/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220401.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 60 Headlines 2428392 INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hardwick Suit A.M. LEONARD: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Guyton Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ACAI INDUSTRIES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ACTELION PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Classs Suit ALLIANT CREDIT: Camacho Files Suit in N.D. California ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Revival Chiropractic Suit ALMA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decevic Suit Alleges ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement Reached in Klein Class Suit AMAZON INC: Smalls Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Action AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Insurance Dispute Ongoing in CA Court AON PLC: Wins ERISA Suit in North Carolina APPLIED INDUSTRIAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Antitrust Suit Ongoing ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NE AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Donofrio Seeks to Certify Settlement Class AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Toll Fee Suit Ongoing in NJ Court BATTERYCLERK LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BET INFORMATION: Moulton Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. BULLY TOOLS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York C2 FINANCIAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CANADA INC: More Time for Class Certification Bid Filing Sought CAULIPOWER LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CMG CIT: Briefing Schedule on Erguera Class Status Bid Extended COLAMCO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Court Ruling in Employees' ERISA Suit CRST INTERNATIONAL: Markson Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Order DIGITAL BASEMENT: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRIP HYDRATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DROPBOX INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit DUN & BRADSTREET: Batis Files Suit in N.D. California EGYPTAIR AIRLINES: Elmedani Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EMU AUSTRALIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENERGY TRANSFER: State Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit ENVIGO RMS: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Cardenas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees EVENTBRITE INC: Agrees to Settle IPO-Related Shareholder Suit EVENTBRITE INC: Settlement Deal in Securities Class Action Junked EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Robertson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas FASHION NOVA: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California FIRST ADVANTAGE: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Reset to Nov. 16 FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Insurance Suit in Pennsylvania FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Files Bid for Class Certification FOREST LABS: "Namenda" Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending FOREST LABS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over "Bystolic" FRUIT GUYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL MILLS: Schweinsburg Suit Removed to S.D. California GENUINE DATA: Jackson Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation on Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Filed GR8 GRANOLA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRANDIZIO WILKINS: Stamat Files Suit in D. Maryland GREEN PARK SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAWAI'I: Seeks to Strike Opulento Class Certification Bid HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles Putative Class Suit for $16.8MM HEAT FACTORY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ICON CLINICAL: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Nesbeth Class Action INSPIRED BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JADE INDUSTRIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Related to Pelvic Melsh Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Narrows Claims in California Antitrust Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit in Canadian Court JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Ongoing on Price-Fixing Suit JUUL LABS: Deforest Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whittemore-Prescott Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Causes Youth Health Crisis, Monticello Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Ascent Suit Claims JUUL LABS: Faces Logan City Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Morristown Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, West Seneca Claims JUUL LABS: Saline Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan JUUL LABS: Tonawanda City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rockwell Suit Says KERATIN HOLDINGS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KETTLE FOODS: Pressnell Files Suit in D. Oregon KING KULLEN GROCERY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KOOLATRON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Securities Suit in Illinois Court KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Voluntarily Dismissed LIL BUCKS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Insurance Suit Junked LINCOLN LIFE: Settlement in Hanks Suit Gets Initial Nod LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Junks Glover Class Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Insurance Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania LITTLE BEET TABLE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LUPTON EXCAVATION: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LYRICAL FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARLETTE FUNDING: Faces Usury-Related Suit in Pennsylvania MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Horn Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona MDG USA INC: Danzy Suit Removed to N.D. California MDL 2382: Hale Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid MERRILL & LYNCH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule METLIFE INC: Parchmann Shareholder Suit Dismissed MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Suit Over Late Fees Pending in Texas Court MISFITS MARKET: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONQ LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MURPHY'S MAGIC SUPPLIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NAKED GALLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buehler Suit Alleges NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Chen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YMCA: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Franklin Suit Wins Initial Approval OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Faces Setzer Suit in New York Court PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Refinery Mishap PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settlement Reached in Putative Class Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Dispute with Direct Purchasers Class PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Row with End-User/Indirect Purchaser Class POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Action Pending in Oregon Court PORTLAND GENERAL: Employees' Fund Suit Pending in Oregon Court PORTLAND GENERAL: Hessel Class Suit Pending in Oregon PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation PPL ELECTRIC: Talen Montana Action Ongoing REDFIN CORP: Bell Labor Suit for Arbitration REDFIN CORP: Faces Labor Class Suit in California RYDER SYSTEM: Faces Securities Suit in S.D. Fla. SAM'S WEST: Class Certification Filing Continued to April 11 SCWORX CORP: Settlement in Yannes Suit for Initial Approval SENSIENT NATURAL: Bryan Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Agar Class Action SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in California SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Walters Class Suit in California SLIMFAST FOODS: Faces Brand Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products TEXTRON INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Shareholder Suit TRUSTMARK CORP: Suit Over Illegal Fees Remanded to S.D. Tex. UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits in D.C. Court UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Response UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Faine Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Crumrine Shareholder Suit in New York Court VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Class Action VVF INTERVEST: Robertson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification WALMART INC: Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Continued in Carr Class Suit WELLS FARGO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 8 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,097 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$14.3MM Asbestos Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Still Defends 151 PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Reports $10.8MM Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Faces 3,300 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Beach Defends Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,800 PI Cases Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Faces Numerous Asbestos-Related Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 104 Exposure Cases Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Faces PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Defends A&E Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumed Personal Injury Suits ********* 2428392 INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2428392, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 2428392, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01668 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2428392, Inc. (doing business as FYE, the initials for For Your Entertainment) -- https://www.fye.com/ -- is an American chain of entertainment retail stores headquartered in Albany.[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 3M COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hardwick Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit KEVIN D. HARDWICK, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1185, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Plaintiff Hardwick filed the action against 3M, Daikin, Daikin America, Inc., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., the Chemours Co., Archroma Management L.L.C., Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC, and AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. The case focuses on "PFAS," which are man-made chemicals described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as follows: "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS and GenX chemicals. Since the 1940s, PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both are very persistent in the environment and in the human body. Exposure to certain PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects." Mr. Hardwick alleges that he and others in Ohio and the nation have potentially dangerous amounts of PFAS in their blood. He brings claims for negligence, battery, conspiracy, and seeks declaratory judgment. Mr. Hardwick asks for equitable relief in the form of a panel of scientists to study the effects that the PFAS has in his body and for medical monitoring as part of that relief. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the Court for an order: 1. certifying a nationwide class of: "any individual residing within the United States at the time of class certification for one year or more since 1977 with 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) or more of PFOA and at least 0.05 ppt or more of any other PFAS in their blood serum"; and 2. appointing his counsel as class counsel. On March 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion, certifying the following class: individuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum. The Defendants now file this petition for permission to appeal under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the aforementioned Court Order. The appellate case is captioned as KEVIN D. HARDWICK, Plaintiff-Respondent v. 3M COMPANY; DYNEON, LLC; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 22-305, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 22, 2022.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners 3M COMPANY; DYNEON, LLC; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; and SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC, are represented by: Drew H. Campbell, Esq. BRICKER & ECKLER LLP 100 South Third Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-2300 Facsimile: (614) 227-2390 E-mail: dcampbell@bricker.com - and - Jaren Janghorbani, Esq. Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq. Daniel Toal, Esq. Crystal Lohmann Parker, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 E-mail: jjanghorbani@paulweiss.com twells@paulweiss.com dtoal@paulweiss.com cparker@paulweiss.com - and - Theodore M. Grossman, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3939 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: tgrossman@jonesday.com - and - Louis A. Chaiten, Esq. James R. Saywell, Esq. JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue East Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: lachaiten@jonesday.com jsaywell@jonesday.com - and - Ronald S. Kopp, Esq. Jessica A. Lopez, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS 222 South Main Street, Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 849-6644 Facsimile: (330) 376-4577 E-mail: rkopp@ralaw.com - and - Melanie Black Dubis, Esq. Charles Raynal, Esq. PARKER POE PNC Plaza, 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 890-4158 Facsimile: (919) 834-4564 E-mail: melaniedubis@parkerpoe.com - and - James A. King, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 41 S. High Street, Suite 2800 Columbus, OH 43215-6194 Telephone: (614) 227-2000 E-mail: jking@porterwright.com - and - Daniel A. Spira, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60613 Telephone: (312) 853-7274 E-mail: dspira@sidley.com - and - Lisa M. Gilford, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 W. 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6044 E-mail: lgilford@sidley.com - and - Heidi Levine, Esq. Alan E. Rothman, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 7th Avenue Telephone: (212) 839-5300 E-mail: hlevine@sidley.com arothman@sidley.com A.M. LEONARD: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.M. Leonard, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A.M. Leonard, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02467 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A.M. Leonard -- https://www.amleo.com/ -- is a leader in the tool and supply business with emphasis on doing business the old fashioned way.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Guyton Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deloise Guyton, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Abrahamsen Gindin, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00629-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff files unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Ms. Guyton and her counsel strongly believe that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of Class members. The settlement provides monetary compensation for each participating Class member, and full reimbursement of all monies Class members paid to Defendant. The Settlement Agreement defines a settlement class comprised of: "All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) from whom Abrahamsen Gindin, LLC attempted to collect a consumer debt, (c) between June 24, 2020 and November 30, 2021." The Defendant has identified 1,690 potential members of the Class, including Ms. Guyton. The case centers on the failure of Abrahamsen Gindin to register as a consumer collection agency with the Office of Financial Regulation of the Florida Financial Services Commission prior to attempting to collect debts from consumers in Florida. The Plaintiff Guyton alleged that Defendant's conduct violated sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The parties have reached an agreement to settle this case whereby the Defendant will (1) issue full refunds to all Class members (as defined below) who paid it any money, totaling $2,460; and (2) create a non-reversionary settlement fund in the amount of $16,900 to cover payments to participating Class members. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAqDKH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com ACAI INDUSTRIES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acai Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Acai Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01657 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acai Industries Inc. is a corporation located in Patchogue, New York.[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 ACTELION PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Classs Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. Discovery is ongoing. In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals U.S., Inc. and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (subsidiaries of Johnson and Johnson) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of Tracleer. This is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy required by the Food and Drug Administration, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In April 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. Discovery is ongoing. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. ALLIANT CREDIT: Camacho Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliant Credit Union. The case is styled as Yuliana Camacho, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alliant Credit Union, Case No. 5:22-cv-01690-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Alliant Credit Union -- https://www.alliantcreditunion.org/ -- is a member-owned financial cooperative headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deylin Odysseus Thrift-Viveros, Esq. Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq. MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: (213) 629-2512 Fax: (213) 629-0266 Email: dthrift-viveros@maldef.org tsaenz@maldef.org ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Revival Chiropractic Suit ---------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing a class action captioned "Revival Chiropractic v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al." (January 2019, M.D. Fla.). An appeal pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court denied class certification and plaintiff's request to file a renewed motion for class certification. Allstate is primarily engaged in the property and casualty insurance business in the United States and Canada. ALMA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decevic Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ FADILJ DECEVIC; and NEDZAD ORAHOVAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALMA REALTY CORP.; GARDEN SPIRES ASSOCIATES, LLC; 232-262 TAAFFE PL, LLC; 467-75 ST. MARKS AVE ASSOC. LLC; NICHOLAS CONWAY; and, EFSTATHOS VALIOTIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01622 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as superintendents. Alma Realty Corp. is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone:(718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement Reached in Klein Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David J. Novak entered an order granting K.C. Crosthwaite's motion to seal, Defendant Altria Group, Inc. and JUUL Labs, Inc's motion for leave to file under seal, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal. This matter comes before the Court for pretrial management. The parties have settled this matter and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation of the Net Proceeds of the Settlement. The Court has scheduled a final Settlement Fairness Hearing to occur on March 31, 2022. Because the parties have resolved this case, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel and Defendants' Motion for Hearing on Class Certification are hereby denied as moot. The unredacted briefs and exhibits will remain under seal until further order of the Court. The redacted versions of these documents shall remain unsealed. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record, the Court says. Additionally, the parties have filed several motions to seal, seeking to seal documents that contain confidential and proprietary business information. Redacted documents have been filed on the public document. No less drastic alternatives to sealing exist. Altria Group is an American corporation and one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in unincorporated Henrico County, Virginia, just outside the city of Richmond. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qC85y1 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON INC: Smalls Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christian Smalls filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CHRISTIAN SMALLS, on his own behalf and on behalf of class of similarly situated African American and Latina/o workers, v. AMAZON, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05492, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendant violated certain rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff and the class he represents by virtue of state and local civil rights laws and that these violations arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as its violations of New York Human Rights Law. On November 19, 2015, Smalls commenced working for Amazon in an entry level position. In August 2016, he was promoted to a management associate position. As such, he was responsible for approximately 60 subordinates. On March 24, 2020, a worker, Barbara Chandler, with whom Smalls had had close contact, tested positive for COVID 19. On March 30, 2020, Smalls organized a public demonstration in the parking lot of the fulfillment center which drew the attendance of approximately 60 workers and demanded that Amazon close down the building until it could be deeply cleaned and sanitized. Smalls noted that Amazon was endangering its workers and that the cleaning company with which it then contracted was short-staffed and giving short shrift to the cleaning process. During this rally, Smalls opposed practices which discriminated against minority workers and immigrants by subjecting them to inferior terms and conditions of employment due to their race/ethnicity. Within two hours of the public demonstration, Amazon terminated Smalls, claiming that he was violating its quarantine order and thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of other employees. An Amazon spokesperson, Kristin Kish, claimed that company managers had repeatedly warned Smalls not to come to work and to maintain social distancing at the workplace and asserted that he violated both edicts. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February 7, 2022, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, and Judgment dated March 15, 2022, confirming that Amazon's motion to dismiss is granted; and that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Smalls v. Amazon, Inc., Case No. 22-615, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 23, 2022.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Christian Smalls, on his own behalf and on behalf of class of similarly situated African American and Latina/o workers, is represented by: Michael H. Sussman, Esq. SUSSMAN & WATKINS 1 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY 10924 Telephone: (845) 294-3991 E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net Defendants-Appellees Amazon, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC are represented by: Jason Schwartz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DAVID GEORGE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21CV00718, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Cruz to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 24, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01892-SVK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code and unfair competition in violation of California's Business and Professions Code. Amazon.com Services LLC is company that offers web service platforms based in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com lblas@gibsondunn.com - and – Kory Hines, Esq. 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-2453 Facsimile: (212) 817-9553 E-mail: khines@gibsondunn.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Insurance Dispute Ongoing in CA Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, 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 American General Life Insurance Company (AGL), the company's subsidiary is facing a putative class action captioned "Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company," No. 17-cv-1709 (S.D. Cal.), challenging AGL's prospective application of the Act. Plaintiff's complaint argues that policies issued and delivered prior to January 1, 2013, like the $1 million policy issued to the plaintiff's husband do not lapse—despite nonpayment of premiums—if the insurer has not complied with the Act's terms. American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance organization based in New York. AON PLC: Wins ERISA Suit in North Carolina ------------------------------------------ Aon PLC disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that the Western District of North Carolina entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October 12, 2021 with regards to class action lawsuit brought on behalf of participants in the Lowe's 401(k) Plan where Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., now known as Aon Investments USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc. were sued on April 27, 2018 in said court. The plaintiffs contend that in 2015, Lowe's imprudently placed the Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the Plan. The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $200 million in investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced. The plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute. The matter was tried to the Court the last week of June 2021, and the Court entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October 12, 2021. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Aon PLC is a global professional services firm providing a broad range of risk, health, and wealth solutions. APPLIED INDUSTRIAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02517 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.applied.com/ -- is a public, global company based in the U.S. and focused on the distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control solutions, and other industrial supplies.[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 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Antitrust Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) 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 lawsuit was filed against the company asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law. An amended complaint was filed in October 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss. On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (MRE) filed a putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act. On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC (UWGP) and five other ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law. The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28, 2021, respectively. On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss on September 27, 2021. UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss on December 9, 2021. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and processing company based in Illinois. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the company is alleged of manipulating the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG (AOT) filed a putative class action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC. AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the company's alleged actions. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and processing company based in Illinois. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing in NE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the company is alleged of manipulating the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent sellers of ethanol. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and processing company based in Illinois. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Donofrio Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY DONOFRIO, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00058-WHR-SLO (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a settlement class solely for purposes of preliminarily approving a settlement agreement, and further ordering preliminary approval. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All of Defendant's property insurance policyholders who made a Structural Loss claim: (a) for property located in the State of Ohio during the applicable Class Periods; that (b) resulted in an ACV Payment from which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted in an ACV Payment but for the withholding of Nonmaterial Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable deductible, but excluding: i)Policyholders whose claims arose under policy forms, endorsements, or riders expressly permitting the Nonmaterial Depreciation within the text of the policy form, endorsement or rider, i.e., by express use of the words "depreciation" and "labor"; ii) Policyholders who received one or more ACV Payments for claims, but not replacement cost value payments, that exhausted the applicable limits of insurance; iii) Policyholders whose claims were denied or abandoned without ACV Payment; iv) the Defendant and its officers and directors; v) Members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned and their immediate families; and vi) Class Counsel and their immediate families. The Class Periods mean the following time periods: For policyholders with policies containing a one-year suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss on or after February 25, 2018. For policyholders with policies containing a two-year suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss on or after February 25, 2017. Also, for purposes of preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff further requests that she be appointed class representative, and that the undersigned counsel be appointed as counsel for the class. A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDtcM0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq. WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC P.O. Box 6 2 N. Main Street, Unit 2 Thornville, OH 43076 Telephone: (740) 785-7730 Facsimile: (740) 205-8898 E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 150 East Short Street, Suite 150 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Toll Fee Suit Ongoing in NJ Court ----------------------------------------------------- Avis Budget Group, 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 suit was filed against the company seeking damages in connection with claims relating to its electronic toll service. Class certification was approved by the Court. In November 2011, "Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff seeks to represent a purported nationwide class and two sub-classes of certain renters of vehicles from its Avis and Budget subsidiaries from April 2007 through December 2015. The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with claims relating to our electronic toll service, including that administrative fees and toll charges were not properly disclosed to customers and/or were excessive. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was approved by the Court in November 2017. The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions. Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a provider of mobility solutions based in New Jersey. BATTERYCLERK LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BatteryClerk, LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BatteryClerk, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02451 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BatteryClerk -- https://batteryclerk.com/ -- is the country's leading online battery store for AJC branded replacement batteries for commercial and domestic use.[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 BET INFORMATION: Moulton Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MIE MOULTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV38602, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 24, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01921 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including unpaid travel time, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. BET Information Systems, Inc. is an online content company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Daugherty, Esq. KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-8000 Facsimile: (619) 238-8707 E-mail: tdaugherty@klinedinstlaw.com BULLY TOOLS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 100% Made in the USA Bully Tools, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 100% Made in the USA Bully Tools, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02466 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bully Tools -- https://bullytools.com/ -- is the finest producer of 100% USA made lawn, garden, and specialty tools for all contractors, gardeners, and do-it-yourselfers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com C2 FINANCIAL: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C2 Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Richard Lipp Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C2 Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00405-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. C2 Financial Corporation -- https://www.c2financialcorp.com/ -- is one of the nation's largest mortgage brokers, home to over 700 loan originators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CANADA INC: More Time for Class Certification Bid Filing Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MCMONIGLE; AMBERLY OGDEN; MOLLY SLIWINSKI; and LAUREN WELLS, v. CANADA, INC. d/b/a BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS; BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS USA, INC.; MARC SAINT-ONGE; and CARLO GARIBALDI, Case No. 1:21-cv-04790-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for them to file their motion for class certification until Defendant Marc Saint-Onge has filed his Answer, and Plaintiffs have had an opportunity conduct class discovery, up to and including, June 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 19, 2021. The Defendant BlackOxygen Organics USA, Inc. was served on December 9, 2021, and its Answer was due on December 30, 2021. Te Defendant Carlo Garibaldi was served on January 10, 2022, and his Answer was due on January 31, 2022. The Defendant 11578243 Canada, Inc.'s was served on January 31, 2022, and its Answer was due on February 22, 2022. On March 1, 2022, this Court entered an Order which required Plaintiffs to file proof of service for Defendant Marc Saint-Onge by March 15, 2022. The Defendant Marc Saint-Onge was served on February 22, 2022, and proof of service was filed on March 1, 2022. The Defendants BlackOxygen Organics USA, Inc., Carlo Garibaldi, and 11578243 Canada, Inc.'s have not filed an Answer and default has been entered per the Court's March 13, 2022, Order. The Defendant Marc Saint Onge's Answer is due March 21, 2022. Plaintiffs cannot conduct any class discovery until Defendant Marc Saint Onge files his Answer. Canada Inc. operates as a media company. The Company provides publishing and broadcasting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKLwin at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. Robert N. Friedman, Esq. Eli J. Cohen, Esq. WETHERINGTON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1800 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 370 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 888-4444 E-mail: matt@wfirm.com robert@wfirm.com eli@wfirm.com CAULIPOWER LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caulipower, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caulipower, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02473 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caulipower -- https://eatcaulipower.com/en/ -- is a food and beverage manufacturing company that focuses on producing vegetable-based pizzas and pizza crusts that are gluten-free.[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 CMG CIT: Briefing Schedule on Erguera Class Status Bid Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITA ERGUERA, an INDIVIDUAL ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CMG CIT ACQUISITION, LLC; CIRCHARO ACQUISITION LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Margarita Erguera v. CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01744-JLT-BAK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting stipulation to extend briefing schedule regarding plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. The Defendant shall produce, on or before May 2, 2022, payroll data reflecting the total number of overtime and double-time hours worked by the putative class and redacted weekly payroll data for 1/3 of the putative class; 2. The deadline for Defendant to file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to August 8, 2022; 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file its reply to Defendant's opposition is continued to September 7, 2022; and 4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall remain vacated and shall be reset only if the Court determines a hearing is needed. CMG CIT operates as a health care staffing and recruiting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wy3Bwh at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC, are: Adam V. Truong, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com Adam.Truong@jacksonlewis.com COLAMCO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colamco, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Colamco, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02516 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. COLAMCO, founded in 1982 -- https://www.colamco.com/ -- is a leading provider of IT products and value-added services.[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 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Court Ruling in Employees' ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that an appeal is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual annuity payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals (Company Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. This action was certified as a class action in July 2017. In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed certain claims on consent of the parties. In August 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The company and the Plan are contesting this action vigorously and, in September 2020, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. Colgate-Palmolive Company is into perfumes, cosmetics & other toilet preparations based in New York. CRST INTERNATIONAL: Markson Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS MARKSON, MARK MCGEORGE, CLOIS MCCLENDON, and ERIC CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., CRST EXPEDITED, INC., C.R. ENGLAND, INC., WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., A CRST-ONLY SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, ANTITRUST CLASS INC., SOUTHERN REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC., COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC., PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., TRANSPORT, INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the class certification order to certify a CRST-only class or, in the alternative, for leave to file a renewed motion to certify a CRST-only antitrust class. The plaintiffs will move pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying a class regarding plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim defined as follows: "All current or former drivers "under contract" as motor vehicle carrier drivers employed by defendants CRST International, Inc. or CRST Expedited, Inc. during the Class Period (the "Antitrust Class"). The Plaintiffs further move for an order certifying a subclass for purposes of plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim comprised of all class members that resided in the state of California at any time while "under contract" with one of the defendants during the Class Period (the "California Antitrust Subclass"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iMEuxn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com rnath@susmangodfrey.com DIGITAL BASEMENT: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digital Basement, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Digital Basement, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02471 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Digital Basement LLC -- http://digitalbasementllc.com/-- is a privately-held company located in Roswell, GA, designs and sells funny, pop culture, and fitness apparel through e-commerce properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com DRIP HYDRATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drip Hydration Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Drip Hydration Inc. doing business as: Drip Hydration, Case No. 1:22-cv-02396 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Drip Hydration -- https://driphydration.com/ -- is a mobile IV hydration company, providing in-home IV infusions administered by certified nurses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com DROPBOX INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Dropbox, 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 on December 8, 2021, the court entered an order approving a settlement and dismissing a securities litigation filed against the company. It is currently involved in four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws that were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against Dropbox, certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of its IPO, and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated entities. On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The six lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of violations of federal securities laws, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, its IPO registration statement. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 16, 2020, Dropbox filed a motion to dismiss the federal consolidated class action complaint. On October 21, 2020, the federal court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend setting a deadline of January 6, 2021 for the Federal Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint. The federal court extended this deadline to February 22, 2021 to provide time for the parties to explore resolving the case. On February 11, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached a settlement in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court. On July 22, 2021, the court held a preliminary settlement approval hearing. On August 3, 2021, it entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice to the class. The court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement on December 2, 2021. On December 8, 2021, it entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the case. Dropbox is a cloud storage service provider. DUN & BRADSTREET: Batis Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Odette R. Batis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01924-AGT (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. The Dun & Bradstreet -- http://www.dnb.com/-- is an American company that provides commercial data, analytics, and insights for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Francis Ram, Esq. Marie Noel Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Fax: (415) 358-6923 Email: MRam@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com EGYPTAIR AIRLINES: Elmedani Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Egyptair Airlines Company. The case is styled as Yehia Elmedani, and all others similarly situated v. Egyptair Airlines Company, Case No. 651342/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 15, 2022). Egyptair -- http://www.egyptair.com/-- is the state-owned flag carrier of Egypt. The airline is headquartered at Cairo International Airport, its main hub, operating scheduled passenger and freight services to 70 destinations in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.[BN] ELLUSIONIST.COM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ellusionist.com, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ellusionist.com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ellusionist -- https://ellusionist.com/ -- is the largest online magic retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com EMU AUSTRALIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMU Australia, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EMU Australia, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02415 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. EMU Australia -- https://www.emuaustralia.com/ -- is an Australian lifestyle brand that designs, produces and markets footwear and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com ENERGY TRANSFER: State Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP 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 on November 3, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's judgment in favor of Regency defendants in a class action complaint filed by a purported Regency unitholder with regard to Regency-Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.'s (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer) merger. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a Regency unitholder alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC. The Court of Chancery later granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification. Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15, 2021, the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on all claims at issue in this litigation, determined that the Regency Merger was fair and reasonable to Regency, and denied Plaintiff any relief. On November 3, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's judgment in favor of Regency Defendants, bringing this matter to a conclusion. Energy Transfer LP is a Delaware limited partnership that is into natural gas operations, crude oil, NGL and refined products transportation, terminal services and acquisition and marketing activities, as well as NGL storage and fractionation services. ENVIGO RMS: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------ Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that Envigo RMS Holding Corp. (Inotiv's subsidiary) is a defendant in a purported class action and a related action under California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former employee of Envigo, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. The complaint alleges that Envigo violated certain wage and hour requirements under the California Labor Code. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of similarly situated employees and the award of actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages for the alleged violations. The complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and attorney's fees. Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries and a variable interest entity comprise a contract research organization specializing in nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services. The company also manufactures scientific instruments for life sciences research, which it sells with related software for use by pharmaceutical companies, universities, government research centers and medical research institutions. ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Cardenas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR SANTOS CARDENAS individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eternal Sunshine Cafe, LLC and Michael Pellegrino, Case No. 7:21-cv-205 (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to conditionally certify a collective action and facilitate notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to: "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who are or were employed by the Eternal Sunshine Cafe and/or Michael Pellegrino beginning March 2019 to the present." A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qFjaP4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Hanley, Esq. Nathanial Ulmer, Esq. Norwood Blanchard, Esq. CROSSLEY McINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES, PLLC 5002 Randall Parkway Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 762-9711 Facsimile: (910) 256-0310 EVENTBRITE INC: Agrees to Settle IPO-Related Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Eventbrite, 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 parties in an IPO-related shareholder suit have agreed to settle the dispute. On June 24, 2019, the state court consolidated two state actions pending at that time. On July 24, 2019, the two plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally alleged that Eventbrite misrepresented and/or omitted material information in the IPO offering documents in violation of the Securities Act and sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors. On August 23, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated complaint, which the court sustained with leave to amend at a hearing on November 1, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on February 10, 2020. Defendants filed demurrers to said complaint on March 26, 2020. On June 23, 2020, the court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend. On November 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint. On November 20, 2020, defendants filed demurrers to the complaint, which were overruled on December 17, 2020. On January 15, 2021, defendants filed their answers to the complaint. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February 11, 2021, the parties stipulated to class certification, and on February 17, 2021, the Court entered an order certifying a class of "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite, Inc. Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Eventbrite's September 2018 Initial Public Offering and who were damaged thereby." On October 26, 2021, the company entered into a binding settlement agreement with the two plaintiffs. EVENTBRITE INC: Settlement Deal in Securities Class Action Junked ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eventbrite, 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 the court disapproved a settlement agreement between the parties of a securities class action. Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against Eventbrite, certain of its executives and directors, and its underwriters for the company's initial public offering (IPO). Some of these actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that were investors in the company as of the IPO. On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending actions. On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed an amended consolidated complaint. That complaint alleged that the company misrepresented and/or omitted material information in its IPO offering documents in violation of the Securities Act. It also challenged public statements made after the IPO in violation of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors. On December 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 28, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend and set a deadline of June 24, 2020 for lead plaintiffs to file their second amended consolidated complaint. On June 22, 2020, the court extended lead plaintiffs' deadline to file their second amended consolidated complaint to August 10, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action. On August 27, 2020, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 21, 2020, the court vacated the preliminary approval hearing and on October 30, 2020 and issued an order continuing the preliminary approval hearing. On January 22, 2021, the court issued an order denying without prejudice the motion for preliminary approval. On February 9, 2021, the company gave notice to the lead plaintiffs that, in light of the denial of the preliminary approval motion, it was terminating the settlement agreement. Eventbrite is a global self-service ticketing and experience technology platform that serves event creators and empowers their success. EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- Eventbrite, 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 the case captioned "Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc." Case No. 20-cv-03698 filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is currently stayed pending initial stages of arbitration. On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3, 2016, allege that Eventbrite failed to provide an opportunity for purchasers of tickets to events sold through Eventbrite's platform to obtain a refund where the event is postponed, rescheduled, or canceled. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to restitution and monetary damages under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, in addition to claims brought under California common law. Eventbrite brought a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to its Terms of Service. The court denied that motion and the company thereafter answered plaintiffs' complaint and brought a second motion to compel arbitration, based in part on facts established via the company's answer. The court granted that motion on September 2, 2021, and stayed the suit pending the results of arbitration. Two of the named plaintiffs have since initiated individual arbitrations pursuant to the company's Terms of Service. The company has filed responses to those individual demands and the parties are awaiting appointment of arbitrators. Eventbrite is a global self-service ticketing and experience technology platform that serves event creators and empowers their success. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Robertson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Randall Robertson, Julian A. Graves, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC, Family Dollar Services LLC, Case No. 58CV-22-00085, was removed from the Pope County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 24, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00269-BSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Gastel, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Janna Maples, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37204 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: beng@bsjfirm.com gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: james@streettlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Katherine Church Campbell, Esq. Marshall S. Ney, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 3350 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 695-6040 Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com mney@fridayfirm.com FASHION NOVA: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, LLC. The case is styled as Jenifer Blum, Jamie Dumelle, Amanda Offley, Kerry Hines, Tanisha DiVito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02044-PA-E (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the world's leading quick-to-market apparel and lifestyle brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER PA 1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Reset to Nov. 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 5:21-cv-06071 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order resetting the Oral Argument on Class Certification previously set for Aug. 1, 2022 for Nov. 16, 2022. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit.[CC] FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Faces Insurance Suit in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 suit alleging that its subsidiary, First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, breached the terms of the life insurance policy of one of its policy holders by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Case "Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP")," No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL OLIGER AND CAROL OLIGER, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE DARRELL AND CAROL OLIGER REVOCABLE TRUST JUNE 19, 2007, PULOMA PROPERTIES, LLC, LGTD INVESTMENTS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel, on behalf of the following Class: "All persons who are or have been since January 2019, royalty owners in Arkansas wells where Flywheel has owned and operated under a lease form with one of the following royalty payment provisions: -- ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ROYALTY CLAUSE Lease Form No. 1: that contain the following language, "Lessee shall pay Lessor [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the proceeds derived from the sale of all gas (including substances contained in such gas) produced, saved, and sold by the Lessee. Proceeds are defined as the actual amount received by the Lessee for the sale of said gas." Lease Form No. 2: that contain the following language, "Lessee shall pay Lessor [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the proceeds derived from the sale of all gas (including substances contained in such gas) produced, saved, and sold by the Lessee. Proceeds are defined as the actual amount received by the Lessee for the sale of said gas." -- NO DEDUCTION, NO COST CLAUSES Lease Form No. 3: that contain the following language, -- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease, no deduction shall be made for the producing, gathering, storing, separating, treating compressing or dehydrating performed with respect to a well on the leased premises/unit area subject thereto." Lease Form No. 4: that contain the following language, "notwithstanding any language herein to the contrary, all oil, gas or other proceeds accruing to the Lessor under this lease or by state law shall be without deduction, directly or indirectly, for the cost of producing, gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing, processing, transporting, and marketing the oil, gas and other products produced hereunder to transform-the product into marketable form." Lease Form No. 5: that contain the following language, "Lessor shall receive a [Royalty Rate Percentage] royalty. All oil, gas or other proceeds accruing to the Lessor under the Lease or by state law shall be without deduction, directly or indirectly for the cost." Lease Form No. 6: that contain the following language, "Lessee agrees that all royalties accruing under this lease shall be without deduction (except applicable taxes) for the costs." Lease Form No. 7: that contain the following language, "There shall be no cost charged to the royalty interest created under this lease, except severance and applicable taxes." Lease Form No. 8: that contain the following language, "Lessor shall not be charged for marketing costs or transportation costs or lift costs nor any other expense." Lease Form No. 9: that contain the following language, "Lessor's royalty shall not bear, either directly or indirectly any part of the costs or expenses." Lease Form No. 10: that contain the following language, "Any deduction for the expenses of production, gathering, dehydration, compression, transportation, manufacturing, processing, treating or marketing of such gas shall be added to the price received by Lessee for such gas so that Lessor's royalty shall not be charged directly or indirectly with any such expenses." -- GROSS PROCEEDS CLAUSE Lease Form No. 11: that contain the following language, "To pay to Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the gross proceeds, at the mouth of the well, received by Lessee for the gas." Lease Form No. 12:that contain the following language, "To pay Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the gross proceeds received by Lessee for the gas sold Lessee shall not deduct any costs or expenses from such gross proceeds except Lessor's pro rata share any severance taxes that may become payable out of Lessor's share gross production." Lease Form No. 13: that contain the following language, "It is agreed by Lessor and Lessee that wherever the words [Royalty Rate Percentage] appears same is hereby amended to read "[Royalty Rate Percentage] gross." Lease Form No. 14: that contain the following language, "To pay Lessor for gas [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the gross proceeds at the mouth of the well." Lease Form No. 15: that contain the following language, "Lessor is to receive [Royalty Rate Percentage] of the gross proceeds…at the wellhead with no deduction of any cost." Lease Form No. 16: that contain the following language, "[royalty rate percentage] amended to [royalty rate percentage] gross based on current market value at the wellhead." Lease Form No. 17: that contain the following language, "the term 'Market Value' of gas mean the gross proceeds received by the Lessee." Lease Form No. 18: Lessors coded in Flywheel's electronic royalty accounting system in such a manner that would indicate the owners are deriving royalty payments from wells pursuant to "gross royalty leases." Flywheel Energy operates as an oil and gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tDfcbv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Edward Morgan, Esq. Nathan S. Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A. 244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5 Clinton, AR 72031-7085 Telephone: (501) 745-4044 Facsimile: (501) 745-5358 E-mail: eddie@medwardmorgan.com nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Will T. Crowder, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM , P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1214 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com The Defendant is represented by: G. Alan Perkins, Esq. M. Christine Dillard, Esq. Samuel S. McLelland, Esq. PPGMR LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 3446 Little Rock, AR 72203-3446 Telephone: (501) 603-9000 Facsimile: (501) 603-0556 E-mail: Alan@ppgmrlaw.com Christine@ppgmrlaw.com Sam@ppgmrlaw.com FOREST LABS: "Namenda" 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 Forest Laboratories, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiaries of AbbVie) and others generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent litigation settlements involving Namenda entered into between Forest and generic companies and other conduct by Forest involving Namenda, violated state antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers of Namenda, are consolidated as "In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation" in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. FOREST LABS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over "Bystolic" -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Forest Laboratories, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiaries of AbbVie) and others generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent litigation settlements involving "Bystolic" with six generic manufacturers violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are consolidated as "In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation" in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics and eye care. FRUIT GUYS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fruit Guys, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Fruit Guys, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02522 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The FruitGuys -- https://fruitguys.com/ -- is a company headquartered in South San Francisco, CA, that delivers fresh fruit to more than 3,000 businesses around the United States.[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 GENERAL MILLS: Schweinsburg Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Loretta Schweinsburg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. General Mills, Inc., General Mills Sales, Inc., Case No. 37-02022-00006951-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00403-DMS-JLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. General Mills, Inc. -- http://www.generalmills.com/-- is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer foods sold through retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 798-2006 Fax: (480) 247-4553 Email: greg@westonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: David T Biderman, Esq. Jasmine Wei-Ming Wetherell, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: (310) 788-9900 Fax: (310) 843-1284 Email: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com jwetherell@perkinscoie.com GENUINE DATA: Jackson Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genuine Data Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nigel E. Jackson, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Genuine Data Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00985-MGL (D.S.C., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Genuine Data Services -- http://www.genuinedataservices.com/-- furnishes raw public records data in bulk to consumer reporting agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny Hays Cauley, Esq. William Kyle Geddings, Esq. HAYS CAULEY PC 1303 W Evans Street Florence, SC 29501 Phone: (843) 665-1717 Email: phc917@hayscauley.com will@hayscauley.com GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- GoDaddy 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 on June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in principle to settle the class action complaint, "Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com" (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR) (D. Ariz.), filed on June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written settlement agreement. On December 16, 2019, the company amended the settlement agreement to include two additional putative class action cases, which also alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA): John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254, D. Ariz.), appeal pending 18-16048 (9th Cir.) and Susan Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563, S.D. Ala.). GoDaddy is into serving a large market of everyday entrepreneurs based in Arizona. GOOGLE LLC: Stipulation on Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASOM BROWN, WILLIAM BYATT, JEREMY DAVIS, CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO, and MONIQUE TRUJILLO individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation continuing deadlines for discovery and class certification as follows: 1. The deadline for Google's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion is extended from March 24, 2022 to March 31, 2022. 2. The deadline for exchange of opening expert reports is extended from March 25, 2022 to April 1, 2022. 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in support of the Sanctions Motion is extended from April 7, 2022 to April 11, 2022. 4. The deadline for the Parties' submission of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Sanctions Motion is extended from April 14, 2022 to April 18, 2022. 5. The evidentiary hearing on the Sanctions Motion scheduled for April 21, 2022 will proceed as scheduled, on April 21, 2022. 6. The deadline for exchange of rebuttal expert reports is extended from April 22, 2022 to May 6, 2022. 7. The deadline for close of expert discovery is extended from May 26, 2022 to June 2, 2022. Google is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include a search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud computing, software, and hardware. A copy of the Parties' motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDt4w0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41 st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293 6858 Facsimile: (415) 999 9695 E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com - and - James W. Lee, Esq. Rossana Baeza, Esq. 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1304 E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com rbaeza@bsfllp.com - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. Steven Shepard, Esq. Alexander P. Frawley, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com sshepard@susmangodfrey.com afrawley@susmangodfrey.com - and - Amanda Bonn, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. Teuta Fani, Esq. 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com teutafani@quinnemanuel.com - and - Stephen A. Broome, Esq. Viola Trebicka, Esq. Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq. Alyssa G. Olson, Esq. 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com alyolson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Diane M. Doolittle, Esq. Sara Jenkins, Esq. Josef Ansorge, Esq. Carl Spilly, Esq. Jonathan Tse, Esq. 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 E-mail: dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com sarajenkins@quinnemanuel.com jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com GR8 GRANOLA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GR8 Granola, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GR8 Granola, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02520 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GR8 Granola -- https://www.gr8nola.com/ -- offers healthy, low-sugar superfood granola.[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 GRANDIZIO WILKINS: Stamat Files Suit in D. Maryland --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grandizio Wilkins Little & Matthews, LLP. The case is styled as Spyro Stamat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grandizio Wilkins Little & Matthews, LLP, Case No. 1:22-cv-00747-BPG (D. Md., March 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Grandizio, Wilkins, Little & Matthews, LLP -- https://www.gwlmcpa.com/ -- is a full service, Maryland-based accounting firm that provides audits, tax services and management advisory services for businesses, business owners and high net worth individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 15453 Indianola Drive Derwood, MD 20855 Phone: (443) 980-6119 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tpacheco@milberg.com GREEN PARK SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Park Snacks, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Green Park Snacks, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02524 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Green Park Snacks -- https://www.greenparkbrands.com/ -- operates as a natural snack food company. The Company offers puffs, peas, chilli, and cheese products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HAWAI'I: Seeks to Strike Opulento Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA OPULENTO, on behalf of the Estate of JESSICA FORTSON and FRANK HAMPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; NOLAN ESPINDA, Director, Hawai'i Department of Public Safety; GAVIN TAKENAKA, Health Care Director, Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, Corrections Division; DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed on February 11, 2022. The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHpg14 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Holly T. Shikada, Esq. Caron M. Inagaki, Esq. Kendall J. Moser, Esq. William K. Awong, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 586-1494 Facsimile: (808) 586-1369 E-mail: William.K.Awong@hawaii.gov Kendall.J.Moser@hawaii.gov HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles Putative Class Suit for $16.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Healthcare Services Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on October 15, 2021 the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers paid a $16.8 million settlement to resolve a putative shareholder class action lawsuit originally filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 22, 2019. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. provides management, administrative and operating expertise and services to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary service departments of healthcare facilities, including nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals located throughout the United States. HEAT FACTORY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Heat Factory, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Heat Factory, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02418 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heat Factory -- https://www.heatfactory.com/ -- is the oldest and most recognized North American warmer brand in the outdoor 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 ICON CLINICAL: Ct. Conditionally Certifies Nesbeth Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS NESBETH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01444-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of the following individuals: "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period [March 26, 2015 through the date of this Order], including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period;" Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and their Beneficiaries; 2. appointing Carlos Nesbeth, Amit Godambe, Jenny Gallery, Misty Howell, and Micah Webb as Class Representatives; 3. appointing the law firm Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel; 4. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Plan of Allocatio; 5. approving the Proposed Settlement Notice Plan; 6. appointing JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator and directing to provide Class Notice and otherwise ASSIST in administration of the Settlement Agreement, as provided in the Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation; 7. directing the Defendants, through the Plan's Recordkeeper, to provide forthwith Class Data to Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator; 8. directing the Settlement Administrator to all Class Members by first-class U.S. mail and, if available, e-mail the Class Notice and any necessary Election Forms no later than Monday, April 11, 2022 and otherwise follow the Notice provisions in the Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation; 9. directing Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs and a service award for the Class Representatives no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022; 10. directing The Settlement Administrator to file, no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022, a declaration confirming that the Class Notice and other required documents were sent to the Class; 11. directing any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, the Request for Service Awards for the Class Representative, or Class Counsels' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, or otherwise be heard concerning this Settlement, to shall file an Objection with the Court. The Objection must be postmarked no later than Friday, June 10, 2022. The Objection must set forth: (1) the Objector's name and contact information; (2) the name and address of Objector's counsel (if represented); (3) a written statement of any objections to the Settlement; and (4) the signature of the Objector (or his or her attorney). Any Class Member who fails to make his or her objection in this manner shall be deemed to have WAIVED such objection; 12. directing the Plaintiffs to file, no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022, their Motion for final approval and all supporting documents; 13. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and 14. denying as moot the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Icon is a global provider of outsourced development and commercialisation services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tJgp0N at no extra charge.[CC] INSPIRED BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspired Beauty Stories Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Inspired Beauty Stories Inc. doing business as: Kulfi, Case No. 1:22-cv-02437 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Inspired Beauty Stories Inc. doing business as Kulfi -- https://www.inspiredbeauty.com/ -- is a community that provides beauty products and content.[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 JADE INDUSTRIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jade Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jade Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02470 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jade Industries, Inc. -- http://www.jadeyoga.com/-- is located in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania and is a supplier of Rubber Mats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Related to Pelvic Melsh Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that class actions and individual personal injury cases or claims seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices have been commenced in various countries outside of the United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and class actions in Israel, Australia and Canada. The class actions in Canada were discontinued in 2020 as a result of a settlement of a group of cases and an agreement to resolve the Israeli class action was reached in May 2021. The parties in the Israeli class action are currently negotiating the wording and some of the terms thereof and once finalized, the settlement will be subject to court approval. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ct. Narrows Claims in California Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the Court granted in part and denied in part the renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV. The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar agreements with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan Tobacco. In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the renewed motion to dismiss. In December 2021, several insurance companies and other payers filed individual "Opt-Out" complaints containing allegations similar to the original complaint. Discovery is ongoing. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit in Canadian Court ----------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Inc., and many other industry members, by and on behalf of people who used opioids (for personal injuries), municipalities and First Nations bands. In October 2019, an antitrust complaint was filed by private plaintiffs in federal court in Tennessee and is pending transfer to the MDL. These actions allege a variety of claims related to opioid marketing practices, including false advertising, unfair competition, public nuisance, consumer fraud violations, deceptive acts and practices, false claims and unjust enrichment. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief and, in some of the suits, the plaintiffs are seeking joint and several liability among the defendants. An adverse judgment in any of these lawsuits could result in the imposition of large monetary penalties and significant damages including, punitive damages, cost of abatement, substantial fines, equitable remedies and other sanctions. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court ------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company alleging that they have breached their fiduciary duties. In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S® Baby Powder. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. In September 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion but granted leave to amend. In June 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in July 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. As of October 2020, briefing on Defendants' motion was complete. In February 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. In April 2021, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they did not intend to file an amended complaint, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. In May 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit. In July 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the Third Circuit and in September 2021, Defendants filed their response brief, and in October 2021, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. In January 2022, the Third Circuit heard oral argument. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Ongoing on Price-Fixing Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10K Report for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a consolidated class action complaint by contact lens patients was filed by the plaintiff and trial is ongoing. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. Discovery and pre-trial motion practice are complete. Johnson & Johnson is into research and development, manufacture and sale of products in the healthcare field based in New Jersey. JUUL LABS: Deforest Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEFOREST AREA 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-01866-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Deforest Area School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 500 South Cleveland Avenue in Deforest, 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: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whittemore-Prescott Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHITTEMORE-PRESCOTT AREA 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-01881 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Whittemore-Prescott Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 8970 Prescott Road in Whittemore, 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: E-Cigarette Causes Youth Health Crisis, Monticello Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONTICELLO ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01875-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Monticello Academy Charter School is a unified school district with its offices located at 2782 South Corporate Park Drive in West Valley 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: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Ascent Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASCENT ACADEMIES OF UTAH, 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-01868 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Ascent Academies of Utah is a unified school district with its offices located at 5662 West 8200 South in West Jordan, Utah. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Logan City Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- LOGAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01873 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Logan City School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 101 West Center Street in Logan, 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: Morristown Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------ MORRISTOWN 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-01885 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Morristown Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 408 Gouverneur Street in Morristown, 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: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, West Seneca Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- WEST SENECA 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-01859 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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 Seneca Central School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1397 Orchard Park Road in West Seneca, 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: Saline Area Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------------- SALINE AREA 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-01877 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Saline Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 7265 North Ann Arbor Street in Saline, 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: Tonawanda City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01861 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Tonawanda City School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 100 Hinds Street in Tonawanda, 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: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Rockwell Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROCKWELL CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01864 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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. Rockwell Charter High School is a unified school district with its offices located at 3435 East Stonebridge Lane in Eagle Mountain, 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 KERATIN HOLDINGS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keratin Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keratin Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02469 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Keratin Holdings LLC -- http://www.keratincomplex.com/-- is located in Boca Raton, Florida and is part of the Management of Companies and Enterprises Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KETTLE FOODS: Pressnell Files Suit in D. Oregon ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kettle Foods Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Pressnell, Jill Clark, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kettle Foods Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00468-MK (D. Ore., March 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Kettle Foods, Inc. -- https://www.kettlebrand.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of potato chips, based in Salem, Oregon, United States, with a European and Middle East headquarters in Norwich, United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq. Cody O. Berne, Esq. Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com cberne@stollberne.com KING KULLEN GROCERY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01674 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. King Kullen Grocery -- https://kingkullen.com/ -- has been offering Long Island families quality & affordable groceries for over 91 years.[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 KOOLATRON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koolatron USA, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koolatron USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02417 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Koolatron -- https://www.koolatron.com/ -- is a global leader in thermoelectric and refrigeration products and is widely known for its flagship line of made-in-Canada 12 volt cooler/warmers and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Securities Suit in Illinois Court ---------------------------------------------------- The Kraft Heinz Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was filed against the company and its officers and directors. Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Union Asset Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al." The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint, which motion the court denied in an order dated August 11, 2021. The Kraft Heinz Company is into canned, frozen & preserved fruit, veg & food specialties based in Pennsylvania. KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- The Kraft Heinz Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that a class action was dismissed after the plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of The Kraft Heinz Company's current and former officers and employees were defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action lawsuit, "Osborne v. Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, et al.," which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust during the period of May 4, 2017 through February 21, 2019. An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA based on alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in our common stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties by current and former officers for their purported failure to monitor Master Trust fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion the court granted in an order dated August 23, 2021, before entering judgment in favor of the Company on September 14, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2021. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on December 7, 2021, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal with prejudice on that same date. The Kraft Heinz Company is into canned, frozen & preserved fruit, veg & food specialties based in Pennsylvania. LIL BUCKS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lil Bucks LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lil Bucks LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02519 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lil Bucks -- https://lovelilbucks.com/ -- is an Aussie-inspired, gluten-free, low sugar granola alternative made from sprouted buckwheat seeds.[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 LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Insurance Suit Junked --------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 lawsuit against Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) was dismissed. The lawsuit alleges that LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance law. The case captioned "Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York" pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and prejudgment interest on behalf of the various classes and subclasses. On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY's November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter. On July 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to this ruling. Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. LINCOLN LIFE: Settlement in Hanks Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 the class action settlement in the case against Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York is preliminary approved by the court and final fairness hearing is set for June 2022. The case captioned "Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (Voya)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant in the case. In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the 1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged in the defense of this case. On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary judgment. On October 22, 2021, the parties informed the presiding judge that they have reached a settlement of the action, subject to court approval. On January 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement, subject to final approval by the court, consists of $92.5 million in pre-tax cash and a five-year cost of insurance rate freeze, among other terms. On February 3, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class action settlement and set a final fairness hearing for June 9, 2022. Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 the case captioned "Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, (LLANY)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 27, 2019, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004, is still ongoing. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or own "life insurance policies issued in the State of New York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and subclass. Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Junks Glover Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 lawsuit was filed against the company alleging that they have charged more for the non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which the company had opposed. The case "Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for the non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Glover seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Glover's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS Insurance Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation 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 the case captioned "TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in July 17, 2018, No. 2:18-cv-02989 alleging that they have charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy, is still ongoing. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies based in Pennsylvania. LITTLE BEET TABLE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Beet Table, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Little Beet Table, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01678 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Little Beet Table -- https://www.thelittlebeettable.com/ -- is a vibrant, veggie-inspired restaurant serving Chevy Chase, and Park Avenue in NYC..[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 LUPTON EXCAVATION: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lupton Excavation, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Juan Manuel Esquivel Torres, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lupton Excavation, Inc., Does 1 – 10, Case No. 34-2022-00317401-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 25, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." Lupton Excavation, Inc. was founded in 1987. The Company's line of business includes providing excavation work and digging foundations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com LYRICAL FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyrical Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyrical Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02518 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lyrical Foods, Inc., doing business as Kite Hill -- https://www.kite-hill.com/ -- offers dairy products. The Company provides yogurts, cheese, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MARLETTE FUNDING: Faces Usury-Related Suit in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, 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 June 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the online lender Marlette Funding LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging that the company, doing business as Best Egg, was the true lender of usurious loans, with a rate of interest far in excess of the 6% rate permitted to be charged in Pennsylvania by unlicensed non-banks, originated through a partnership with Cross River Bank (Case No. 21-CV-985). Upstart Holdings is a cloud-based AI lending platform. MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK: Horn Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matrix Medical Network of Arizona LLC, et al. The case is styled as William Horn, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Matrix Medical Network of Arizona LLC, Superior Healthplan Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-00482-SMB (D. Ariz., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Matrix Medical Network -- https://matrixmedicalnetwork.com/ -- provides expert care and health services to millions of at-risk individuals where they live and work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC 30 E Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (215) 540-8888 Fax: (877) 788-2864 Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com MDG USA INC: Danzy Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tyisha Danzy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MDG USA Inc., Case No. 22CV007409, was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 25, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01923-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending. MDG -- https://secure.mdg.com/ -- offers customers brand name electronics, televisions, computers, appliances, furniture and mattresses at competitive prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK AND COVENEY 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037-1474 Phone: (858) 623-4230 Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Theonugraha, Esq. Jeremy Michael McLaughlin, Esq. K&L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Phone: (415) 882-8230 Fax: (415) 882-8220 Email: jonathan.theonugraha@klgates.com jeremy.mclaughlin@klgates.com MDL 2382: Hale Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jeff Hale, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in IN RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION, MDL No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. This multi-district litigation arises out of allegedly deceptive advertising associated with RIDGID brand vacuums. Emerson, a Missouri corporation, manufactures, markets, and sells RIDGID vacuums. It makes all marketing decisions regarding the vacuums in Missouri. Emerson markets the vacuums by emphasizing their "peak horsepower" -- the maximum potential output of the vacuums' motors. Emerson acknowledges that the vacuums can only achieve "peak horsepower" in a laboratory. A consumer using a standard wall outlet would achieve less horsepower than advertised. The Plaintiffs allege advertising based on peak horsepower is misleading and brought claims for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of other states' consumer protection laws, and redhibition (on behalf of a Louisiana sub-class). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the case to the district court as a consolidated action and the district court oversaw discovery. At the close of discovery, the Plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class. The district court applied Missouri choice of law rules and determined that all claims should be governed by Missouri law. It then certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Emerson appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court certifying a nationwide class action, and remanded for further proceedings. On March 7, 2022, District Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying Plaintiffs' oral motion to reconsider the Opinion, Memorandum and Order which granted Motions to Exclude Plaintiffs' experts, Stefan Boedeker and Laurence Nagel. Judge Autrey also denied their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Jeff Hale, et al., v. Emerson Electric Company, Case No. 22-8005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 22, 2022.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jeff Hale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Raymond Gray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Andrew Bowers, Emilio Gonzales, and Kenneth Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated; Eric Shults and Justin Swires, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Estaban Maravilla, individually and on behalf of all others; Lauren Checki, Chad Venhaus, Kevin Brees, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer, are represented by: Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. NEBLETT & BEARD 2220 Bonaventure Court P.O. Box 12120 Alexandria, LA 71315 Telephone: (318) 561-2598 - and - Randall Seth Crompton, Esq. Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2625 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN & SEDRAN 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 - and - Anthony G. Simon, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. Paul J. Tahan, Esq. SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Defendant-Respondent Emerson Electric Company is represented by: Mark G. Arnold, Esq. 7397 Pershing Saint Louis, MO 63130 Telephone: (314) 805-0613 - and - James F. Bennett, Esq. Hannah Fleener Preston, Esq. DOWD & BENNETT 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 - and - Matthew R. Grant, Esq. Joseph C. Orlet, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 MERRILL & LYNCH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying of briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as follows: Current Proposed New Deadline Deadline Opposition to April 1, 2022 May 3, 2022 Motion for Class Certification Reply in Support April 15, 2022 June 7, 2022 of Motion for Class Certification The Court previously set a briefing schedule on the Motion, which directed Plaintiff to serve her Motion on March 4, 2022 and set a tentative deadline for Merrill Lynch's response on April 1, 2022: Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by March 4, 2022. If, after Plaintiff files her motion, Defendant believes it needs expert discovery in order to respond, the Defendant should notify the Court. Otherwise, the Defendant's opposition is due April 1, 2022, and Plaintiff's reply is due April 15, 2022. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35anRJ3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP Telephone: (212) 450-4351 lara.buchwald@davispolk.com 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 E-mail: davispolk.com METLIFE INC: Parchmann Shareholder Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Metlife 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 the case captioned "Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et. al." (February 5, 2018, E.D. N.Y.) was dismissed The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018 alleging that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over financial reporting. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On January 11, 2021, the court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. MetLife is provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management holding leading market positions in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Suit Over Late Fees Pending in Texas Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mid-America Apartment Communities, 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 two separate putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in 2016 and 2017. The lawsuits both relate to purported violations of a late-fee statute in the state of Texas. In 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and class certification. The Company appealed the class certifications to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinions finding error in the District Court's analysis of the Texas late-fee statute and remanding the lawsuits to the District Court to determine if class certifications are appropriate in light of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. operates, acquires and selectively develops apartment communities. MISFITS MARKET: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Misfits Market, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Misfits Market, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02523 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Misfits Market -- https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ -- is a provider of subscription box service used to reduce the waste of food.[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 MONQ LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monq, LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monq, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02472 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MONQ -- https://monq.com/ -- uses 100% naturally extracted and organic essential oils, harvested from eco-friendly farms across the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MURPHY'S MAGIC SUPPLIES: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murphy's Magic Supplies. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Murphy's Magic Supplies, Case No. 1:22-cv-02464 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Murphy's Magic Supplies -- https://www.murphysmagic.com/ -- is the world's largest wholesaler of magic supplies,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NAKED GALLERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Buehler Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BUEHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED GALLERY, INC; ZACHARY A. MOORE; and CORY PROCTOR, Defendants, Case No 2:22-cv-01956 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., March 24, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Buehler was employed by the Defendants as production crew member. NAKED GALLERY, INC. is a movie production company. The company offers motion picture production, and music videos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Chen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Assessment of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Zhonghui Chen, Shi Shi Wang, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. Department of Assessment of the County of Nassau, Respondent, Case No. 603652/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 24, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." The Department of Assessment -- https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN] NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YMCA: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Willie Lee Jackson, Jr., Julia Tolbert-Jackson, husband and wife, individually, as guardian and next friend to WTJ and SR, minor children, collectively, and on behalf of other minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America Corporation; National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America d/b/a YMCA of the USA, d/b/a YMCA of Birmingham; Kevin Washington; Luis Lozada; World Alliance of YMCAs; Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited d/b/a Crum & Forster Holdings Corp, d/b/a The United States Fire Inc Co; The Redwoods Group, a Crum & Forster Company; Beth Cooper; R Scott Bricker; Kevin A Trapani; Greg Pontes; Integrated Claims Solutions; Rosemary Cubbedge; Aetna Inc; Aetna Health Inc, a NJ Corp, d/b/a Aetna Health LaQuinta ERISA Self-Funded Ins Healthcare Plan; Aetna Healthcare Ins Co; Aetna Life Ins Co; The Rawlings Company; Shannon Heitzman; Victoria Peek; Alex Gram; Adrienne W Kim; Patrick Ellis; Larry Nelson; JHTNA Corp, Johnson Health Tech North America, d/b/a JHTNA Manufacturing LLC; Matrix Fitness USA; Northland Industries Incorp; Magnum Fitness System; Case No. 2:22-cv-00388-ACA (N.D. Ala., March 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. National Council of Young Mens Christian Associations of the United States of America Corporation -- http://www.ymca.org/-- is a venerable not-for-profit community service organization, YMCA of the USA (Y-USA) assists the more than 2,700 individual YMCAs across the country and represents them on both national and international levels.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. OCWEN LOAN: Settlement in Franklin Suit Wins Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows: -- Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following class: "All persons in California whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one outgoing call from Defendant was recorded by Defendant and/or its agent/s without that person’s consent between November 1, 2015 and November 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period");" Excluded from the Class are: (i) individuals who are or were during the Class Period officers or directors of Defendant in the Litigation or any of its respective Affiliates; (ii) the District Judge and any Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all persons who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Class. -- The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Gregory Franklin as representative for the claims against Ocwen. -- The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Abbas Kazerounian, Jason A. Ibey, and Ryan L. McBride of the law firm of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, as "Class Counsel." -- The Court approves Simpluris, Inc. as the Claims Administrator to perform duties in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. -- The Court finds that the procedures for notifying the Class about the settlement as 7 in the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances and therefore meet the requirements of due process, and directs the mailing of the Class Notice and the attachments thereto in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. -- Provided that the changes to the objection process are implemented, the Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Class Notice and associated forms. The Claims Administrator is authorized to mail those documents after they are updated to the Class Action members as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Court hereby directs plaintiff, defendant, and the Administrator to complete all aspects of the Class Notice no later than April 15, 2022. Ocwen Loan provides mortgage loans. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LiJJkV at no extra charge.[CC] OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Faces Setzer Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------- Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 was filed against the company alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the company's leases and the un-collectability of certain receivables. The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in August 2020. In November 2020, the company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss insofar as it requested dismissal of the entire action on grounds of loss causation, and granting it insofar as it sought dismissal of any claims arising out of defendants' statements in February 2017. Because the dismissed claims were the basis for defendants' efforts to begin the alleged class period in February 2017, the decision means that the alleged class period runs from May 3, 2017 to October 31, 2017. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is into real estate investment trusts based in Maryland. PBF ENERGY: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Refinery Mishap ----------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy 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 was filed against the company and its subsidiaries alleging negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from electrostatic precipitator explosion. On February 17, 2017, in "Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.," the company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021, the defendants' motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint were heard by the court. On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") that contained significant changes and new claims, including individual claims, that were not included in the motion for leave to amend plaintiffs presented to the Court. On June 9, 2021, we filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which the defendants filed their reply on July 2, 2021. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC was held on August 2, 2021 and the court ordered that the TAC be struck and that the parties meet and confer with respect to the complaint. After meeting and conferring, plaintiffs agreed to submit a corrected TAC with changes reflecting the removal of Youssef and the substitution of Navarro as the named Plaintiff. On August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to take Navarro's deposition on September 23, 2021. Also, on August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to continue the pretrial dates with the new deadlines. On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative. On October 29, 2021, the company filed its opposition to this motion. On November 15, 2021, plaintiffs filed their reply. On February 8, 2022, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Navarro as Class Representative but did not act on the motion. Instead, the court ordered the parties to submit draft orders for the Court's consideration. All other dates are stayed pending the Court issuing its order. PBF Energy Inc. is an independent petroleum refiners and suppliers based in New Jersey. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settlement Reached in Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that in August 3, 2021, PPC and the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (CIIPP) reached an agreement to settle all claims, which is subject to approval by the Illinois Court. The Illinois Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 14, 2022 and a final approval hearing is scheduled for April 18, 2022. Under the terms of these settlements, PPC has agreed to pay the CIIPPs an amount of $45.0 million to release all outstanding claims brought by the class. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors and foodservice operators. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Dispute with Direct Purchasers Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by a putative class of plaintiffs who have filed on behalf of direct purchasers. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as "In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation," Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against PPC and other defendants by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The putative class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers (DPP) and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and September 1, 2021, 82 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual purchaser entities (DAP) naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints. Subsequent amendments to certain complaints added allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales. On June 17, 2021, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order through trial, under which merits fact discovery for defendants and most plaintiffs closed on July 31, 2021, with additional discovery of subsequent DAPs proceeding in six month increments following consolidation of each DAP complaint. On February 8, 2022, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order for certain plaintiffs who limited their claims to reduction of output, which sets the first trial date in the fall 2023. The schedule for the rest of the plaintiffs is still awaiting an order from the Illinois Court. On January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle all claims made by the DPPs. The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on June 29, 2021. As a result of this agreement PPC recorded an expense of $75.0 million in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Consolidated Statement of Income during the year ended December 27, 2020. Pursuant to this agreement, PPC paid the DPPs this amount during the three months ended March 28, 2021. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors and foodservice operators. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Row with End-User/Indirect Purchaser Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on July 28, 2021, PPC and the putative End-User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (EUCP) reached an agreement to settle all claims. The Illinois Court granted final approval of the settlement on December 20, 2021. Under the terms of these settlements, PPC paid the EUCPs an amount of $75.5 million to release all outstanding claims brought by the class. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors and foodservice operators. POLARIS PRECISION: Jordan FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANTONY JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POLARIS PRECISION TUBULAR SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00218, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 24, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-00106-JCB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Polaris Precision Tubular Services, LLC is a contractor for tubular manufacturers, with its principal place of business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Action Pending in Oregon Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that during September and October 2020, three putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned "Cannataro v. Portland General Electric Co.," Case No. 3:20-cv-01583. Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon. PORTLAND GENERAL: Employees' Fund Suit Pending in Oregon Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that during September and October 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General Electric Co.," Case No. 20-cv-01786. Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon. PORTLAND GENERAL: Hessel Class Suit Pending in Oregon ----------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that during September and October 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned "Hessel v. Portland General Electric Co.," Case No. 20-cv-01523. Portland General Electric Company, a vertically-integrated electric utility with corporate headquarters located in Portland, Oregon. PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- PPL Electric Utilities Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed said complaint. In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its entirety. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January 14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. On December 11, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the lower court's denial of class certification. In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court. On April 20, 2021, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied further review of the lower court order. The case was remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for the claims of the three remaining petitioners. Settlements with two of the three remaining petitioners were reached with none of the settlements having or expected to have a significant impact on LG&E's operations or financial condition. PPL is a utility holding company, incorporated in 1994, in connection with the deregulation of electricity generation in Pennsylvania. PPL ELECTRIC: Talen Montana Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------- PPL Electric Utilities Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it is facing a class action complaint captioned "Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PPL Corporation et al" filed in October 29, 2018. Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed said complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors. Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both actual and constructive, recovery against subsequent transferees, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting tortious conduct and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division. In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Although, the PPL defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision, in November 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in December 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a plaintiff. In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the below mentioned Delaware Action. The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motions. On September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants' alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings. PPL is a utility holding company, incorporated in 1994, in connection with the deregulation of electricity generation in Pennsylvania. REDFIN CORP: Bell Labor Suit for Arbitration -------------------------------------------- Redfin Corporation 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 an arbitration demand was filed by the plaintiff after the court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration on non-PAGA claims. On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who is one of the company's former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint is pled as a class action and alleges that, (1) during the time he served as an associate agent, the company misclassified him as an independent contractor instead of an employee and (2) during the time he served as a lead agent, the company misclassified him as an employee who was exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws. The plaintiff also asserts representative claims under California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The plaintiff is seeking unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime wages, regular wages, meal and rest period compensation, waiting time and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On August 12, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration on the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims and stayed the plaintiff's PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration. Following the court's grant, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand. Redfin Corporation is a residential real estate brokerage based in Seattle. REDFIN CORP: Faces Labor Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------- Redfin Corporation 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 the company was named defendant in a class lawsuit alleging that they misclassified the plaintiff as an independent contractor instead of an employee. On August 28, 2019, Devin Cook, who is one of the company's former independent contractor licensed sales associates, whom it calls associate agents, filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and alleged that the company misclassified her as an independent contractor instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought representative claims under California's Private Attorney General Act. On January 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint dismissing her class action claim and asserting only claims under PAGA. On September 24, 2021, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims under PAGA, holding that at this stage of the proceeding, the company had not proved that the company properly classified associate agents as independent contractors under California law. The plaintiff continues to seek unspecified penalties for alleged violations of PAGA. Redfin Corporation is a residential real estate brokerage based in Seattle. RYDER SYSTEM: Faces Securities Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------ Ryder System, 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 it is facing a putative class action filed in May 20, 2020 on behalf of purchasers of securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020. The case was commenced against Ryder and certain of the company's current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned "Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al." The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs. On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On April 7, 2021, the court held a hearing on defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and reserved decision. Ryder System, Inc. is a leading logistics and transportation company based in Florida. SAM'S WEST: Class Certification Filing Continued to April 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue class certification filing deadline in light of unforeseen delays in Belaire process. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is continued to April 11, 2022, says Judge Wilson. Sam's West provides merchandise and services for business owners and consumers. The Company offers refrigeration equipment, drink and beverage machines. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGvbng at no extra charge.[CC] SCWORX CORP: Settlement in Yannes Suit for Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- SCWorx Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the earliest event reported on February 11, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the class action settlement for "Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel" has been submitted for preliminary approval. On April 29, May 27 and June 23, 2020, a series of securities class action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Company and the Company's former CEO. These three class actions were consolidated on September 18, 2020 and Daniel Yannes was designated lead plaintiff. A consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 19, 2020. The consolidated action was captioned "Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel." On February 11, 2022, the Company and Mr. Schessel entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, which settles all claims raised in the litigation. As stated on December 20, 2021, and under the terms of the Class Action Settlement, the insurers for the Company and Schessel will make a cash payment to the Plaintiff and the Company will issue $600,000 worth of common stock to the class Plaintiffs, in exchange for which all parties will be released from all claims related to the securities class action litigation. This Class Action Settlement has been submitted to the court for preliminary approval. SCWorx Corp. is into miscellaneous amusement & recreation services based in New York. SENSIENT NATURAL: Bryan Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on May 20, 2021 a Request for Dismissal without prejudice was filed by a certain Julie Bryan with regards to its a class action complaint against its affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) that she initially filed in June 15, 2020. Bryan worked at SNI through a temporary staffing agency in early 2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Bryan as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through staffing agencies or labor contractors. The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Ms. Bryan and the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. On August 19, 2020, Ms. Bryan filed a Complaint in Merced County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the parties entered the discovery phase of the case. On May 20, 2021, however, Ms. Bryan filed a Request for Dismissal of her action, without prejudice. Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients. SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Agar Class Action ----------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that its affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) is facing a class action complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court filed in March 29, 2019, by Calvin Agar, a former employee. On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a first amended class action complaint against SNI alleging that its improperly reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which concern the wage statements, challenging the manner in which SNI has reported overtime pay on its wage statements. SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner’s Office. Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in the case in December 2019, which was not successful. On March 17, 2020, the court granted Agar leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer on September 1, 2020. SNI requested discretionary appellate review of this decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District granted SNI's application on February 19, 2021 and ordered briefing by the parties. Discovery is currently stayed in the matter pending the outcome of appellate review. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this issue. SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests, absent a reasonable resolution. Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients. SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on June 10, 2021, a certain Sofia Rodriguez, an employee of its affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) pursued a claim, through counsel, on a representative basis on behalf of all other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through staffing agencies. Rodriguez filed notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a claim on a representative basis. Rodriguez worked at SNI through One Source Staffing Solutions, Inc. for five months in 2020. The notice states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Rodriguez as well as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California, and who were paid on an hourly basis. The notice alleges that SNI failed to allow Ms. Rodriguez and the other alleged aggrieved employees to take statutorily required meal and rest periods. The notice further alleges that Defendants suffered and permitted Ms. Rodriguez and other alleged aggrieved employees to work off the clock, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate for minimum and overtime wages, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to pay wages owed upon termination of employment, in violation of the California Labor Code. Ms. Rodriguez also asserts that she was taken off the schedule and not returned to work after complaining about the alleged wage and hour violations set forth in the PAGA notice. On August 17, 2021, Ms. Rodriguez filed a Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response. Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients. SENSIENT NATURAL: Faces Walters Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022 for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that on April 26, 2021, a certain Patrick Walters, an employee of its affiliate Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) pursued a claim, through counsel. The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Mr. Walters and the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. On July 30, 2021, Mr. Walters filed a complaint in Merced County Superior Court asserting the claims set forth in his PAGA notice. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response. Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors, and other specialty ingredients. SLIMFAST FOODS: Faces Brand Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products --------------------------------------------------------------- KASAMA BRAND, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLIMFAST FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00392-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2022), alleges that the Defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, sold goods under false pretenses, and defrauded its customers over the Defendant's chocolate snack cups under the brand name "Keto Fat Bomb", and ketogenic snack gels under the brand name "Keto Fat Bomb Shot" (the "Products"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, since the Products do not meet the regulatory definition of low-or reduced-calorie foods, federal regulations require the Defendant to make a disclaimer that the Products are not for weight control, or the like. But the Products' labels do not contain the required disclaimer, which would provide material facts to give consumers the full picture about these Products' "zero added sugar" or "zero sugar" claim. The alleged failure to include this disclaimer make the labels' claims false, deceptive, inaccurate, and misleading, and the labels, and Defendants' advertising, violate federal and state laws and regulations requiring accuracy in nutritional labels. The Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on the Defendant's marketing claims, and especially on the deceptive and misleading implication that these Products were low-calorie foods. SLIM-FAST FOODS COMPANY manufactures and retails food products. The Company provides breakfast and lunch bars, meal bars, powder, shake mixes, and snacks. Slim-Fast Foods serves customers throughout the United states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858)414-7465 Facsimile: (858)300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com TEXTRON INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Textron Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld dismissal of most of a second amended complaint for a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer and remanding that remaining portion back to the District Court. On August 22, 2019, a suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the Arctic Cat acquisition and integration. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. On November 12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund (IWA) as the sole lead plaintiff in the case. On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to dismiss and closed the case. On August 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal contesting the dismissal, which Textron opposed. On September 17, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the case, unanimously upholding dismissal of most of the Second Amended Complaint, but reversing dismissal of one aspect of the Second Amended Complaint and remanding that remaining portion back to the District Court for further proceedings. Textron Inc. is a multi-industry company into a network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance businesses based in Rhode Island. TRUSTMARK CORP: Suit Over Illegal Fees Remanded to S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ Trustmark Corporation 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 the remand of a class action filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming Trustmark National Bank (TNB), a subsidiary of the company, and four other financial institutions and one individual, was approved by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and is effective as of January 28, 2022. On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed to recover alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford and damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas), where multiple Stanford related matters have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action, which was granted in December 2012. The OSIC initially sought to recover from TNB and the other defendant financial institutions: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues. In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i) aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii) aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy. On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the action. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC. On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii) aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty. On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification and designation of class representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the discovery stay that it had previously ordered. On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied the motions to intervene. On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal. On February 3, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motions to intervene; this decision was affirmed by a panel of the Fifth Circuit on March 12, 2021. On February 12, 2021, all defendants (including TNB) filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to OSIC claims that applied to all defendants. In addition, on the same date, TNB filed a separate motion for summary judgment with respect to aspects of OSIC claims that applied specifically to TNB. On March 19, 2021, OSIC filed notice with the court that it was abandoning as against all of the defendants (including TNB) certain of the claims previously set forth in the SAC. As a result, only the claims for (i) aiding, abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, and (iii) punitive damages remain as against TNB. On January 20, 2022, the court denied TNB's motion for summary judgment, as well as the motion for summary judgment filed by all defendants (including TNB) with respect to OSIC claims that apply to all defendants. The parties to the action have agreed that the case is to be tried in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On March 25, 2021, the judge to whom the case is currently assigned in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas rescinded his previously-issued trial scheduling orders so that the Southern District of Texas could set scheduling for this case once the case has in fact been remanded. On January 19, 2022, the judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas to whom the case is currently assigned issued a recommendation to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel) that the case be remanded to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas in light of that judge's determination with respect to the summary judgment motions that triable issues of fact exist. On January 21, 2022, the Panel approved the remand of the case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, subject to a seven-day stay to allow for any objections to the remand to be filed. On January 28, 2022, with no objections having been filed, the Panel lifted the stay, and the remand of the case became effective. Trustmark Corporation operates as a financial services organization providing banking and other financial solutions based in Mississippi. UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits in D.C. Court ---------------------------------------------------- United Airlines Holdings, Inc. (UAL) 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 beginning in July 1, 2015, UAL and United were named as defendants in multiple class action lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, which have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints generally allege collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity impacting airfares and seek treble damages. United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiary is United Airlines, Inc. with a comprehensive route network among North American carriers, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIR FORCE OFFICER, v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; FRANK KENDALL, III, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I. MILLER, individually and in his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force, Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES (M.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to stay: (1) The Defendants' deadline to answer Amended Complaint, (2) The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, and (3) The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, Motion to Certify Class, and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction on February 28, 2022. By Plaintiff's own admission, any response to her Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction will require extensive investigation into more than 8,200 service members' requests for religious exemption from the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccine requirement. And yet, the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue class-wide preliminary injunctive relief. Thus, given Plaintiff's improperly filed Amended Complaint, and Defendants' bona fide challenge to Plaintiff's standing to pursue such class certification and class-wide preliminary injunctive relief -- and, importantly, to conserve valuable resources for the Court and parties – the Defendants request that the Court stay Defendants' upcoming deadlines. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKFz4J at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lance Simon, Esq. Roger C. Grantham, Jr. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA P. O. Box 1702 Macon, GA 31202 Telephone: (478) 621-2663 Facsimile: (478) 621-2737 E-mail: Lance.Simon@usdoj.gov Roger.Grantham@usdoj.gov UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Faine Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE FAINE, Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00524-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying this case as a class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23; (2) Directing that within 14 days of the Court's Certification Order, Estes shall produce a class list containing the names, dates of employment, mail and e- mail addresses, and phone numbers of the following Class Members: all regular full-time and/or part time L2L drivers in Colorado who did not cross state lines during their deliveries from March 16, 2020 to December 31, 2020 and worked overtime and/or more than 2 hours on any work shift; (3) Appointing Donte Faine, as the Class Representative; (4) Appointing David H. Miller and Victoria E. Guzman of the Sawaya & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel; (5) Approving the Notice and Opt-Out forms; (6) Approving the following notice procedures: (a) Within 14 days of receipt of the class list, Class Counsel shall send the approved notice forms via U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and text message; (b) Class Members shall have 60 days to opt-out of the Class if they choose to do so; and (c) Class Counsel shall conduct skip-tracing and other reasonable efforts to locate, communicate with, and provide the Notices to any Class Members whose Notice Forms are returned undeliverable; and (7) Granting such other relief the Court deems just and proper. Universal Logistics is a full-service provider of customized transportation and logistics solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wDpHgR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. THE SAWAYA LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden St. Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com vguzman@sawayalaw.com VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Crumrine Shareholder Suit in New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrun 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 against Vivint Solar, Inc., a company acquired by Sunrun, alleging violations of Federal Securities Laws. In October 2019, two shareholders filed separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Crumrine v. Vivint Solar, Inc. and Li v. Vivint Solar, Inc.) purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuits purport to allege violations of Federal Securities Laws. In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged putative class. Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern District of New York transferred the actions to the District of Utah, where they are now pending. Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. While Vivint Solar believes that the claims against it are without merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the action, Vivint Solar mediated the action with plaintiffs on May 19, 2021, and reached an agreement to resolve the action on a class-wide basis for $1.25 million. A portion of the $1.25 million will be covered by insurance proceeds, and the Company accrued approximately $750,000 as of June 30, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, the accrual was adjusted to $550,000, because of the portion of the $1.25 million settlement that will be covered by insurance proceeds. On November 30, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Company deposited its portion of the settlement proceeds into an escrow account managed by the class action claims administrator on January 27, 2022. The court has scheduled the final approval hearing for May 5, 2022. Sunrun, Inc. provides solar energy and storage and is based in California. VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Dekker Class Action ---------------------------------------- Sunrun, 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 against Vivint Solar, Inc., a company acquired by Sunrun, alleging that agreements contain unlawful termination fee provisions. In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action lawsuit captioned "Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc." (N.D. Cal.), alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee provisions. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint. On January 17, 2020, the Company moved to compel arbitration with respect to nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included arbitration provisions. The court issued an order compelling eight plaintiffs to pursue their claims in arbitration but subsequently rescinded the order as to certain plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has since reversed the court's order rescinding its order compelling certain plaintiffs to arbitrate. At this time, one plaintiff's claims remain pending before the court as a putative class action, and other plaintiffs' claims are in arbitration or have otherwise been resolved on an individual basis. In the putative class action that remains pending before the court, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and Vivint Solar is opposing that motion and a hearing is scheduled to be held on February 25, 2022. Sunrun, Inc. provides solar energy and storage and is based in California. VVF INTERVEST: Robertson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON ROBERTSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VVF INTERVEST, LLC, VVF KANSAS, LLC, & VVF KANSAS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02507-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional collective action certification of the following three collectives: -- Unlawful Rounding Policy Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants in hourly positions who worked and clocked in and out on an automated timeclock at any time from November 2, 2018 to the present;" -- Unlawful Workweek Manipulation Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants in hourly positions who worked a shift that began on a Saturday and ended on a Sunday during any workweek from November 2, 2018 to the present;" and -- Unlawful Deduction Policy Collective "All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants in hourly positions whose hours worked were automatically deducted for lunch breaks at any time from November 2, 2018 to the present." On November 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Defendantsalleging that Defendants' policies, practices and/or procedures have resulted in the willful, systemic underpayment of straight time and overtime compensation due and owing to all hourly, non-exempt, workers the Defendants employed within the United States at its multiple facilities in Kansas, Illinois, and Ohio in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and state law. The Plaintiff alleges that VVF Intervest's policies, practices, and/or procedures regarding three areas related to the payment of wages result in three different ways in which all hourly, non-exempt, employees are deprived of straight time and overtime compensation due and owing pursuant to state and federal law. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that VVF Intervest's policies, practices, and/or procedures unlawfully deduct compensable time from Plaintiff and the putative class members' weekly hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay all overtime compensation due and owing. Specifically, Plaintiff and the putative class members are automatically deducted each shift for a thirty-minute lunch break regardless of whether they are actually able to take the break. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LlrhIs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLC 7111 W. 151 st St., No. 316 Overland Park, Kansas 66223 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com WALMART INC: Pretrial, Trial Deadlines Continued in Carr Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. a corporation, WALMART ASSOCIATES INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order continuing pretrial and trial dates: Trial and Final Pretrial Court Order Conference Dates -- Jury Trial (4-6 Days) Jan. 9, 2024 -- Final Pretrial Conference Dec. 15, 2023 ("FPTC") [L.R. 16], Hearing on Motions In Limine: -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 1, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial) July 28, 2023 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Sept. 21, 2023 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 6, 2023 -- Motion for Class Certification April 7, 2023 Hearing: - Plaintiffs' Deadline to Jan. 20, 2023 File Motion for Class Certification: - Defendants' Deadline to Feb. 24, 2023 File Opposition: - Plaintiffs' Deadline to March 17, 2023 File Reply: -- Last Date to Hear Motions: Oct. 6, 2023 Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36NPxDK at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONIKA NADINE CORA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00109-TJH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting approval of the terms of the Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement; the amount of distributions to class members; and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and attorney's fees and costs; 2. certifying for settlement purposes the Settlement Class and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement Collective described in the Agreement; 3. appointing the Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Moon & Yang, APC as counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. approving the use of Rust Consulting as the settlement administrator; 6. authorizing distributions from the common fund; and 7. entering judgment on the terms specified in the Agreement and approved by 22 the Court. Wells Fargo operates as a bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 10, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iGanb3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com XCENTRIC VENTURES: Selker Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MARK SELKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC and DOES 1 through 300, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00005365-CU-BT-NC, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 24, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00393-BEN-KSC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair competition and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of its operation of the website www.ripoffreport.com. Xcentric Ventures, LLC is a direct sales company based in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bennett Evan Cooper, Esq. Bradley A. Burns, Esq. Amanda E. Newman, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: bcooper@dickinsonwright.com bburns@dickinsonwright.com anewman@dickinsonwright.com XEROX CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN VOLLMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. XEROX CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL CARE PLAN FOR. RETIRED EMPLOYEES, XEROX DENTAL CARE PLAN, and XEROX CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-06979-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for joint discovery plan as follows: Motion for Class Certification April 8, 2022 deadline: Response to Motion for Class May 23, 2022 Certification: Reply to Response to Motion June 7, 2022 for Class Certification: Xerox manufactures, sells and services office equipment and furniture. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NkYfKv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tybe A. Brett, Esq. Joel R Hurt, Esq. 429 Fourth Avenue FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 E-mail: tbrettififdpklaw.com hurt@fdpklaw.com - and - David R. Pfalzgraf, Jr., Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main St. Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: miller@ruppbaase.com pfalzgraggruppbaase.com The Defendants are represented by: Myron D. Rumeld, Esq. Joseph E. Clark, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com jclark@proskauer.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,097 Pending Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its operating business segment, Air & Liquid, has reported 6,097 and 5,891 total claims pending for the years ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/36TUc7o ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$14.3MM Asbestos Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has reported losses and loss adjustment expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021, which included $44.3 million of net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The unfavorable prior year loss development was due to $20.7 million in run-off liability losses excluding asbestos and environmental, $14.3 million in asbestos and environmental lines and $9.3 million in risk management workers compensation. The movement on liability exposures excluding asbestos and environmental was due to analysis of individual claims. The exposures driving the change were largely the result of claims alleging abuse. A large portion of the change was due to defense costs. The movement on asbestos and environmental lines was due to higher than expected loss activity and movements on large claims alleging environmental losses. "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 included $11.5 million of net unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years, of which $16.4 million was in asbestos and environmental lines and $7.2 million in other run-off lines, partially offset by $12.1 million of net favorable loss reserve development on prior accident years in risk management workers compensation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3uE9Lsa ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Still Defends 151 PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products they sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of December 31, 2021, there were 151 individual cases pending against the Company. During the three months ended December 31, 2021, 19 new cases were filed and 20 cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved. The value of the settlements was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. "We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date there have been no findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to date. Any accruals currently recorded on the Company’s balance sheet with respect to these cases are not material. However, any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3wQlXsf ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 45 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. There remained approximately 45 pending asbestos claims as of December 31, 2021. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, BNS Sub had accrued $1,466 and $1,349, respectively, relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3NyeSCC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Reports $10.8MM Loss Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity Group, LLC, as of December 31, 2021, has $10.8 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and $11.2 million for environmental claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental contamination claims. However, in some states, the Company is required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated continually. Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to coverage under general liability policies that do not contain aggregate limits of liability. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/38frkHt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Faces 3,300 Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of December 31, 2021, has reported 3,300 individual cases and 61 multiple-plaintiff cases pending alleging actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ISQhVy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hamilton Beach Defends Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilton Beach Holding Co. and its subsidiary are involved in various legal and regulatory proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business, including product liability, patent infringement, asbestos related claims, environmental and other claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and claims, the Company believes the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operation or cash flows of the Company. Any costs that the Company estimates will be paid as a result of these claims are accrued when the liability is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. The Company does not accrue liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or when the liability is believed to be only reasonably possible or remote. For contingencies where an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible and which are material, the Company discloses the nature of the contingency and, in some circumstances, an estimate of the possible loss." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3Ny6RO8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,800 PI Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc, as of December 31, 2021, had an approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against them, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3Lj57qa ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these to claims. When it is probable that a loss has been incurred and possible to make a reasonable estimate of the Company's liability with respect to such matters, a provision is recorded for the amount of such estimate or the minimum amount of a range of estimates when it is not possible to estimate the amount within the range that is most likely to occur. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tOA6EC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Faces Numerous Asbestos-Related Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro, along with numerous other third parties, has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2021 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $4.8 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; $4.7 million have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $41,000. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tRRect ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 104 Exposure Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 104 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 578 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. "We believe the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. "In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters. We currently believe that the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes (including asbestos-related claims), individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3uZMcKD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Faces PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., is a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries (including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to claims arising under charter parties, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A substantial majority of such personal injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not material in amount). Each of the claims involves an amount which, in the opinion of management, are not expected to be material to the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3iPuIux ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 106 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 169 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/36yNjsx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Defends A&E Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------- Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are proactive in establishing policies and operating procedures for safeguarding the environment against any hazardous materials aboard our vessels and at shore-based locations. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also requires owners and operators of vessels over 300 gross tons to provide the USCG with evidence of financial responsibility to cover the cost of cleaning up oil spills from those vessels. Several foreign jurisdictions also require us to present satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3NxSjy6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc.'s Subsidiary Defends Numerous PI Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Valhi, Inc.'s majority-owned subsidiary, NL, has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 104 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 578 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, NL has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3700T87 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumed Personal Injury Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. has assumed defense of the personal injury lawsuit subject to a reservation of rights and objection to the claim for indemnification, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The acquiror of certain assets from a former operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for indemnification and tendered defense of the matter to the Company. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying this action. The Company does not expect that this claim will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active actions, and it does not anticipate that this action will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3tSQPq8 ********* 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 ***