accessible for all.[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 DIAZ AND ASSOCIATES: Rastelli Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaz and Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marco Rastelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diaz and Associates, Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00430-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Diaz & Associates, Inc. -- http://diazandassociates.us/-- purchases portfolios of charged-off consumer receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Nicholas J Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN AND BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Phone: (323) 940-1700 Fax: (323) 328-8095 Email: tom@mblawapc.com nick@mblawapc.com DIVINE ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Divine Asset Management LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Divine Asset Management LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02302 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Divine Asset Management -- https://www.divineassetmgt.com/ -- is a full service, holistic, financial firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal DSIL INVESTMENT: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DSIL Investment Services LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. DSIL Investment Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02303 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DSIL Investment Services LLC -- http://www.dsilcapitalinc.com/-- operates as a brokerage firm. The Company buys and sells securities such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal E.I. DU PONT: Court Refuses to Certify Nationwide PFAS Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Ohioans interested in a class action lawsuit over what's in their bloodstream should take note of a recent federal court decision. Judge Edmund Sargus certified a class of citizens of Ohio, rejecting plaintiffs' lawyers' ambitious attempt to include just about all Americans in a class, on March 7. The case concerns chemicals known as PFAS, which are used in firefighting foam and were used in products like non-stick cookware. PFAS do not leave the human body, leading to the nickname "forever chemicals." Sargus' ruling certifies a class of Ohio citizens with at least 0.05 parts per trillion of PFAS in their blood. He turned down the chance to certify a nationwide class -- "the most ambitious class imaginable," as the defendants put it. DuPont, 3M and others opposed nationwide class certification in the case, complaining the proposed class would include about 330 million people exposed to any of the 5,000 distinct chemicals in the PFAS family. A research project set up by DuPont to settle Ohio and West Virginia contamination claims earlier this century showed probable links to six diseases, including kidney and testicular cancers, but the epidemiology used has been called less than conclusive. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a health advisory for water with 70 parts per trillion, but has not issued a formal maximum contaminant level. States have, though, that are far below 70 ppt. Some of them have also hired private lawyers on contingency fees to sue 3M, DuPont and others. Plaintiff Kevin Hardwick's lawyers have asked the court for "the establishment of an independent panel of scientists" who would be "jointly selected by the parties" and funded by defendants. The panel would research alleged health effects of PFAS and report their findings, which would be "definitive and binding on all the parties," the original complaint said. Hardwick, a firefighter, is represented by lawyers at Taft Stettinius in Columbus; Douglas and London in New York; and Levin Papantonio in Pensacola, Fla. PFAS are still required by the government for firefighting foam on its military bases, despite litigation like the Hardwick class action and a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in South Carolina. [GN] ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Echo Design Group, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Echo Design Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02326 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Echo -- https://echonewyork.com/ -- is an industry leader in the design, marketing and distribution of home and fashion 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 ELECTRIC & ROSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric & Rose LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Electric & Rose LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02330 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Electric & Rose -- https://electricandrose.com/ -- offers easy breezy athletic clothes and loungewear that are all designed and handmade in Los Angeles.[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 FAT BRANDS: Faces Matthews Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. MATTHEWS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situated v. FAT BRANDS INC., ANDREW WIEDERHORN, RON ROE, REBECCA HERSHINGER, and KEN KUICK, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded FAT Brands securities between December 4, 2017 and February 18, 2022 seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On December 4, 2017, FAT Brands filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2017 which was signed by Defendants Wiederhorn and Roe. Attached to the 3Q17 Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Andrew Wiederhorn and Roe attesting to the accuracy of financial 14 reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud, says the suit. The 3Q17 Report allegedly neglected to state Defendant Wiederhorn and/or his son and current FAT Brands Chief Operating Officer ("COO”), Thayer Wiederhorn, had engaged in transactions "for no legitimate corporate purpose" connected to the Company but stated the following, in pertinent part, regarding the debt, loans, and financing concerning Defendant Wiederhorn: "On June 21, 2017, the debt was purchased by a limited partnership in which Andrew Wiederhorn, the CEO of the Company, is a general partner. Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. has agreed to indemnify FAT Brands Inc. and Subsidiaries from costs and liabilities which may arise from this matter." On February 22, 2022 1 , before trading hours, the Company filed with the SEC a Form 8-K, in which the Company announced the following, in relevant part, regarding the investigation: "the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission informed the Company in December 2021 that they have opened investigations relating to the Company and our Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Wiederhorn, and are formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other things, the Company's December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., transactions between these entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, and compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family." On this news FAT Brands' warrants' price fell $2.41, or 35%, to 13 close at $4.47 per warrant on February 22, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the 16 decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class 17 members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was 6 damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. FAT Brands purports to be a franchising company which acquires, develops, and markets quick-service, fast casual, and casual dining restaurant concepts including the brands of: Fatburger, Johnny Rockets, Twin Peaks, Fazoli's, Buffalo's Cafe, Buffalo's Express, Ponderosa Steakhouse, Bonanza Steakhouse, Hurricane Grill & Wings, Yalla Mediterranean, and Elevation Burger. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com FGX INTERNATIONAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FGX International, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FGX International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02269 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FGX International -- http://www.fgxi.com/-- an EssilorLuxottica company, is a leading global designer and marketer of non-prescription glasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. The case is styled as Scott A. Olsen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), Case No. 3:22-cv-00368-TWR-NLS (S.D. Cal., March 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ -- was an Italian-American multinational corporation primarily known as a manufacturer of automobiles, commercial vehicles, auto parts and production systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Marie Murphy, Esq. Niall McCarthy, Esq. Veena Bhatia, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: amurphy@cpmlegal.com nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com vbhatia@cpmlegal.com - and - Jeffrey Garret Mudd, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (310) 392-7542 Email: jmudd@cpmlegal.com FREEWAY INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Freeway Insurance Services America LLC. The case is captioned as Brenda Whittaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freeway Insurance Services America LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-08042-DGC (D. Ariz., March 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers auto, commercial vehicle, homeowners, renters, business, motorcycle, motorhome, watercraft, snowmobile, health, landlord, theft, and life insurance services. Freeway Insurance Services serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN PC Pierpont Commerce Center 4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (480) 833-1001 Facsimile: (480) 969-8267 E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Taylor True Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO LLC 3900 E Mexico Ave., Ste. 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 907-7628 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com FRESH MARKET: Ramsey Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA RAMSEY, Individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated current v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00031 (E.D. Tenn., March 18, 2022) is brought against the Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods during all times material at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the FLSA. Plaintiff Cassandra Ramsey was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee at all times material to this collective action. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following similarly situated persons: "All hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant within the state of Tennessee for at least one weekly pay period consisting of at least 40 hours during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, up to and including the present." The Fresh Market is an American chain of gourmet supermarkets based in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com GONG CHA TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gong Cha Tea, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gong Cha Tea, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01529 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gong Cha -- https://gongchausa.com/ -- is an international beverage franchise specializing in freshly prepared bubble tea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com HALSBROOK INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsbrook, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Halsbrook, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02332 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Halsbrook -- https://www.halsbrook.com/ -- is a luxury fashion destination with a signature, personalized approach to online shopping.[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 HARDY WAY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardy Way, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hardy Way, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02329 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hardy Way LLC is located in Birmingham, Alabama and is part of the Other Financial Investment Activities Industry.[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 HEIDE WASHINGTON: Robinson Files Suit in W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heidi Washington, et al. The case is styled as James E. Robinson, on behalf of himself and all others persons similarly situated within the MDOC v. Heidi E. Washington, named as Heidi Washington, Director; Jeremy Bush, Deputy Director; Norma Killough, Administrative Assistant; Melinda Braman Warden; Steven Card, Facility Manager; Mirela Kecalovic, Mail Room Staff; N. Lake, Grievance Coordinator; J. Vanbeek, Unit Counselor C-Unit, also named as J. Van Beek, Case No. 1:22-cv-00262-SJB (W.D. Mich., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heidi E. Washington -- https://www.michigan.gov/corrections/ -- has served as the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections since July 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled KENNETH CHIARITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV394402, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01796 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal period, failure to provide rest period, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to timely pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business-related expenses, civil penalties, and unlawful business practices. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com aaron.cole@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com omar.aniff@ogletreedeakins.com HOST INT'L: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA LEWIS and MARLENE MENDOZA, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part the joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule and request for ruling on motion to dismiss as follows: Event Current Continued Deadline Deadline -- Last day to file motion July 25, 2022 Sept. 26, 2022 for class certification: -- Response to motion for Aug. 22, 2022 Oct. 24, 2022 class certification: -- Reply to motion for Sept. 6, 2022 Nov. 7, 2022 class certification: -- Hearing on motion for Sept. 26, 2022 Nov. 21, 2022 class certification: -- Last day to participate Nov. 9, 2022 Jan. 11, 2023 in a settlement conference/mediation: -- Last day to file notice Nov. 11, 2022 Jan. 13, 2023 of settlement/joint report re settlement: -- Post Mediation Status Nov. 21, 2022 Jan. 23, 2023 Conference: Host International provides catering services to travelers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tx04MH at no extra charge.[CC] HOUSE FOODS AMERICA: Zuniga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Irving Carlos Zuniga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. House Foods America Corporation, House Foods Holding USA, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02021-01233040-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of CA for the County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 9, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00372-CJC-JDE to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. House Foods -- https://www.house-foods.com/ -- offers wholesome and delicious tofu products that bring families together and create inspiration in the kitchen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Malalai F. Anbari, Esq. David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 902117 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: malalai@tomorrowlaw.com david@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Clint D. Robison, Esq. Michael Isaac Kessler, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 1050 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (949) 942-8500 Fax: (949) 942-8510 Email: crobison@ohaganmeyer.com MKessler@ohaganmeyer.com HYATT CORP: Hartstein Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Karen Hartstein filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KAREN HARTSTEIN v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04874-DSF-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 1, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay all wages upon discharge or layoff, and failed to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10, 2021, the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting Hartstein's motion for class certification. On November 15, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims and causes of action. On February 14, 2022, Judge Fischer granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied Hartstein's motion for partial summary judgment. Judgment was also entered stating that Plaintiffs take nothing, the action will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Defendant is to recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1920. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Karen Hartstein v. Hyatt Corporation, Case No. 22-55276, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 16, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Karen Hartstein Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 23, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 14, 2022; -- Transcript is due on May 16, 2022; -- Appellant Karen Hartstein opening brief is due on June 23, 2022; -- Appellee Hyatt Corporation answering brief is due on July 25, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KAREN HARTSTEIN, in her representative capacity and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Eileen Goldsmith, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 - and - Jill Jessica Parker, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Defendant-Appellee HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation doing business in California, is represented by: Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park, E, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 207-9301 E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com - and - Holger Besch, Esq. Brian Patrick Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9624 INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Chandler Labor Suit Goes to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALPHONSA CHANDLER, NICHOLAS GORE, BRENT MERITY, and ERIC VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATORS, LLC, Case No. 22-2-02546-8 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 22, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00339 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. International Marine and Industrial Applicators, LLC is a provider of ship surface preparation services based in Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melissa Mordy, Esq. Kate Tylee Herz, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 180th Avenue, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004-4786 Telephone: (425) 646-6100 Facsimile: (425) 646-6199 E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com katetyleeherz@dwt.com - and – Katie Loberstein, Esq. Scott Prange, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: katieloberstein@dwt.com scottprange@dwt.com JUUL LABS: Alexander Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER 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-01836 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Alexander Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 3314 Buffalo Street in Alexander, 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: Alpine Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALPINE UNION 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-01779 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Alpine Union School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2001 Tavern Road in Alpine, California. 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: Basin School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction --------------------------------------------------------------- BASIN 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-01824-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Basin School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 100 Centerville Road in Idaho City, 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: Caro Community Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARO COMMUNITY 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-01825 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Caro Community Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 301 North Hooper Street in Caro, 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: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Au Gres-Sims Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AU GRES-SIMS 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-01827 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Au Gres-Sims School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 310 South Court Street in Au Gres, 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: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Unified School Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ANTIGO, 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-01774 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Unified School District of Antigo is a unified school district with its offices located at 120 South Dorr Street in Antigo, Wisconsin. 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: Chandler Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHANDLER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 2:22-cv-00355, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01794-WHO to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Arizona Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by targeting youth in their e-cigarette campaigns and creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis in Arizona. Chandler Unified School District is a public school district located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 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: Joseph C. Tann, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. TANN, PLLC 7735 N. Seventy-Eighth Street Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (602) 432-4241 E-mail: josephtann@josephtann.com - and – Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 248-0088 E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com - and – Lynn Sarko, Esq. Derek Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Dean Kawamoto, Esq. Felicia Craick, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com fcraick@kellerrohrback.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Clark County Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLARK 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-01775 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Clark County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 43 West 2nd South in Dubois, 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: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Canton Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CANTON 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-01833 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Canton Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 99 State Street in Canton, 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: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Bartholomew Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- BARTHOLOMEW CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL CORPORATION, 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-01798 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation is a public school district with its offices located Central Avenue in Columbus, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces Benzie County Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENZIE COUNTY CENTRAL 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-01823 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Benzie County Central Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 9300 Homestead Road in Benzonia, 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: Faces Evart Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- EVART 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-01780 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Evart Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 321 North Hemlock Street in Evart, 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: Faces Lanesville School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis --------------------------------------------------------------- LANESVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, 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-01811 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Lanesville Community School Corporation is a public school district with its offices located on Crestview Avenue in Lanesville, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces RSU-2 Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic ----------------------------------------------------------- RSU-2, 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-01782 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. RSU-2 is a unified school district with its offices located at 7 Reed Street in Hallowell, Maine. 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: Frankton-Lapel Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANKTON-LAPEL COMMUNITY 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-01807 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Frankton-Lapel Community Schools is a public school district with its offices located in Anderson, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Cheektowaga-Maryvale Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHEEKTOWAGA-MARYVALE UNION FREE 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-01786 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Cheektowaga-Maryvale Union Free School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1050 Maryvale Drive in Cheektowaga, 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: Memphis Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEMPHIS COMMUNITY 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-01781 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Memphis Community Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 34110 Bordman Road in Memphis, 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: Monroe 2-Orleans Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONROE 2-ORLEANS BOCES, 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-01835 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Monroe 2-Orleans BOCES is a public regional education services agency, with its offices located at 3599 Big Ridge Road in Spencerport, 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: Plymouth Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, 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-01802 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Plymouth Community School Corporation is a public school district with its offices located on Berkley Street in Plymouth, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Potlatch School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho ---------------------------------------------------------------- POTLATCH 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-01776 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Potlatch School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 635 Pine Street in Potlatch, 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, Lake Ridge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAKE RIDGE NEW TECH 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-01801 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Lake Ridge New Tech Schools is a public school corporation with its offices located on West Ridge Road in Gary, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Southwest Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SOUTHWEST SCHOOL CORPORATION, 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-01820 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. Southwest School Corporation is a public school district with its offices located on North Section Street in Sullivan, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Roscommon Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSCOMMON 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-01822 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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. Roscommon Area Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 299H West Sunset Drive in Roscommon, 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: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mishawaka Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SCHOOL CITY OF MISHAWAKA, 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-01814 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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. School City of Mishawaka is a public school district with its offices located in Mishawaka, Indiana. 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: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Wasatch County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASATCH 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-01787 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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. Wasatch County School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 101 East 200 North in Heber 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: West Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction -------------------------------------------------------------- WEST VALLEY 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-01784 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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 Valley Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 5359 School Street in West Valley, 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 KROGER CO: Cochran Suit Removed to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ricky Cochran, Alain Berrebi, Jaramey Stobbe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., Accellion, Inc., Defendants; Alexander Buck, Movant; Case No. 5:21-cv-01887-EJD, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on March 21, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-mc-00102-JWB-GEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case. The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger -- https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Movant is represented by: Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Phone: (816) 492-2826 Fax: (816) 492-2826 Email: jeremy@boulware-law.com L3HARRIS TECH: Faces Stengl Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. STENGL, DANIEL WILL, RONALD F. KOSEWICZ, GARY K. COLLEY, LESLIE D. DIAZ, AMAYA JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. MCKINLEY and JOHN KARIPAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 6:22-cv-00572-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., March 18, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the L3Harris Plan's fiduciaries, which include L3Harris Technologies, Inc., the Board of Directors of L3Harris Technologies, Inc., and the Investment Committee L3Harris Technologies, Inc. and its members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties. On November 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs sent an Administrative Demand to the Plan Administrator via FedEx Priority Overnight. The Administrative Demand detailed Plaintiffs' claims and enclosed a copy of a Complaint identical to the instant one in all material aspects. On November 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs received confirmation that the Administrative Demand was delivered on that day at 11:21 a.m. and signed for by B. Vargo. In response, by email dated March 3, 2022, Counsel for the Defendants confirmed that Plaintiffs can now be considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA allegedly imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,", with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. These twin fiduciary duties are "the highest known to the law." The Department of Labor has explicitly stated that employers are held to a "high standard of care and diligence" and must, among other duties, both "establish a prudent process for selecting investment options and service providers" and "monitor investment options and service providers once selected to see that they continue to be appropriate choices." Plaintiff Stengl participated in the Plan, investing in the options offered by the Plan and which are the subject of this lawsuit, including the Fidelity Freedom 2020 K target date fund. In addition, Plaintiff Stengl was, among other things, subject to the alleged excessive administration and recordkeeping costs. Plaintiff Daniel Will resides in West Chester, Pennsylvania. During his employment, Plaintiff Will participated in the Plan, investing in the options offered by the Plan and was, among other things, subject to the alleged excessive administration and recordkeeping costs. Plaintiff Ronald F. Kosewicz resides in Little Rock, Arkansas. During his employment, the Plaintiff Kosewicz participated in the Plan, investing in the options offered by the Plan and was, among other things, subject to the alleged excessive administration and recordkeeping costs. L3Harris is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary. 2019 Form 5500 of the L3 Harris Retirement Savings Plan filed with the United States Department of Labor. Its corporate headquarters is located at 1025 West NASA Boulevard, Mail Stop C41I, Melbourne, Florida. L3Harris describes itself as "an agile global aerospace and defense technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet customers' mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced defense and commercial technologies across air, land, sea, space and cyber domains. L3Harris has approximately $18 billion in annual revenue and 48,000 employees, with customers in more than 100 countries." 2020 Annual Report of L3Harris Technologies, Inc. L3Harris, acting through its Board of Directors, appointed the Committee to, among other things, ensure that the investments available to Plan participants are appropriate, had no more expense than reasonable and performed well as compared to their peers. Under ERISA, fiduciaries with the power to appoint have the concomitant fiduciary duty to monitor and supervise their appointees. The Committee fell well short of these fiduciary goals. Under ERISA, fiduciaries with the power to appoint have the concomitant fiduciary duty to monitor and supervise their appointees. Accordingly, the Board during the putative Class Period is/was a fiduciary of the Plan, within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(21)(A) because it had a duty to monitor the actions of the Committee. The Committee ensures that the investments available to Plan participants are appropriate, had no more expense than reasonable and performed well as compared to their peers. IPS. However, the Committee failed to prudently carry out its fiduciary duties. As described in the IPS, the Committee has the responsibility to "establish, and modify, as appropriate, the investment policies for the Plan and the investment objectives and performance goals for the management of Plan investment options, and monitor the performance of investment options against performance criteria."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Telephone: (954) 324-3651 Facsimile: (954) 248-2099 E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT: Maravilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCS Community Employment LLC. The case is styled as Thalia Maravilla, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LCS Community Employment LLC, Case No. SCV-270452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., March 23, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment." LCS Community Employment -- https://www.lcsnet.com/ -- have been developing, marketing and managing senior living communities for more than 50 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com LIFELOCK INC: Giddings Balks at False Identity Theft Protection Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELBERT GIDDINGS and ELBERT GIDDINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFELOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 220301624 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., March 16, 2022) arises from the Defendant's misleading, false and/or deceptive advertisements and website regarding the efficacy of LifeLock's technology and safeguards in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. According to the complaint, LifeLock aggressively markets "identity theft protection" via numerous channels including television, radio, online and contracted affiliates. The Defendant allegedly fails to deliver a product that fulfills the numerous promises made in its advertisements. As a result, Plaintiff, Elbert Giddings, and those similarly situated customers whom he seeks to represent in this class action, paid hundreds of dollars for a product that not only provided them no meaningful protection from identity theft, but actually created a false sense of security that their interests were being monitored. In addition to the misrepresentations contained in LifeLock's advertising via television, radio, and its website, LifeLock markets its product through numerous "affiliates," which operate online. These affiliates sign agreements with LifeLock to receive a commission in exchange for driving web traffic to LifeLock's website to sign up as new customers, says the complaint. LifeLock Inc. is an American identity theft protection company based in Tempe, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan R. Zibelman, Esq. PHILADELPHIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLC Two Penn Center, Suite 1030 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 569-0600 LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Locust Medical, LLC. The case is styled as Gerard Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Locust Medical, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00424-MWB (M.D. Pa., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Locust Medical, LLC -- https://locustmedical.com/ -- is doing business as a local retailer of Locust Medical, LLC, providing medical supplies and equipment which are considered as Medicare chargeable items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jbower@bower-law.com MEOW WOLF: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meow Wolf, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meow Wolf, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02348 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meow Wolf -- https://meowwolf.com/ -- is an American arts and entertainment company that creates large-scale immersive art installations as well as produces streaming content, music videos, and arts and music festivals.[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 MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Navez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARGARITA NAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2021CH05310, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 23, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01513 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. is a debt collection agency, with its principal place of business located in Flint, Michigan. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Charity A. Olson, Esq. OLSON LAW GROUP P.O. Box 64 Hartland, MI 48353 Telephone: (734) 255-6908 E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com MERIDIAN LODGING: Faces Banks Suit Over Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHONNETTE BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERIDIAN LODGING ASSOCIATES, LLP d/b/a HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON, Case No. 2022LA000268 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 18, 2022) is a class action complaint against the Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. Meridian is a part of the hotel industry, with locations throughout Illinois. When employees first begin their jobs at Meridian, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards, the suit says. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometricidentifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, added the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Meridian in Illinois through 2019. As an employee, Meridian required the Plaintiff to scan Plaintiff's fingerprint so that it could use it as an authentication method to track time. Meridian subsequently stored Plaintiff's fingerprint data in its databases. Each time Plaintiff began and ended a workday, Meridian required a scan of Plaintiff's fingerprints. The Plaintiff contends that Meridian never informed her of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used fingerprints.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: docekting@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com META PLATFORMS: Logan Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Don Ramey Logan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01316, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 22, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01805 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Copyright Infringement. Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc. -- https://about.facebook.com/meta/ -- is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 421-6492 The Defendant is represented by: Joseph C. Gratz, Esq. DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 362-6666 Fax: (415) 236-6300 Email: jgratz@durietangri.com MISSISSIPPI POWER: Wins Suit Over Overcharged Fees --------------------------------------------------- Southern Co. Gas disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that its subsidiary, Mississippi Power, won a putative class action complaint together with three then-serving members of the Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed said case, which was amended in March 2019 to include four additional plaintiffs. Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to charge a mirror Construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction costs for the Kemper Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into service. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were improper and make claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The district court dismissed the amended complaint; however, in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S. Constitution. In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several additional state law claims based on the allegation that Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of interest applicable to refunds. In November 2020, the court denied each of the plaintiffs' pending motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi Power. On January 22, 2021, the court denied further motions by the plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second amended complaint. On February 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Southern Company is a holding company that owns all of the outstanding common stock of three traditional electric operating companies, Southern Power Company, and Southern Company Gas based in Georgia. MNG 2005 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNG 2005, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MNG 2005, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01554 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mng 2005 Inc is located in Saint Louis, MO, United States and is part of the Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Residents Win $75.3MM Court Judgment ----------------------------------------------------- Associated Press reports that a group of New Orleans residents whose homes were built on a toxic landfill decades ago have won a $75.3 million court judgement against the city, its housing authority and the local school board. State district Judge Nicole Sheppard's ruling said 5,000 residents are entitled to that total amount for emotional distress and property damage involving the former Agriculture Street landfill, according to The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate. Sheppard's March 14 ruling says the housing authority and the parish school board were liable for building two residential communities -- Gordon Plaza and Press Park -- and Moton Elementary School atop the landfill, which was later named a federal Superfund site. Homes in the area were built in the 1970s and 1980s and marketed to Black, low- and middle-income residents who weren't told that the site was a one-time landfill. As awareness grew and environmentalists raised concerns, the area was named a federal Superfund cleanup site in 1994. Amid reports that the soil was contaminated with lead and carcinogens, including arsenic, residents began a decades-long effort to be relocated at government expense. "This is a big deal for the residents of Agriculture Street," said Suzette Bagneris, a lead attorney representing residents. The city said it was reviewing the ruling but a spokesperson declined to discuss it further or say whether an appeal was planned. Dozens of mostly Black families still live in the area. Last November, EPA Administrator Michael Regan toured the New Orleans site while making a five-day "Journey to Justice" tour that highlighted low-income, mostly minority communities adversely affected by decades of industrial pollution. The trip included other stops from Mississippi to Texas. A Toxics Release Inventory prepared by the EPA shows that African Americans and other minority groups make up 56% of those living near toxic sites such as refineries, landfills and chemical plants. Negative effects include chronic health problems such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension. While pleased with the court ruling, one resident questioned whether the final number would be enough to help residents relocate. "It's good news that will hopefully get some of us off this nasty landfill," said Jesse Perkins, a member of Residents of Gordon Plaza Inc., a nonprofit representing the subdivision's residents. But he was skeptical about how much residents would benefit. Bagneris said the $75 million will be apportioned based on factors including the number of years each resident lived in the affected places and the locations of their homes. An example cited by the newspaper: Someone who lived in Gordon Plaza for 20 or more years could receive $25,000 and 20% of the value of their home. But residents have questioned whether their homes have any value, given the Superfund designation. Another concern for residents is the city's reputation for failing to pay legal judgments in a variety of types of lawsuits, including wrongful deaths and and disputes over city contracts. As of late November, the city had more than 560 outstanding judgments and settlements in state and federal courts with some dating back 25 years, according to a Times-Picayune ' New Orleans Advocate analysis of city law department records. [GN] NEW YORK FAST: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK FAST CONCRETE GROUP, INC. and B SOSA ENTERPRISES CORP., OSCAR VELASQUEZ and BRAYAN SOSA, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01447 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and failure to furnish accurate wage notices and statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter while performing related miscellaneous duties from August 2020 until December 2021. New York Fast Concrete Group, Inc. is a construction contractor based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 PEABODY ENERGY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in NY Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that is it facing a Securities Class Action filed by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System styled "In Re Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation" (Case No. 1:20-cv-08024) against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who held Company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the company's North Goonyella Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to restart the mine after the fire. On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the Plaintiffs' response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition on August 23, 2021, completing briefing at this phase of the litigation. Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Phelps Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is facing a shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Phelps v. Samantha Algaze, et al." (Case No. 1:20-cv-01747-UNA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain directors and former officers of the Company, as defendants. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff did not make a demand on the company's board before instituting the lawsuit and alleges such demand would have been futile. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose adverse facts relating to the safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella Mine, thereby leading to a September 28, 2018 fire, and allegedly failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of reopening the mine. The derivative complaint alleges contribution against certain current and former officers for securities fraud based on the Securities Class Action, and against all defendants, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets for causing the Company to incur legal liability and unjust enrichment. In late March 2021, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to consolidate and stay both derivative actions for judicial efficiency and cost until the court rules on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is facing a Securities Class Action filed in September 28, 2020 by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System styled "In Re Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation" (Case No. 1:20-cv-08024) against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of shareholders (Plaintiffs) who held Company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the company's North Goonyella Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to restart the mine after the fire. On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the Plaintiffs' response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition on August 23, 2021, completing briefing at this phase of the litigation. Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. PHH MORTGAGE: Pretrial Deadlines in Salter Extended by 60 Days --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SALTER, and MARIE JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 0:21-cv-62318-CMA (S.D. Fla), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order continuing the trial date, and extending all corresponding pretrial deadlines, by 60 days and provide such further relief as it deems just and appropriate. The District Court entered an Order setting trial and pre-trial schedule on December 14, 2021. On February 9, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant PHH's Motion to Dismiss. As part of the Order the Court disagreed with Plaintiffs' arguments that the notice and cure requirement of section 20 of the operative mortgages did not apply. Thus in response to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs are separately seeking leave to amend their complaint and request an extension of the January 25, 2022 deadline for same, which expired prior to the Court's ruling. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests including a draft Rule 30b6 Deposition Notice on Defendant; the Defendant has provided March 18, 2022 as the proposed deposition date for Defendant's corporate representative. The Plaintiffs are awaiting the Defendant's objections to the Rule 30b6 proposed topics and scope. The Defendant's responses are due on March 17, 2022 to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production and on March 23, 2022 to Plaintiffs' First Combined Set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, respectfully. Currently, the deadline for class certification discovery is March 18, 2022 and the deadline for Plaintiffs' class certification motion is March 28, 2022, respectively. The Plaintiffs need more time to conduct adequate class discovery in this matter. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the trial date and all pretrial deadlines for the instant litigation be continued by 60 days and that all corresponding deadlines set by the Order Setting Civil Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule , be extended equally in line with the foregoing continuance in order to allow for adequate class discovery. The Defendant does not oppose the proposed continuance but only agrees to a 30 day extension of the trial date and corresponding pretrial deadlines, no prior continuances have been granted, and the continuance is not for the purposes of undue delay. PHH Mortgage provides mortgage financing solutions. A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37IeC3w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-7062 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, 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 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com - and - Jessica L. Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (954) 282-8277 E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com PINNACLE FOODS: Raczkowski Sues Over Deceptive Olive Oil Label -------------------------------------------------------------- CONRAD RACZKOWSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02061-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and state consumer fraud acts. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its vegetable oil spread under Earth Balance brand. The Defendant represented the product as "Made With Olive Oil," with green label statements and packaging, and promoted as "Non-GMO" and "Vegan," which caused consumers to expect it contains a significant, non-de minimis amount of olive oil, in relative and absolute amounts to all oils used. However, the ingredient list reveals a smaller than expected amount of olive oil, in absolute and relative terms. The amount of olive oil is insufficient to confer any of the health benefits associated with olive oil or deliver the taste of olive oil. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it. Pinnacle Foods Inc. is a packaged foods company, with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. [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 PLAYERS TRUNK: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Players Trunk LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Players Trunk LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02342 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Players Trunk -- https://theplayerstrunk.com/ -- is a marketplace that sells player-owned and game-worn gear.[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 PRESTIGE HOMECARE: Hill Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE HILL and JASON HILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESTIGE HOMECARE, LLC, CHERYL SMITH, and SHIRLEY ELLIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00065 (E.D. Tenn., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as companionship caregivers. JoAnne Hill worked for Defendants from approximately March 1, 2020 to February 22, 2022. Jason Hill worked for Defendants from approximately April 15, 2020 to August 29, 2021. Prestige Homecare, LLC is a for profit limited liability company formed and organized under Tennessee law and currently conducting business as an in-home provider of healthcare and companionship services to patients in the Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama Tri-State area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Doug S. Hamill, Esq. MIKEL & HAMILL PLLC 620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200 Chattanooga, TN 37403 Telephone: (423) 541-5400 E-mail: dhamill@mhemploymentlaw.com PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Driggins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. The case is styled as Yeshonda Driggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01065 (E.D. Pa., March 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company -- http://www.progressive.com/-- operates as an insurance firm. The Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 234-6487 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Junks Cho ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that in September 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss an amended complaint without prejudice of a November 2019 a putative class action complaint entitled "Cho v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al." The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in the Prudential Employee Savings Plan and alleges that defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), in the administration, management and operation of the Plan, including engaging in prohibited transactions and seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In September 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added as individual defendants certain PFI officers and current and former members of the company's Administrative Committee and Investment Oversight Committee. In December 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2021, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. In October 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting claims against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions and failure to monitor fiduciaries. The second amended complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an investment manager based in New Jersey. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Doyle Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that a February 2021 putative class action complaint entitled "Doyle C. Stone v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance Company," was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey was dismissed after a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed by the plaintiffs. The complaint asserts claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. and Pruco Life Insurance Company for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, based on the company's alleged deficient identification, notification and payment practices for retirement plan participants in transferred group retirement, annuity and insurance plans and improper transfer of Plan Participant funds to its own accounts. The putative class includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 to the present. In April 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In June 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint, without prejudice. In August 2021, plaintiff filed a new putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. and Pruco Life Insurance Company for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and common law fraud. The putative class includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 until the present. In September 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint. In November 2021, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiff's fraud claims without prejudice and breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. In January 2022, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice that was approved by the Court. Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an investment manager based in New Jersey. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Griffin RICO Suit in S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed alleging that the company violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In February 2021, an amended putative class action complaint entitled "William James Griffin, et al. v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.), Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, Inc. and Assurance IQ, LLC," was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and engaged in a conspiracy to defraud customers through the sale of limited indemnity and short term health insurance products to individuals seeking comprehensive medical insurance. The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. In June 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an investment manager based in New Jersey. RAYTHEON COMPANY: Curry Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------- Timmieo Curry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Raytheon Company; Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan; Does 1 through 10, Plan Administrator of the Raytheon Bargaining Plan, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-JAS (D. Ariz., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought under the Employee Income Security Act of 1974 to declare Plaintiff's rights under the terms of the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan and predecessor plans and to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and remedy violations of the Plan and ERISA. According to the complaint, the Defendants have a fiduciary responsibility to provide Plaintiff and class members with truthful and adequate disclosures of benefits provisions, to administer the plan in accordance with ERISA and the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with ERISA, and to oversee the operation of the Plan and to remedy errors and omissions. By the acts and omissions made by the Defendants, including, inter alia, by applying amendments retroactively to reduce accrued benefits and future benefit accruals without notice, by failing to adequately provide notice of Plan provisions and amendments, by failing to give advance notice to Mr. Curry and Class 1 members that the Plan was amended to eliminate the right to return to the contributory part of the Plan upon a voluntary termination of employment, by failing to provide notice and opportunities to Mr. Curry and Class 2 members to repay withdrawn contributions, by failing to oversee and correct benefits statements that Defendants knew or should have known were incorrect, by failing to determine participants' rights to benefits under the Plan with reference to nonforfeitable rights and accrued benefits under the Plan, and by depriving Plaintiff and class members of rights protected by ERISA and the terms of the Plan, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and class members, asserts the complaint. Raytheon Company is a technology company specializing in defense, homeland security, and other government markets throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEPHANIE KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Case No. 22-000703-CI, was removed from the County Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 22, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00667 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Plaintiff's claims under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Receivable Management Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency located in Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chantel Wonder, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI Miami Tower 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 428-5309 E-mail: cwonder@grsm.com RETROSPECTIVE GOODS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrospective Goods, LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Retrospective Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02268 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrospective Goods, LLC is located in Brooklyn, New York and is part of the Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SALEM FIVE BANCORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salem Five Bancorp. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Salem Five Bancorp, Case No. 1:22-cv-02340 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Salem Five -- https://www.salemfive.com/ -- provides full-service financial services including private banking, checking, deposit, and savings accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal SBS SPORTS: Sanchez Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBS SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02321-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, Saintbernard.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a) the screen reader fails to read advertisement pop up links; (b) the screen reader fails to read the "search" banner; (c) the screen reader skips over certain text on the page; (d) the screen reader fails to describe the promotional images and other images; (e) the screen reader fails to read the "sub-menu" tab even when the item is selected; (f) the screen reader abruptly stops functioning in the middle of a sentence or speech; and (g) the screen reader fails to read the "cart" link when a new item is added. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. SBS Sports, Inc. is an online retail company that conducts business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com jcharo@mizrahikroub.com wdownes@mizrahikroub.com SESSOMS & ROGERS: Hall Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sessoms & Rogers, P.A. The case is styled as David Hall, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., Case No. 3:22-cv-00124 (W.D.N.C., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A. -- https://www.sessomslaw.com/home -- is a Durham-based civil litigation law firm established in 1984.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 371-4333 Fax: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com SHEN BEAUTY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shen Beauty LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shen Beauty LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02317 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shen Beauty -- https://shen-beauty.com/ -- offers unrivaled selection of, skin care, makeup, fragrance and more from classic and emerging brands.[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 SOFT SURFBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soft Surfboards, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Soft Surfboards, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02318 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Soft Surfboards Inc. doing business as Liquid Shredder -- https://liquidshredder.com/soft-surfboards/ -- was founded in 2000. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of sporting and recreation goods.[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 SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solheim Lutheran Home. The case is styled as Rhina Villeda, on behalf of herself, the state of california, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Solheim Lutheran Home, a California corporation, Case No. 22STCV09841 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Solheim Lutheran Home -- https://solheimsenior.org/ -- is a retirement home in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. MICHAEL R. CROSNER A LAW CORP 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: 818-515-2382 Fax: 310-510-6429 Email: mrclawyer@aol.com STATE FARM MUTUAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Bernadette Williams, Rick McConnell, Rosilyn Wilson, Linda Lewis, Latasha Huff, Haunanimae Cervantes-White, Maria Munoz, Kimberly Benson, Roy Tuinstra, Evelyn Brown, Michelle Snyder, William Ross Dean, Richard Dacheff, Diane Newkirk, Sandra Smiling, Shaun Robert, Roque Espinoza, Jennifer Payne, Latishia Bowden, DJ Neill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01422 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com STEVES MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steves Marine of Amityville, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Steves Marine of Amityville, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02250-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Steves Marine of Amityville -- http://www.stevesmarine.com/-- is a marine supply store in Amityville, 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 STRONGS MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strongs Marine, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Strongs Marine, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02251 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Strong's Marine -- https://www.strongsmarine.com/ -- provides the highest level of marine service and sales at the best value on Long Island.[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 SWISS FARMS PRODUCTS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swiss Farms Products, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Swiss Farms Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01503 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Swiss Farms -- https://www.swiss-farms.com/ -- create and nurture brands that take an innovative, inspired, and joyful approach to bringing plants into people's interior and exterior spaces.[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 TIKTOK INC: High Court Allows Data Protection Claim to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Teacher Stern LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on March 8, 2022, High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin allowed a data protection claim against TikTok to continue stating that the case has a serious issue to be tried. This follows the case of Lloyd v Google in November 2021 where the Supreme Court blocked a class-action claim for compensation against Google for tracking Apple iPhone users' internet activity for several months without permission. This landmark ruling prevented similar group actions against big tech firms that handle the data of millions of people. The claim in the TikTok case was brought by Anne Longfield, the former UK Children's Commissioner, on behalf of a class of child users on TikTok. Longfield claimed that the private information of children had been collected illegally and that TikTok's collection practices and structures were deliberately opaque obscuring the final destination of the information gathered. This claim is one of the few remaining mass data claims after the Lloyd v Google decision and is brought under the 'representative action' mechanism, which means that claimants must actively opt-out of the claim if they do not wish to continue. This means that all children who have signed into TikTok since 25 May 2018 are automatically part of the claim. Longfield claimed that each child should receive at least GBP1,000. Nicklin J considered the issues and whether the case was sufficiently different from LLoyd v Google. Nicklin J expressed his doubts over if the case was sufficiently different but has allowed the claim to continue and allowed the claim to be served on several Defendants, TikTok's Chinese, US and Cayman Island entities. The 5th Defendant was a seperate Chinese entity but the application for an extension of time and an alternative means of service was not granted. Tiktok's lawyers have said that they plan to seek summary judgment against the claimant or to get the claim struck out. If TikTok's lawyers are unsuccessful in doing so, it will be interesting to read the Defence and see how the courts deals with the matter going forward. [GN] TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Cline Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Len Cline, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA AGENCY NETOWRK, LLC, a Florida company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00262-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., March 9, 2022), arises from a campaign by the Defendant to market its services through telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started receiving unwanted telephonic sales calls, from the Defendant to his cell phone soliciting Defendant's services. The Plaintiff has never had any business relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was not looking for the Defendant's products and has never given his express written consent to the Defendant to place telephonic solicitation calls to his cell phone. The Plaintiff received, and continues to receive, multiple unwanted telephonic solicitation calls marketing health insurance, from the Defendant. Neither the Plaintiff nor any other members of the proposed classes ever provided the Defendant and/or their agents with prior express written consent to receive the telephone calls at issue. The Defendant does not have any record of express written consent to place telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff or to members of the proposed classes. The Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the Defendant because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls. In response to these calls, the Plaintiff file this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease violating the TCPA and FTSA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Cline is a resident of Putman County, Florida. Transamerica is a marketing group with Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company and affiliated Transamerica companies offering insurance and financial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. (FL Bar no. 84382) KAUFMAN P.A 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, Florida 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com TRUSTEES OF UNITE HERE: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustees of Unite Here Health. The case is styled as Jose Luis Acosta, Armando Garcia, Maria Sanchez, Glynndana Shevlin, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former participants of UNITE HERE Health Plan Units 178 and 278, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Board of Trustees of UNITE HERE Health, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01458 (N.D. Ill., March 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee Benefits. Unite Here Health -- https://www.uhh.org/ -- is a Taft-Hartley labor management trust fund.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth L. Rowe, Esq. George A. Luscombe, III, Esq. Stephen Anthony Yokich, Esq. Robert E. Bloch, Esq. DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH 8 S. Michigan Ave., 19th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 372-1361 Email: efile@laboradvocates.com UNITED AIRLINES: Loucks Suit Asserts Breach of Separation Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA LOUCKS, ROXANN MERLINI, and JO GAWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., UNITED AIRLINES 36-MONTH SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN, and UNITED AIRLINES VOLUNTARY SEPARATION LEAVE PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01390 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract and for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In an effort to reduce its workforce, United allegedly promised its employees that if they retired and within three years thereafter it offered a voluntary separation program, those employees would receive benefits under that program if those benefits were superior to what the employees had received at retirement. The Plaintiffs retired within the three years preceding United's January 21, 2021, offering of its United Airlines Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave program, but were wrongfully denied the benefits of that program, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees of United, bring this action under ERISA or, in the alternative, state contract law, to obtain those benefits or damages, as well as other relief. United Airlines, Inc. is a major U.S. airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic and international route network spanning cities large and small across the United States and all six inhabited continents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 463-3900 Facsimile: (510) 463-3901 E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com - and - Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq. DEBOFSKY SHERMAN CASCIARI REYNOLDS, P.C. 150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1925 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 561-4040 Facsimile: (312) 929-0309 E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com - and - David S. Preminger, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 380-6690 Facsimile: (646) 380-6692 E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com UPHOLD HQ: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Crypto Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Flannery, Esq., Andrew Gann, Esq., Kristen Mynes, Esq., and Samuel Tarry, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a Feb. 28, 2022, McGuireWoods alert discussing a recent case concerning non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and breach-of-contract claims suggested that future litigation over digital assets -- especially as it relates to tort claims under deceptive trade practices -- was likely on the horizon. Less than a week later, that prediction came true. Cryptocurrency (crypto) is a digital currency without a physical form. It is generally decentralized and not issued by a government or a bank. Crypto is a tradable digital asset built on blockchain technology online. Since 2009, when bitcoin was initially released and introduced, over 1,000 cryptocurrencies have been developed and released. More than 380 crypto exchanges currently exist online as well. Information Security and Uphold HQ Uphold HQ Inc. brands itself as a multi-asset digital money platform offering financial services. It serves over 184 countries across more than 80 traditional and crypto currencies. Its website also details Uphold's "state-of-the-art security" and asserts that "[w]e obsess about" security. Uphold's security is under scrutiny due to a negligence lawsuit filed by three plaintiffs seeking class certification. Theodore Rider, Jesse Smith and Gilles Boevi brought this suit for negligence resulting from an alleged failure of Uphold's multifactor authentication method to protect their crypto wallets from being hacked and stolen. The plaintiffs allege that Uphold's security practices fell below the standard of the industry and that Uphold's inadequacies resulted in a breach of the duty of reasonable care. Each plaintiff details how Uphold's security practices led to their loss of approximately $60,000, collectively. Particularly, the plaintiffs allege that Boevi's story exemplifies the experience of others in the putative class of victims. Boevi received an email on Aug. 1, 2021, from Uphold informing him that someone had initiated a transaction affecting his holdings, but he had not initiated the transaction and he could not log onto his Uphold account. He quickly learned that someone had disabled his two-factor authentication. Boevi immediately contacted Uphold's support, and alleges that, although support acknowledged his messages, it failed to freeze his account to prevent further transactions. Two hours after Boevi first notified Uphold of the transactions, the unauthorized user transferred all of Boevi's crypto -- valued at $26,176.21 -- out of his account. According to Boevi, 11 minutes after the final transaction, Uphold support froze his account. After it froze Boevi's account, Uphold conducted an internal investigation and concluded it was in no way responsible for the loss. The email transmitting information about the investigation informed Boevi that the unauthorized user changed Boevi's two-factor authentication device. Uphold offered no recourse and suggested that Boevi take the matter to his local law enforcement. Boevi's experience was replicated in the cases of both Rider and Smith — their two-factor authentication methods were changed without their permission, and they lost $22,000 and $12,000, respectively. Following these breaches of security and thefts, the plaintiffs allege, Uphold has not disclosed or publicly acknowledged this vulnerability, leaving users unwittingly exposed to the risk. The plaintiffs bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, violations of New York consumer law, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. To prevail on a negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. See Sawyer v. Wight, 196 F.Supp. 2d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). The plaintiffs allege that the duty here was created by Uphold accepting and storing the plaintiffs' private information and crypto wallets. As a result, Uphold owed the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care. Uphold breached this duty by knowingly disregarding standard information security principles and permitting unauthorized users to change two-factor authentication methods without contacting the user. Because of this breach, the unauthorized users accessed the accounts and stole the crypto, resulting in loss of plaintiffs' assets. Negligence per se is a different cause of action wherein the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim are satisfied by the violation of a statute. See Cretcher v. United States Bank N.A., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52815, at * 8 (E.D.N.Y. March 19, 2021). Here, the plaintiffs allege that Uphold violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which bars unfair and deceptive acts and practices "in or affecting commerce." The plaintiffs allege that Uphold violated the FTCA by failing to maintain appropriate security, misrepresenting the strength of its security measures, and misleading users into believing that it monitored their accounts for potential fraud 24/7. Likewise, the plaintiffs' claims for violations of New York consumer law rely on deceptive acts or practices in the state of New York. New York General Business Law 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service in the state of New York. Every jurisdiction prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices and false advertising. State laws are generally modeled after the FTCA. Over the past several years, the plaintiffs' bar has begun making claims for deceptive trade practices as a general basis for liability, akin to basic negligence. Some states permit enhanced penalties for deceptive trade practices litigation, including attorney's fees, which are attractive to plaintiffs' counsel. In New York alone, deceptive trade practice litigation has increased from 60 deceptive trade practice class actions filed in 2017, to more than 200 filed in 2021. In this case, the court will broach the subject of deceptive trade practices as they apply to digital assets and crypto exchanges. Crypto cases will likely continue to increase the number of deceptive trade practices class actions filed nationwide. In this case, the plaintiffs further allege that Uphold was unjustly enriched because users conferred a monetary benefit on Uphold by paying fees and commissions to purchase, exchange and sell cryptocurrencies, but did not receive the protection of their accounts in return. To succeed on a breach-of-contract claim, plaintiffs must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) resultant damages. See Low Carbon Processors, LLC v. Kennametal, Inc., 693 F. Supp. 2d 191 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). The plaintiffs allege that they entered into written contracts with Uphold, including its terms of service and its privacy policy. By not providing adequate security, Uphold breached the contract, resulting in the plaintiffs' loss of crypto. Similarly, the elements of a breach-of-warranty claim are: (1) existence of the warranty; (2) breach of the warranty; and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach. See Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 399 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2005). The plaintiffs allege that Uphold promised to users on its website, smart phone application and promotional materials that it was an industry leader in account security and that it maintained numerous safeguards to protect against unauthorized account access. Finally, a successful claim for negligent misrepresentation must show: (1) the defendant had a duty as a result of a special relationship to give correct information; (2) the defendant made a false representation that he or she should have known was incorrect; (3) the defendant knew that the plaintiff desired the information for a serious purpose; (4) the plaintiff intended to rely and act upon it; and (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on it to his or her detriment. See Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan, 970 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). As noted above, the plaintiffs allege that all representations about Uphold's security were false, that the plaintiffs would not have used Uphold's services had they known the security measures were inadequate, and that they relied on Uphold's misrepresentations when they stored their crypto on Uphold's exchange, resulting in the loss of their crypto when unauthorized users exploited Uphold's inadequate security to breach the plaintiffs' accounts. This lawsuit will highlight how traditional legal principles such as negligence apply to the digital world. The case, although built from legal principles familiar to clients, will dive into the world of crypto and online security. Crypto exchanges can face class action lawsuits for failure to provide adequate security measures. These exchanges must adhere to the rules of the analog world or they will face the consequences of lawsuits alleging deceptive trade practices, negligence, breach of contract and warranty, misrepresentation, and violations of state and federal law. Expect the uptick in deceptive trade practices class actions described above to continue to increase with the rise in litigation over digital assets. The continued rise of digital assets and crypto will result in increased litigation in areas of settled law as they apply to new digital instruments. [GN] VALLEY PROTEINS: Settlement in Hollis Suit Wins Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS, et al., v. VALLEY PROTEINS INC., Case No. 3:21-CV-00112-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order granting the following: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, 2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and 3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Service Awards. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Conditionally as a Collective Action and for a Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class as a Collective Action and for a Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and for Appointment of Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are denied as moot. -- The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes only in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement: "Any individual employed by Defendant as a driver in North Carolina during the time period March 19, 2019 to January 13, 2022." -- Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses 1) The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount equal to one-third of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount (i.e., $2,250,000.00); and 2) The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $63,000.00, to come from the Gross Settlement Amount. -- Service Awards (1) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Christopher Hollis is approved in the amount of $100,000.00; (2) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Herman Purvis is approved in the amount of $50,000.00; (3) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Veraka Sturdivant is approved in the amount of $50,000.00; (4) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Justin Cofield is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; (5) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Rodney Johnson is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; (6) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Nelson Johnson is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; (7) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Ricky Rich is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; (8) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Terry Green is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; (9) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Sean Lucas is approved in the amount of $2,000.00; and (10) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Danny Galbreath is approved in the amount of $2,000.00. Valley Proteins provides rendering and recycling of animal by-products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3570CQ4 at no extra charge.[CC] VARIETY COFFEE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Variety Coffee Roasters, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Variety Coffee Roasters, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01528 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Variety Coffee Roasters -- https://varietycoffeeroasters.com/ -- is a subscription services offering delicious, fresh coffee delivered when needed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settlement Deal in Wolther Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that a settlement is underway on the purported class action complaint captioned "Wolther v. Maheshwari et al." Veeco and the court-appointed class representatives signed an agreement to settle said action in October 2021 on a class-wide basis for $15.0 million, subject to court approval and class members' opportunity to object and opt-out. The company reported that the settlement amount will be funded by insurance carriers. On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition by Veeco, filed a purported class action complaint on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition. On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute. Veeco is a manufacturer of advanced semiconductor process equipment headquartered in Plainview, New York. VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Trust Appeals Dismissal of Suit -------------------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in January 25, 2021, the court granted the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend effecting the dismissal of a December 21, 2018 purported Veeco stockholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned "Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Peeler, et al.," (Case No. 18CV339925). The complaint sought to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against current and former Veeco directors premised on purported misstatements and omissions in the registration statement relating to Veeco's Ultratech acquisition. Plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of its case. Veeco is a manufacturer of advanced semiconductor process equipment headquartered in Plainview, New York. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sherrod Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Sherrod and Michael Fulbright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01537-CCC-JSA (D.N.J., March 18, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a proposed class of past and present owners and lessees of defective 2019-2022 Volkswagen Atlas, Golf, Jetta, Tiguan and Taos vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced by Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. According to the complaint, VW has known at all relevant times, and before it sold the Class Vehicles to the Plaintiffs, that the Class Vehicles contain one or more defects in the way the vehicles are manufactured and/or made that cause the Class Vehicles' Wiring Harness Defects to fail and result in the Class Vehicles erratically applying the emergency brakes on their own, opening and closing the windows on their own, and displaying numerous error messages and emitting warning noises. In a recent March 15, 2022 AP News article reporting on the Wiring Harness Defect in Atlas vehicles, VW issued a statement stating "VW is aware of concerns involving faulty door wiring harnesses in certain Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles" and that it is "working closely with NHTSA regarding the next steps towards identifying the affected vehicles." Allegedly, VW has not issued any safety recall regarding the Defect and it has failed to adequately repair the defect under VW's warranty. Indeed, in November 2021 VW issued a "Technical Tip" No. 97-21-02TT to its dealerships acknowledging that when the Class Vehicles experience the Wiring Harness Defect, "Various warning lights may illuminate, the windows may operate erratically, and several communication faults are stored." It explained that "A poor connection in/at the door wiring harness may cause fault code U019900 or U020000 to be stored along with many other faults. This may also cause unwanted activation of certain vehicle systems, such as the windows opening/closing by themselves," and directed dealers to attempt a repair by replacing the wiring harness. However, VW's attempts to repair the Defect are inadequate. To begin, VW has not provided its dealership with adequate replacement wiring harness, and thus when Class Vehicles owners complain about the defect and seek a repair they are told parts are unavailable. Accordingly, Class Vehicle owners, including Plaintiffs, have been waiting months for parts with no end in sight. For instance, one Class Vehicle owner waited more than two months for a replacement wiring harness and only "received a call telling her that the part had come in and that her vehicle had been repaired" after "a reporter contacted the dealership" regarding the issue, says the suit. VW has and will continue to benefit from its alleged unlawful conduct - by selling more vehicles, at a higher price, and avoiding warranty obligations - while consumers are harmed at the point of sale as their vehicles continue to suffer from the unremedied Wiring Harness Defect, the Plaintiffs contend. To remedy VW's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class members, seek damages and restitution from VW, as well as notification to class members about the defect. Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sofia Balile, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (917) 981-0849 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 WEATHERFORD FIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weatherford Fit, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Weatherford Fit, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02344 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Weatherford Fit -- https://www.weatherford5.com/ -- offers clean, natural supplements and easy to follow workout programs that help customers get maximum results out of their fitness routine.[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 WEST CAPITAL LENDING: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending, Inc. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Capital Lending, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-00369-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. West Capital Lending -- https://westcapitallending.com/ -- is a mortgage broker in Tustin, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Suit Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Alan Zwillinger; and Steven Zwillinger, Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of this class action on the terms set forth in the settlement agreement; 2. approving the proposed notice of settlement; 3. certifying a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1)(b) or 23(b)(3); and 4. scheduling a final settlement hearing. The Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion requesting the Court to certify this action as a class action and to preliminarily approve a class action settlement. The Court 19 the motion without prejudice. The Court's Order denying the motion raises concerns about the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, fairness of the proposed settlement, certification under Rule 23, evidence of damages, and notice to class members. Before Defendants agreed to settle this case, the Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' claims are time barred by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs argued that disputed issues of material facts exist concerning when Plaintiffs actually knew of Defendants' alleged fiduciary breaches. After Defendants' motion for summary judgment was fully briefed the parties participated in a mediation with Gail A. Glick, Esq. who is a neutral with Judicate West. The parties did not reach a settlement at the mediation. However, Ms. Glick continued to work with the parties for over a month after the mediation concluded. Ms. Glick eventually submitted to the parties a mediator's proposal. After three years of vigorous litigation and more than a month negotiating a potential settlement both parties agreed to settle the case consistent with the terms of the mediator's proposal. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JxDmcJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP 316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoy.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste. 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Facsimile: (480) 348-3999 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over New Dev't Impact Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Heidi Desch, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court of Montana against the city of Whitefish alleging that the city has been charging "unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional" impact fees for new development. "These impact fees greatly exceed reasonable compensation for the actual impacts of new development, remodels and renovations on water and wastewater services in the city," the lawsuit alleges. Plaintiffs in the suit include Jeff Beck, Robert Odenweller, Terri Odenweller, Amy Weinberg, Zac Weinberg, Alta Views, LLC and Riverview Company, LLC. All the plaintiffs are individuals or companies that applied for building permits with the city and were charged impact fees for water and wastewater services. Impact fees are one-time charges for new development or remodels to compensate for the cost of public infrastructure required to provide services. State law allows local governments to charge impact fees, but provides limitations on how those fees may be established and calculated. The lawsuit alleges that the city unlawfully inflated impact fee rates, overcharging homeowners and developers. It claims the city charged fees inconsistent with the impact of development, that there are inaccuracies in the way the fees were calculated and that planned future projects were erroneously included in setting fees. Attorneys with the Laird Cowley of Missoula and the Odegaard Kovacich Snipes of Great Falls are representing the plaintiffs. WHITEFISH CITY officials in September 2021 admitted they made an error in calculating impact fees that likely resulted in overcharges for new developments and planned to issue refunds accordingly. City Manager Dana Smith at the time acknowledged that city staff made an error that likely resulted in overcharges, saying the city would review its records to determine refunds. The error was initially revealed after Whitefish residents Paul Gillman and Bill Burg brought forward concerns about the city's calculation of impact fees after Gillman began examining the impact fees after looking at constructing a home addition. The plaintiffs in the case say that the city, at the time the lawsuit was filed in February, had not yet refunded the fees they claim were not properly collected. During the City Council meeting on Feb. 22, Smith addressed the impact fee issue, saying that the city is completing an audit of its impact fees for building permits between Jan. 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021, and issuing refunds accordingly. "Those funds will be remitted back to the property owners, not the developers or the contractors, because state law does call that out very specifically that it goes back to the property owner when the refund is due," Smith said. "We have sought legal counsel and through our auditors that a refund would be due when it's estimable and actually found. It makes sense from a financing perspective in that the property owner paid a higher cost for the build or the purchase of the home that the impact fee would be included in the cost to purchase." Smith said the average refund for those who were affected by the error is estimated to be about $700 to $850. The total amount expected to be refunded to those with past building permits is estimated to be $133,000, she added. Refunds have already been issued to those with current building permits and those refunds totaled $63,000, she noted. DESPITE THE city saying it will issue refunds, Mark Kovacich, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said refunding the amount overcharged for the fees doesn't account for the miscalculations that are behind the fees. "We filed the lawsuit because we want to make sure that people who paid the fees are repaid because they paid an improper amount," he said. "The city's calculations fall short of what they should receive." In addition, Kovacich said the city should be issuing refunds to the holder of the building permits rather than the current property owner because that is the individual who paid the fees. "They've indicated that repayment in all cases will go to the current property owner, but in many cases, the building permit application is no longer the owner," he said. "This is a substantial sum of money we're talking about per applicant and all of the overcharges amount to a large figure." City Attorney Angela Jacobs says the city is following state law by issuing refunds to the property owners and not those who were issued the building permits. "We have acknowledged that we made a clerical error and we're working to audit our records to provide refunds, that's just taking time," she said. "The impact fees were created based upon what was provided to us by our consultant and we trust that was done correctly." THE LAWSUIT alleges several complaints against the city regarding its impact fees. The city in 2018 hired FCS Group, a utility rate consulting company, to study and provide an update on the maximum impact fee rate it can lawfully charge for the impacts of development. The lawsuit alleges that city officials used a report by FCS and a previous study to establish impact fee rates, but in doing so began charging fee rates that exceed the actual impacts of new development on water and water services. The suit goes on to claim that the city in 2018 altered its impact fee assessment program in a way that water fixture unit counts on new development projects were inflated. The city calculates its water and wastewater impact fee rates based upon planned water meter size and the number of water fixture units in a project. The suit says the city requires all plumbing and water fixtures to conform to the requirements of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Uniform Plumbing Code, but allegedly assigns certain fixtures to a higher and more costly category than what is set by the plumbing code, and also requires larger water meter sizes than the code does. As a result of what the plaintiffs say is an erroneous method for counting water fixture units, the city has been charging impact fee rates that exceed the actual impacts of new development or remodels have on water and wastewater services in the city. THE LAWSUIT also claims that the city improperly based fees on future capital improvements projects that have since changed or are no longer planned, and improperly calculated the impact of one such project. One of the projects included in the city's calculations for determining impact fees was an $8.4 million project dubbed the South Water Reservoir. But the lawsuit claims that little or no money has been spent on the project and yet the city continues to make changes to the project rendering it unlawful to be included in calculating fees. In addition, the lawsuit also points out that the city used a planned $4 million solar array project for supplying electricity at the wastewater treatment plant to increase impact fee rates, but the project has since allegedly been scrapped entirely. Finally, the suit claims a projected $10 million cost to upgrade the water treatment plant was incorrectly factored into fees when the impact was not calculated to reflect that the cost would be spread out among more future users. THE LAWSUIT claims the city violated the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that says, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It also says that the city violated state law regarding impact fee rules and that the city was negligent based on state law and the Constitution in not taking reasonable care in calculating and imposing impact fee rates, and that it misrepresented itself regarding the fees thus allegedly causing the plaintiffs to suffer monetary damages. The plaintiffs are asking that the city's resolutions regarding impact fees be found unlawful and that refunds be paid to those who paid impact fees above what is allowed under U.S. and state law. In addition, they are seeking payment of their attorneys' fees. AFTER THE City Council in 2019 passed resolutions regarding the matter, Whitefish twice set new, higher impact fee rates for the infrastructure areas it collects fees for, including water and wastewater services. Impact fees can be used for public improvements and to recoup the costs from such previously incurred by the city. Under state law, cities are required to review and update impact fee studies every five years. Whitefish has been charging impact fees since 2007. A class action lawsuit means that the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit for themselves but also on behalf of others who may have applied for building permits with the city. [GN] WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Continued in Ramirez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROSE RAMIREZ and KRYSTAL PECORARO, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-03528-CJC-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Cormac J. Carney Judge entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule and other deadlines as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline --Deadline to File and Have July 25, 2022 Oct. 24, 2022 Motion for Class Certification Heard: --Deadline to Complete Sept. 22, 2022 Dec. 21, 2022 Discovery, and to File and Have Discovery Motions Heard: --Deadline to File and Have Nov. 21, 2022 Feb. 21, 2023 All Other Motions Heard: --Pre-Trial Conference: Jan. 23, 2023 April 24, 2023 --Jury Trial Jan. 31, 2023 May 2, 2023 A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ul11a3 at no extra charge.[CC] XL FLEET: Request for Pre-Motion Conference Due Jan. 12, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit In XL Fleet Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02002-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order that the deadline for Plaintiffs to request a pre-motion conference regarding their planned motion for class certification is January 12, 2023. The Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was issued March 7, 2022. The Order set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to request a pre-motion conference regarding their planned motion for class certification no later than January 13, 2022. XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial and municipal fleets. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uk0Mw6 at no extra charge.[CC] YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Burgos FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ADIANEL BURGOS and HECTOR MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUTH ON THE MOVE, INC. and JANICE BROWN, Case No. 2279CV00100, was removed from the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of Hampden County, Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 23, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-30031 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages for all hours worked and failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws. Youth On The Move, Inc. is a transportation service provider in Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erica E. Flores, Esq. SKOLER, ABBOTT & PRESSER, P.C. One Monarch Place, Suite 2000 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 737-4753 Facsimile: (413) 787-1941 E-mail: eflores@skoler-abbott.com ZIONS BANCORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA LEE SIPPLE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00904-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an amended stipulation and order to extend deadlines in scheduling order as follows: Event Date -- Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 29, 2022 -- Amending the Pleadings and Sept. 28, 2022 Adding Parties: -- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(i) Oct. 28, 2022 Disclosures (Experts): -- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) Nov. 28, 2022 Disclosures (Rebuttal): -- Deadline to file motion for June 29, 2022 class certification: -- Deadline to file response to Aug. 28, 2022 motion for class certification: -- Deadline to file reply in support Oct. 13, 2022 of motion for class certification: -- Dispositive Motions: Jan. 28, 2023 -- Pretrial Order: Feb. 28, 2023 Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Zions Bancorporation originated as Keystone Insurance and Investment Co., a Utah Corporation, in April 1955. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3quTPqJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com - and - Burak S. Ahmed, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BURAK S. AHMED, P.C. 3651 Lindell Road, Suite D812 Las Vegas, NE 89103 Telephone: (702) 934-4766 Facsimile: (702) 852-0970 E-mail: bsa@burakahmed.com ZWIFT INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwift, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zwift, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02347 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zwift -- https://www.zwift.com/ -- is a massively multiplayer online cycling and running physical training program that enables users to interact, train and compete in a virtual world.[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 [*] Financial Sector No Longer Australia's Biggest Suit Target -------------------------------------------------------------- Allens disclosed that the financial sector is no longer the biggest target for class action filings for the first time in more than a decade, new data from Allens' Class Action Risk 2022 report shows. Data from 2021 shows the banking and financial sector was the third biggest target for new class action filings (down to 17% from 32% in 2020), after more than ten years managing heightened risk due to the fall out of the global financial crisis and a royal commission. The government sector was the biggest target (21% of filings up from 13% in 2020), with a broad range of claims filed against state and federal governments in 2021. 'We're seeing class action risk change, including a distinct change in class action claim targets. The number of filings against the banking and financial sector is tailing off after a long period in the spotlight, with the government and healthcare sectors now facing the most claims in 2021. 'It's an interesting shift, and appears to feed into a broader trend showing a growing range of types of claims across the class action landscape,' said partner Jenny Campbell. Overall, class action claims were down 13% over the year, but the short to medium term trend is for markedly increased filings compared to five years ago. Consumer claims were the most common type (23%) while shareholder claims - once the most common - have fallen to their lowest levels in a decade (15%). Underscoring these shifts is a growing environment of uncertainty for litigation funding. Against a backdrop of recent reforms impacting litigation funders, the Federal Government took steps to further increase the regulation of the Australian funding market. 'Two words describe the litigation funding environment over the last couple of years - reform and uncertainty. The impact of this is seen in the marked decline in the level of shareholder claims and directly funded claims over the last two years. That uncertainty lingers with recent class action funding bill before Federal Parliament, which we expect will not be resolved until after the election,' said partner Belinda Thompson. For the year ahead, the report predicts consumer claims to dominate further, giving rise to new and emerging issues in a broader range of consumer-facing sectors. Claims relating to climate change and privacy and data breaches are also areas to watch over the next year. The annual Allens Class Action Risk report has been providing insight into the most current indicators and drivers of class action risk since 2015. Explore data from Class Action Risk 2022. [GN] [^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now ------------------------------------------------------------------ Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 2nd. Sponsorship opportunities are currently available. Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics. For sponsorship options and details, contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com For more conference information, visit us at https://www.classactionconference.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 ***