/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220428.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 79
Headlines
212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
A & L OF NY: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Wages, Suit Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Bid for Class Certification Tossed
CARGILL INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges
CASTLE STRATEGIC: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Akselrod
COMCAST CABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Aweau Class Suit
DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in California
DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in Ohio and Delaware
DRESS BARN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over False Reference Pricing
DREYER'S GRAND: S.D. New York Dismisses Yu Suit Without Prejudice
EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Lacon
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Joint Bid to Dismiss Alvarado Suit Granted
FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Consumer Reviews, Dumelle Class Suit Says
FCA US: Nuwer, et al File Bid for Class Certification
FEDERAL EXPRESS: July 7 Class Certification Bid Filing Sought
FUNDING METRICS: Class Certification in Letha's Pies Suit Reversed
GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Gets Settlement for Defective Airbag Suit
GOSSAMER BIO: $2.3 Million Settlement to be Heard on June 24
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Barasch Securities Suit in Texas Court
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Disclosures Dispute
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in NY Court
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Business Malpractice Suit
GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Wins Initial Approval of Class Settlement
GSKILL USA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Misleading Advertised Speeds
GTV MEDIA: June 6 Fixed as Claims Filing Deadline
HP INC: Faces So Class Suit Over Malicious Firmware Updates
INCGSGI INC: Parties in Vela Seek Approval of Conditional Status
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Levine Suit Denied
INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Court Enters Consent Decree in Estevez Suit
INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Action in Texas Court
INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Action in Texas Court
INVESTORS BANCORP: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOBCO INCORPORATED: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Nod
JZANUS LTD: Leah Mann Files Bid for Class Certification
K I MOBILITY: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due Sept. 23
KELLER WILLIAMS: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to May 2
KEYSTONE CREDIT: Court Dismisses Barclift's Amended FDCPA Complaint
LEGACY HEALTH: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hunter Suit
LEGO SYSTEMS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Elli Alleges
LEWIS BROTHERS: Provisional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
LIPPER COMPONENTS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Sheets Class Suit
MED-TRANS CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Bradley
MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Appeals Court Orders Dismissal of Verdini Suit
MICRO FOCUS: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 29
MINDBODY INC: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
MOBILITYLESS LLC: Swenson, et al., File Bid for Class Status
MORCONAVA GROUP: Roman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MOUNTAIN WEST: Jodie, Drange File Bid for Rule 23 Class Status
NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Settlement to be Heard on June 27
OPHTHOTECH CORP: $29MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8
PANERA BREAD: Court Remands Sally Suit to St. Louis Circuit Court
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought
PORTLAND GENERAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9
QUAKER OATS COMPANY: Winger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Remains Pending Class Cert. Resolution
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Okay
SCWORX CORP: $3.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29
SMITHFIELD FRESH: Winking Class Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Wages
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Discovery & Cert Schedule Order Entered
UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Court Narrows Claims in Hoelzer Suit
UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Lewis Re-Notice of Class Cert Bid Nixed
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Bid for Lead Roles in Risley Suit Due June 7
VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Orders Rodriguez to Amend Pleading
VILLA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Wages, Coulter Suit Says
WALT DISNEY: District Court Issues Protective Order in Woodall Suit
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
WELLS FARGO: Becker, et al Seek to Certify Settlement Class
WELLS FARGO: Faces Dowdy Suit Over Ponzi-like Fraudulent Scheme
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Widmer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell Consumer Suit
WISCONSIN: Peshek, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
ZALE CORP: Faces Villalpando Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
*********
212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINO MARTINENKO, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. 212 STEAKHOUSE, INC.,
and NIKOLAY VOLPER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective.
212 Steakhouse offers an exclusive steak collection for the New
York, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37t3gRu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA collective, and
proposed Class, are:
Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
A & L OF NY: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Wages, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGUS CHEN, on behalf of himself and a class and collective of
similarly situated individuals, v. A & L OF NY CORP d/b/a IZAKAYA
TORIBAR, and SCOTT LEE, FRANK AHN, AND JOHN DOE AHN, in their
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 22-Civ-3139
(S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seeks to put an end to unlawful
practices perpetrated by the Defendants which have deprived the
Restaurant's service staff of hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of dollars in hard-earned wages, and to provide redress
to those whose wages have been unlawfully pilfered.
The Defendants subjected Plaintiff, who worked as a Server, and
other similarly-situated employees at Izakaya Toribar to numerous
violations of federal and state laws during their employment,
including: (a) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), section 650 et seq.; and (b) failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the FLSA.
Grub Street, New York Magazine's food and restaurant blog, recently
listed Izakaya Toribar as one of the "Excellent Things to Eat,
Drink, and Do in New York City." Unfortunately, when it comes to
lawfully paying employees the wages they are owed, the busy midtown
Japanese restaurant's record has been anything but "excellent," the
lawsuit says.
Rather, the owners of Izakaya Toribar have engaged in a scheme that
can be described as nothing short of wage theft. Simply put, the
Restaurant steals between 20% and 30% of the hourly wages and tips
earned by service employees, purportedly as a "tax," the suit
adds.
Incredibly, the Restaurant tells its staff that they are being
benefitted by this "tax" since the Restaurant pays them
"off-the-books," and thus does not subject their wages to tax and
other withholdings which would otherwise exceed 20-30%.
However, the only party that benefits from this "tax" are
Defendants who have lined their pockets with their staff's
hard-earned money for years.
Remarkably, Defendants carry out this unlawful scheme brazenly and
out in the open. In fact, as discussed below, Defendants even
document this practice every week on employee tip sheets.
Angus Chen is a former service employee at Izakaya Toribar
Toribar is a Japanese restaurant located at 164 East 56th Street,
New York, New York. Defendant Scott Lee is a co-owner of Izakaya
Toribar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
RAHMAN LAW P.C.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 920-4096
Facsimile: (347) 467-4142
E-mail: thr@rahmanlawyer.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Defendant BANA is dismissed from this litigation, the Court
says.
On February 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Schertzer, Hicks and Covell
initiated this proposed (or putative) class action by filing suit.
The basis of Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the fees charged by
BANA to its account holders for balance inquiries performed at
out-of-network (OON) Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs).
On May 31, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of
2005 and, specifically under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2) and
setting forth a total of thirteen claims against the defendants
individually and collectively. Combined, the claims were for: (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2)
conversion; (3) negligence; (4) violation of the California's False
Advertising Law (FAL); (5) violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (6) breach of contract; and (7) breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On March 4, 2020, this court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss
with leave to amend. On March 24, 2020, the operative third amend
complaint was filed, again claiming original jurisdiction under
CAFA.
On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff Hicks and Defendant Cash Depot filed a
joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was
granted by the court. Cash Depot was dismissed as a party to this
litigation.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OvE655 at no extra charge.[CC]
CARGILL INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FUTRELL and APRIL BROWN, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Case No.
0:22-cv-00969 (D. Minn., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed by Cargill to the Plaintiffs
and Cargill's other non-overtime-exempt worker, who were the
ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Cargill's
decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the
economic burden for the hack.
Cargill's alleged failure to pay wages, including proper overtime,
for all hours worked to its workers across the United States
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Overtime Law.
Like many other companies across the United States, Cargill's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Cargill's organization.
As a result, Cargill's workers who were not exempt from overtime
under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked and
were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime hours
worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.
James Futrell and April Brown are two such Cargill workers.
Cargill could have easily implemented a system to accurately record
time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees
until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn’t.
Instead, Cargill did not pay its non-exempt hourly and salaried
employees their full overtime premium for all overtime hours
worked, as required by federal law, the lawsuit says.
Cargill pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Cargill made the
economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line workers
--average Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of
their wages to make ends meet, the lawsiut says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rolf T. Fiebiger, Esq.
FIEBIGER LAW LLC
6800 France Ave. S., Ste. 190
Edina, MN 55435
Telephone (612) 888-6084
E-mail: rolf@fiebigerlaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999 5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
CASTLE STRATEGIC: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Akselrod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG AKSELROD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CASTLE STRATEGIC
PROPERTIES, LLC and ZACHARY ALEXANDRE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01529-JLR
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order
modifying the class certification deadlines as follows:
Previous New
Deadline Dealine
-- Deadline for Completion April 8, 2022 May 23, 2022
of Fact and Expert
Discovery:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs May 10, 2022 June 24, 2022
to File Motion for Class
Certification (Briefing
deadlines shall conform
with Local Rule 7):
Castle Strategic is a real estate investment firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Or7NUYat no extra charge.[CC]
COMCAST CABLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Aweau Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANNEL AWEAU, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-05675-PD (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The Parties shall complete all class discovery no later
than May 19, 2022;
2. The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class
Certification no later than June 9, 2022;
3. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for
class certification no later than June 30, 2022;
4. A Class Certification Hearing is scheduled for July 14,
2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14A, United States
District Court, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106;
5. The Parties may conduct discovery remotely at their
discretion; and
6. In accordance with Rule 1 and the conciliation
requirements of Local Rule 26.1(f), Counsel
shall make reasonable efforts to resolve discovery
disputes among themselves in an expeditious and
professional manner. Before bringing a discovery dispute
to my attention, Counsel must certify that they have made
a reasonable effort to resolve the dispute.
Comcast Cable is an American telecommunications company and
division of Comcast Corporation used to market consumer cable
television, internet, telephone, and wireless services provided by
the company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K7ubiO at no extra charge.[CC]
DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------
Diamondhead Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2022, that David T. Hamamoto,
the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, was named as an
individual defendant in several class actions (and two derivative
lawsuits) filed between April and July 2018 in connection with the
merger of Colony Capital and NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc.
(which Hamamoto formerly headed) and the merged company's
performance thereafter. Three were in federal court in California,
three in state court in California and two in state court in
Maryland.
The lawsuits generally share a factual nexus, and allege securities
law violations and other claims against all defendants, including
Mr. Hamamoto. Presently, only one federal and one (consolidated)
state case are pending.
Diamondhead Holdings is an early stage blank check company recently
incorporated as a Delaware corporation and formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
DAVID HAMAMOTO: Faces Securities Suits in Ohio and Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diamondhead Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2022, that David T. Hamamoto,
the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, was named as an
individual defendant in several 2021 class actions and derivative
lawsuits filed in connection with the DiamondPeak-Lordstown Motors
merger and claims relating to Lordstown vehicle pre-orders and
production timeline; seven in federal court in Ohio, four in
federal court in Delaware and four in chancery court in Delaware.
The lawsuits generally share a factual nexus, and allege securities
law violations and other claims against all defendants, including
Mr. Hamamoto.
Diamondhead Holdings is an early stage blank check company recently
incorporated as a Delaware corporation and formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
DRESS BARN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over False Reference Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAIMIE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. THE DRESS BARN, INC., a Connecticut Corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00656-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.,
April 15, 2022) alleges that Dress Barn engages in a false and
misleading reference price scheme in the marketing and selling of
its products on its Dress Barn e-commerce website.
Sellers substantially benefit from employing false reference
pricing schemes and experience increased sales because consumers
use advertised reference prices to make purchase decisions. The
information available to consumers can vary significantly amongst
different types of products. Nonetheless, consumers frequently lack
fundamental information about a product and as a result often rely
on information from sellers to make purchase decisions, especially
when a product's value or quality is otherwise difficult to
discern.
Discounts of products benefit both sellers and their
customers—when they are legitimate. To the detriment of
consumers, as stated by the Ninth Circuit, sellers are "well aware
of consumers' susceptibility to a bargain, [and] therefore have an
incentive to lie to their customers.
Products perceived by consumers as discounted are thus not always
actual bargains, and consumers' perceptions can stem directly from
sellers' deceptions. This class action seeks monetary damages,
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendant
arising from its own deceptive business practice of advertising
fictitious "original" prices and corresponding 13 phantom discounts
on its e-commerce website, dressbarn.com, where it sells women's 14
clothing and other related items.
False reference pricing occurs when a seller fabricates a false
"original" price for a product and then offers that product at a
substantially lower price under the guise of a sale. The resulting
artificial price disparity misleads consumers into believing the
product they are buying has a higher market value, and it induces
them into purchasing the product.
This practice artificially inflates the true market price for these
products by raising consumers' internal reference price and in turn
the value consumers ascribe to these products (i.e., demand).
Consequently, false reference pricing schemes enable retailers,
like Defendant, to sell products above their true market price and
value -- and consumers are left to pay the price.
Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more
products through dressbarn.com that were deceptively represented as
discounted from a false reference price. Plaintiff seeks to halt
the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing
scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception it has
created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those
who have purchased products tainted by this deceptive pricing
scheme.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
DREYER'S GRAND: S.D. New York Dismisses Yu Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit entitled LAUREN YU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20
Civ. 8512 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).
On Oct. 13, 2020, Lauren Yu brought the putative class action
against Dreyer's, alleging that the representations on the label of
certain Dreyer's ice cream bars sold under its Haagen-Dazs brand
are misleading in violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York
General Business Law ("GBL"), along with other claims.
In an opinion and order dated March 16, 2022, the Court dismissed
all of Yu's claims and granted her leave to replead by April 6,
2022. The Court's order specifically concluded, "Yu may file any
amended complaint by April 6, 2022. If she does not, the case will
be closed."
District Judge Edgardo Ramos notes that Yu has neither filed any
amended complaint nor requested an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, he dismisses the action without prejudice. The Clerk
of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p98ncc7 from Leagle.com.
EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Lacon
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN LACON, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDUCATION
PRINCIPLE FOUNDATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03957-JDW (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an amended scheduling
order as follows:
-- All motions to amend the Complaint April 22, 2022
and to join or add additional
parties shall be filed on or before:
-- Affirmative expert reports, if any, July 8, 2022
are due by:
-- Rebuttal expert reports, if any, August 8, 2022
are due by:
-- The Parties shall complete all Sept. 12, 2022
discovery by:
-- Motions for class certification, October 3, 2022
if any, shall be filed by:
-- Responses, if any, shall be October 31, 2022
filed by:
-- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: November 14, 2022
-- Sur-replies, if any, shall be November 21, 2022
filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L84W1k at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Joint Bid to Dismiss Alvarado Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
grants the parties' joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled
JESUS ALVARADO, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0050-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action against
Defendants LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. ("Lexis") and
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. on Jan. 13, 2022. On March 8,
2022, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice against LexisNexis, thereby, terminating that the
Defendant from the action.
On April 7, 2022, the parties jointly moved pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss claims
against the lone remaining Defendant, Experian, and, thus, the
action in its entirety.
District Judge Cynthia Bashant notes that under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a
plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action
by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant
has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a
stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.
Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or
stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order
is required. A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties
stipulate otherwise.
Crucially, "prior to certification" a named plaintiff may dismiss
claims on behalf of a putative class under Rule 41(a)(1) because
Rule 23(e) does not provide the district court with any supervisory
authority over such dismissals, nor does it require notice to the
absent class members, Judge Bashant explains, citing Ripley v.
Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC., No. C09-1482 RSM, 2010 WL 11684294,
at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2010).
Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by its text permits voluntary
dismissal by filing a compliant stipulation, the local civil rules
of this district require that such a stipulation must be filed as a
joint motion, Judge Bashant points out.
Having considered the parties' request, the Court construes the
parties' stipulation as a Joint Motion to dismiss this action and
grants that Joint Motion. Thus, it dismisses with prejudice the
Plaintiff's individual claims against Experian and dismisses
without prejudice the claims of the putative class. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close the matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3rpv2x from Leagle.com.
FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Consumer Reviews, Dumelle Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE DUMELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-60741 (S.D. Fla.,
April 15, 2022) is a class action regarding Defendant's intentional
suppression of hundreds of thousands of 1-star, 2-star, and 3-star
consumer reviews from its online website to artificially inflate
the value of its products.
When shopping online, consumers heavily rely on reviews from fellow
shoppers. In fact, 93% of adults in the United States read reviews
before making online purchases.
Fashion Nova, an almost exclusively online retailer, has made
millions of dollars selling clothing, apparel, accessories, and
more on its website, fashionnova.com.
Taking advantage of the fact that prospective consumers rely on
fellow consumers' reviews prior to making an online purchase,
Defendant intentionally suppressed Lower-Starred Reviews for all
Products on its website.
Had Defendant not engaged in these deceptive and unfair practices,
the average ratings, and inherent value to prospective consumers,
of Defendant's Products would have been lower. Moreover, the
written reviews would have provided more information to prospective
consumers, including concerns over the quality of the Products,
prior to deciding whether to purchase said Products.
As a result, had Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred
Reviews, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased a
number of Products, or would have paid substantially less for the
Products, because the Products would have been rated poorly and
deterred Plaintiff and other consumers from making purchases.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly
situated purchasers of Defendant's Products for violations of the
consumer protections laws of Florida.
Ms. Dumelle purchased multiple dresses from Defendant's website in
November 2018.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misrepresentations,
material omissions, and deceptive practices in its website,
Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers have suffered
actual injuries from their purchase of one or more of the Products
because Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased the
Products, or would have paid significantly less for them, had
Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred Reviews.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel L. Miller, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: rmiller@bursor.com
FCA US: Nuwer, et al File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the classes defined by Plaintiffs pursuant to
Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3);
-- The Nationwide Class (excluding California):
"All persons in the United States (excluding the State
of California) who currently own or lease, or who have
owned or leased, one or more vehicles manufactured by
Chrysler, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates,
which are equipped with headrests containing the
defective AHR;"
-- The Florida Subclass:
"All persons who purchased or leased one or more
vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, or any of its
subsidiaries or affiliates, in Florida, which vehicles
were installed with headrests containing the defective
AHR.
-- The New York Subclass:
"All persons who purchased or leased one or more
vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, or any of its
subsidiaries or affiliates, in New York, which vehicles
were installed with headrests containing the defective
AHR.
2. designating them as Class Representatives; and
3. designating Benjamin J. Widlanski and the law firm of
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton as Class Counsel.
Chrysler allegedly sold and leased vehicles with dangerously
defective AHRs for more than a decade. In 2008, Chrysler and
Grammer Industries began to manufacture AHRs which they had
designed to spring forward to support drivers' and passengers'
heads and necks in the event of a significant rear-end collision.
As designed, the forward-facing padded surface of the Chrysler
headrest is mounted to a plastic carriage that is loaded by
pre-tensioned springs when stowed in the headrest prior to
deployment.
Chrysler is one of the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the
United States, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 5,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JZN1s1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
Robert J. Neary, Esq.
Katherine Mitchell, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
hst@kttlaw.com
gam@kttlaw.com
rs@kttlaw.com
rn@kttlaw.com
kmitchell@kttlaw.com
- and -
Jack Scarola, Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: (561) 686-6300
Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
- and -
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante, III, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One S.E. 3 rd Ave., Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravanteiii@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
adelriego@podhurst.com
- and -
Michael Burger, Esq.
SANTIAGO BURGER LLP
2280 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14610
Telephone: (585) 563-2400
Facsimile: (585) 563-7526
E-mail: mike@litgrp.com
- and -
George Franjola, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE
FRANJOLA
233 SW 3rd St., Suite 3
Ocala, FL 34471
Telephone: (352) 812-0462
E-mail: gfranjola@franjolalaw.com
FEDERAL EXPRESS: July 7 Class Certification Bid Filing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE DEAN BLOOM, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-04855-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to the following
dates:
-- Last day for Plaintiffs to file a July 7, 2022
motion for class certification
and to serve their expert
disclosures and reports related
to class certification
-- Last day for Defendant to file an August 22, 2022
opposition brief to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
and to concurrently file its
expert disclosures and reports
related to class certification:
FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
focused on transportation, e-commerce and services based in
Memphis, Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExieBK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
Meghan N. Higday, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
E-mail: jacob@jnwpc.com
mhigday@jnwpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas J. Moran, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
2601 Main Street, Suite 340
8 Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 862-4585
Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
E-mail: thomas.moran@fedex.com
FUNDING METRICS: Class Certification in Letha's Pies Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled FUNDING METRICS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A QUICK FIX CAPITAL AND LENDINI; JOHN DOES
1-10; AND JOHN DOES 11-20, Appellants v. LETHA'S PIES, LLC, AN
ARKANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; RHONDA GLENN, AN INDIVIDUAL;
AND TIMOTHY GLENN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-21-448 (Ark.),
the Supreme Court of Arkansas reverses and remands the circuit
court's order granting class certification.
The Appellant, Funding Metrics, LLC, appeals the Washington County
Circuit Court's June 23, 2021 order granting class certification in
a lawsuit brought by Appellees Letha's Pies, LLC, an Arkansas
limited liability company; and Rhonda Glenn and Timothy Glenn, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (hereinafter
"Letha's Pies") for alleged violations of the Arkansas Securities
Act.
Letha's Pies sells frozen pies to restaurants. In 2017, Letha's
Pies entered into a written agreement (the "Merchant Agreement") to
sell Funding Metrics $21,900 of Letha's Pies' future receivables in
exchange for an immediate payment of $15,000 by Funding Metrics.
Pursuant to the Merchant Agreement, Funding Metrics was allowed to
withdraw from Letha's Pies' depository accounts a daily amount
corresponding to 11.38 percent of Letha's Pies' daily receipts.
Letha's Pies also agreed to pay a one-time 8% origination fee. The
Glenns signed the agreement on behalf of Letha's Pies. The terms of
the Merchant Agreement included a choice-of-law provision stating
that any litigation relating to the agreement would be brought in
the state or federal courts of New York. Additionally, the Merchant
Agreement contained a class-action-waiver provision. Letha's Pies
paid the contracted amount.
In July 2019, Letha's Pies filed a class-action complaint against
Funding Metrics, claiming that it promoted and sold securities in
violation of Arkansas law. Funding Metrics moved to dismiss in part
based on the forum-selection provision and class-action waiver, and
also asserted the Merchant Agreement was not a security.
Letha's Pies amended its complaint and Funding Metrics again moved
to dismiss. On Feb. 5, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing and
concluded that it was required to accept Letha's Pies' allegation
that the agreement was a security. The circuit court found that the
forum-selection clause was valid and required dismissal of one of
Letha's Pies' claims, but that it did not apply to claims that
allegedly arose before the parties entered into the Merchant
Agreement. The circuit court denied Funding Metrics' request to
enforce the class-action waiver based on its finding that the
agreement lacked mutuality of obligation.
On Feb. 27, 2020, Letha's Pies filed a second amended class-action
complaint, the operative complaint in this appeal. Letha's Pies
alleged three causes of action: (1) failure to register the
Merchant Agreement with the Arkansas Securities Department, (2)
promotion of securities by an unregistered broker or dealer, and
(3) fraud in connection with the sale of a security.
On March 18, Funding Metrics filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and motion to strike class claims arguing that it
was time-barred and reiterated its arguments regarding the
forum-selection clause and class waiver. Funding Metrics also
contended that the expanded class was untenable.
On June 29, the circuit court denied Funding Metrics' motion to
dismiss the second complaint and motion to strike. On July 14,
Funding Metrics filed its answer and affirmative defenses and a
counterclaim for its costs based on an indemnification clause in
the agreement. After discovery, Letha's Pies moved for class
certification.
On June 23, 2021, the circuit court granted Letha's Pies' motion.
The court found that the waiver provision was not enforceable and
certified two classes:
(1) Predominant Class:
All Arkansas individuals and/or entities that entered into
a Merchant Agreement with Funding Metrics through its
subsidiaries, Quick Fix Capital and Lendini, at any time
within three years prior to filing of the Letha's Pies'
Complaint through the date of final disposition of this
action; and
(2) Ancillary Class:
All Arkansas individuals and/or entities that have
received communications promoting a Quick Fix Capital or
Lendini Merchant Agreement at any time within three years
prior to filing of the Letha's Pies' Complaint through
the date of final disposition of this action.
From the order granting class certification, Funding Metrics
appeals and argues that the circuit court abused its discretion (1)
by refusing to enforce the class-action waiver in the Merchant
Agreement as a bar to class certification; (2) by holding that
Letha's Pies met their burden of proving that common questions
predominate and a class action is superior under Rule 23; and (3)
by certifying the ancillary class, which was overbroad as defined
to include class members, who lack standing and suffered no harm.
The Supreme Court reverses and remands.
Law and Analysis
Associate Justice Karen R. Baker, writing for the Panel, notes that
an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order certifying a
case as a class action in accordance with Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. Circuit courts are given broad discretion in matters
regarding class certification.
Points on Appeal
For its first point on appeal, Funding Metrics contends that the
circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the
class-action waiver.
The circuit court found that the waiver was void, explaining in its
order that the Merchant Agreement at issue does not contain a
mandatory arbitration provision.
Funding Metrics contends that the circuit court erred and asserts
that there is no legal basis for the circuit court's refusal to
hold Letha's Pies to the class-action waiver. Further, Funding
Metrics asserts that the waiver is valid under Arkansas contract
and security law and New York law.
Specifically, Funding Metrics contends that the circuit court's
reasoning conflicts with this Court's holding in Jorja Trading,
Inc. v. Willis, 2020 Ark. 133, 598 S.W.3d 1. Funding Metrics argues
that under this Court's precedent, the class-action-waiver
provision is enforceable.
In Jorja Trading, the Supreme Court upheld a class-action-waiver
provision contained in an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court
held that class-action waivers were valid under Arkansas law. With
respect to the arbitration agreement as a whole, the Supreme Court
held that the agreement was subject to Arkansas contract law.
Letha's Pies contends that the absence of an arbitration agreement
and the inapplicability of the Federal Arbitration Act determines
the viability of the class-action waiver. However, in Jorja
Trading, the Supreme Court specifically addressed Arkansas contract
law and held that the class waiver there did not turn on
application of the Federal Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court, therefore, concludes that the class-action
waiver is enforceable pursuant to Arkansas contract law. Further,
the Supreme Court is not persuaded by the argument that the waiver
is inapplicable.
Letha's Pies contends that the class-action waiver does not apply
here because Funding Metrics is not seeking to enforce the Merchant
Agreement but rather to enforce the Arkansas Securities Act.
Letha's Pies contends that Funding Metrics' liability exists
independently of the execution of the Merchant Agreement and
neither the class-action waiver nor any of the other contract terms
apply. The Supreme Court disagrees.
Judge Baker explains that the parties' relationship is governed by
the Merchant Agreement, and the language of the class-action waiver
is broad--waiving any right to assert any claims against the other
party as a representative action, except where such waiver is
prohibited by law as against public policy. Also, the operative
complaint here seeks recission of the agreement, and return of fees
and profits obtained under the Merchant Agreement.
Finally, the Supreme Court rejects the argument that the waiver is
invalid pursuant to Arkansas securities law. Letha's Pies relies on
language in the Arkansas Securities Act that states that parties
cannot waive compliance with the Act: "Any condition, stipulation,
or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive
compliance with any provision of this chapter or any rule or order
under this chapter is void," Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-42-109
(Repl. 2012).
The parties, however, contracted to waive their right to pursue a
class action, and there is no provision in the Arkansas Securities
Act regarding class actions, Judge Baker finds. Although Letha's
Pies waived its right to bring a class-action, it did not "waive
compliance with any provision rule or order" set forth in the
Arkansas Securities Act.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court finds merit in Funding Metrics'
argument and reverses the class-certification order because the
waiver is enforceable. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not reach
the remaining points on appeal.
The Supreme Court reverses the circuit court's order granting class
certification and remands the matter for an order consistent with
this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/efb8yypr from Leagle.com.
Eldridge Brooks, PLLC, by: Conner Eldridge --
conner@eldridgebrooks.com -- and Emily A. Neal --
emily@eldridgebrooks.com -- for the Appellant.
RMP, LLP, by: Timothy C. Hutchinson, Larry McCredy, Bo Renner, and
Lisa M. Geary; and Bishop Law Firm, by: Matt Bishop --
matt@bishoplawfirm.org -- for the Appellees.
GENERAL MOTORS: Carmax Gets Settlement for Defective Airbag Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that the company was a class member
in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit captioned "In
re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation" in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York against General Motors
related to the economic loss associated with certain model vehicles
previously subject to recall for ignition switches, electronic
power steering, and side impact airbags, for model years 1997-2014.
On November 30, 2021, CarMax received $22.6 million in net
recoveries from the GM settlement fund.
CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia.
GOSSAMER BIO: $2.3 Million Settlement to be Heard on June 24
------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court has authorized the following Notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.
Please read the Notice carefully. A $2.375 million settlement has
been reached for investors in Gossamer Bio, Inc. stock between
February 8, 2019, and December 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and/or who acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable
to Gossamer's Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection
with the IPO (the "Class").
If you are a member of the Class, your legal rights will be
affected whether you act or not.
Kuhne v. Gossamer Bio, Inc. et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB
Notice of Pendency of Class Action: Please be advised that your
rights may be affected by the above-captioned securities class
action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), if, during
the period between February 8, 2019 and December 13, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), you purchased or otherwise acquired
Gossamer Bio, Inc. ("Gossamer" or the "Company") common stock,
and/or acquired Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable to Gossamer's
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO.
Notice of Settlement: Please also be advised that the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class,
has reached a proposed settlement of this Action for $2,375,000 in
cash that, if approved, would resolve all claims in the Action (the
"Settlement").
Please read the Notice carefully. It explains important rights you
may have, including the possible receipt of cash from the
Settlement. If you are a member of the Class, your rights are
affected whether or not you act.
If you have any questions about the Notice, the proposed
Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement,
please do not contact Gossamer, any other Defendants in the Action,
or their counsel. Questions should be directed to Class Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.
This Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending
Action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that
Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements in materials
accompanying Gossamer's IPO and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. The Defendants deny each and every claim and contention
alleged in the Action and deny any misconduct or wrongdoing
whatsoever. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will
settle all claims of the Class.
Subject to Court approval, Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
the Class, has agreed to settle the Action in exchange for a
settlement payment of $2,375,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount")
to be deposited into an escrow account. The Net Settlement Fund
(i.e., the Settlement Amount plus any and all interest earned
thereon (the "Settlement Fund") less (i) the amount of the Fee and
Expense Award and any award to Lead Plaintiff as allowed under the
PSLRA, if and to the extent allowed by the Court; (ii) Notice and
Administration Expenses; (iii) Taxes and Tax Expenses; and (iv) any
other fees or expenses approved by the Court. The Net Settlement
Fund will be distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation
that is approved by the Court, which will determine how the Net
Settlement Fund shall be allocated among members of the Class.
Based on Lead Plaintiff's damages expert's estimates of the number
of shares of Gossamer common stock purchased during the Class
Period that may have been affected by the matters at issue in the
Action, and assuming that all Class Members elect to participate in
the Settlement, the estimated average recovery (before the
deduction of any Court-approved fees, expenses and costs as
described herein) per eligible security is approximately 6 cents
per share. Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing
average recovery per share is only an estimate. Some Class Members
may recover more or less than this estimated amount depending on,
among other factors, when and at what prices they
purchased/acquired or sold their Gossamer common stock and the
total number of valid Claim Forms submitted. Distributions to Class
Members will be made based on the Plan of Allocation set forth on
Page 8 of the Notice or such other plan of allocation as may be
ordered by the Court.
The Parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share
that would be recoverable if Lead Plaintiff was to prevail in the
Action. Among other things, Defendants do not agree with the
assertion that they violated the federal securities laws or that
any damages were suffered by any members of the Class as a result
of their conduct.
Lead Counsel, who have been prosecuting the Action on a wholly
contingent basis since its inception in 2020, have not received any
payment of attorneys' fees for their representation of the Class
and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to
prosecute this Action. Court appointed Lead Counsel, Block &
Leviton LLP, will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys'
fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund. In
addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution,
prosecution, and resolution of the claims against the Defendants,
in an amount not to exceed $60,000, which may include an
application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses
incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to his representation
of the Class. Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court, or any
Lead Plaintiff Award, shall be paid solely from the Settlement Fund
and shall be paid to Lead Counsel, or with respect to a Lead
Plaintiff Award, paid to Lead Plaintiff, within five days following
an award ordered by the Court, provided that there has been final
approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the Court. If there is
any appeal of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or of a
Lead Plaintiff Award, Lead Counsel shall repay to the Settlement
Fund any amount of attorneys' fees or expenses reversed on appeal.
Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or
expenses. Estimates of the average cost per affected share of
Gossamer common stock, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and
expense application, is 2 cents per eligible share.
Lead Plaintiff and the Class are represented by Block & Leviton
LLP, 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860, Boston, MA 02110. You may
contact attorney Jacob A. Walker at jake@blockleviton.com, or at
(617) 398-5600.
Lead Plaintiff's principal reason for entering into the Settlement
is the substantial immediate cash benefit for the Class without the
risk or the delays inherent in further litigation. Moreover, the
substantial cash benefit provided under the Settlement must be
considered against the significant risk that a smaller recovery --
or indeed no recovery at all -– might be achieved after motions
for class certification, summary judgment, a trial of the Action,
and the likely appeals that would follow a trial. This process
could be expected to last several years. Defendants, who deny all
allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, are entering
into the Settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden and
expense of further protracted litigation.
Your Legal Rights and Options in the Settlement
Submit a claim.
Submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 7, 2022.
This is the only way to be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement Fund. If you are a Class Member and you remain in the
Class, you will be bound by the Settlement as approved by the Court
and you will give up any Released Claims (as defined on pages 5-6
of the Notice) that you have against Defendants and the other
Released Defendant Parties (as defined on pages 5-6 of the Notice),
so it is in your interest to submit a Claim Form.
Exclude yourself.
Exclude yourself from the Class by submitting a written exclusion
so that it is received by no later than June 3, 2022.
If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be eligible to
receive any payment from the Settlement Fund. This is the only
option that allows you ever to be part of any other lawsuit against
any of the Defendants or the other Released Defendant Parties
concerning the Released Claims.
Object.
Object to the Settlement by submitting a written objection so that
it is received no later than June 3, 2022.
If you do not like the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, you may write to the Court and explain why you
do not like them. You cannot object to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation or the fee and expense request unless you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class.
Appear at a hearing.
Attend a hearing on June 24, 2022 and file a Notice of Intention to
Appear so that it is received no later than June 3, 2022.
Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear by
June 3, 2022, allows you to speak in Court, at the discretion of
the Court, about the fairness of the proposed Settlement, the Plan
of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. If you submit a written
objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing and,
at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court about your
objection.
Do nothing.
If you are a member of the Class and you do not submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive any payment from
the Settlement Fund. You will, however, remain a member of the
Class, which means that you give up your right to sue about the
claims that are resolved by the Settlement, and you will be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
Gossamer Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o Claims Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-833-554-0994
www.GossamerSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@GossamerSecuritiesLitigation.com
Block & Leviton LLP
Attn: Jacob A. Walker
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Email: jake@blockleviton.com
Capitalized terms used in the Notice and throughout this website
that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Class Action
Settlement dated February 1, 2022 (the "Stipulation").
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Barasch Securities Suit in Texas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas filed in November 2019 against GPB,
GPB-managed limited partnerships, AAS and Ascendant, as well as
certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund
administrator, and individuals.
The original complaint was captioned "Stanley S. and Millicent R.
Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay, individually and on behalf of
others similar situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." with
Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff, but since her death, her
trust has successfully moved to substitute for all purposes in this
litigation. The complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud,
substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
among other forms of relief.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Disclosures Dispute
------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a
consolidated class action filed in New York Supreme Court in May
2020 captioned "GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation."
Case that were consolidated were "Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl
Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT
Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." and "Peter G. Golder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB
Capital Holdings, LLC, et al."
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material
misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking
disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York filed in November 2019,
against GPB, GPB Holdings II, the Partnership, David Gentile,
Jeffery Lash, AAS, Axiom, Jeffry Schneider, Mark Martino and
Ascendant under case captioned "Barbara Deluca and Drew R. Naylor,
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited
partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP et al."
The complaint alleges, among other things, fraud and material
omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment. The
plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other
equitable relief.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas filed in October 2019, against GPB,
certain limited partnerships, including the Partnership, for which
GPB is the general partner, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain
principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, broker-dealers, a
fund administrator and other individuals under case captioned
"Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital,
LLC, et al"
The complaint alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act,
fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty,
and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
certain equitable relief.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Business Malpractice Suit
------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a
class action filed in New York Supreme Court in May 2020 captioned
"Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly
situated v. GPB Capital Holdings LLC, Automile Holdings, LLC (d/b/a
Prime Automotive Group), David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip
Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and
individuals."
The complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices
of the defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or
leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products
related to the same throughout the State of New York. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and penalties.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.
GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Wins Initial Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certifying
Class for Purposes of Settlement, Directing Notice to the Class,
and Scheduling Fairness Hearing in the lawsuit entitled KATRINA
WALLACE, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV501 (M.D.N.C.).
The Plaintiff and Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC,
Greystar Management Services, L.P., Greystar RS SE, LLP, GREP
Southeast, LLC, and Innesbrook Apartments, LLC d/b/a Southpoint
Glen (collectively, "the Parties"), have reached a Settlement
Agreement resolving the action. The Court, having reviewed the
Proposed Order, the Settlement Agreement, and Declaration by the
Plaintiff's council ("Harris Declaration"), finds that the
Settlement Agreement and defined class are appropriate for
preliminary approval and certification.
Therefore, Judge Biggs grants the Unopposed Motion, subject to
terms and conditions set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and
Order.
Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only
Judge Biggs rules that the proposed Settlement Agreement submitted
with the Motion, is preliminarily approved, as it appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
subject to final consideration thereof at the Final Approval
Hearing.
For settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
(b)(3), the Court provisionally certifies the Classes defined as:
Collection Letter Class:
natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10, 2014,
and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in
North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c)
received a Collection Letter; and
Eviction Fee Class:
All natural persons who (a) at any point between May 10,
2014, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the
properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by
Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees.
Class Counsel and Class Representative
Finding that the factors of Rule 23(g) have been satisfied for the
purpose of settlement only, the Court appoints Edward H. Maginnis
and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis Howard, and Scott C. Harris and
Patrick M. Wallace of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Any member of the
Settlement Class, who does not elect to be excluded may, but need
not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney.
Settlement Class members, who do not enter an appearance through
their own attorneys, will be represented by Class Counsel.
For the purposes of settlement only, the Court further appoints
Plaintiff Katrina Wallace as the representative of the Classes.
Preliminary Approval
The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as describing a
settlement that is within the range of settlements that the Court
would find to be fair, reasonable and adequate.
The Court's preliminary approval is subject to the right of any
Class Member to challenge the Settlement and to show cause, if any
exists, why a Final Order and Judgment dismissing this action based
on the Settlement should not be entered, after due and adequate
notice has been provided to the Class and a fairness hearing has
been held as otherwise ordered here.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from
arm's-length negotiations, extensive investigation, and motions
practice, and that the proposed settlement is sufficiently fair and
reasonable so as to warrant notice thereof to the Classes, and to
warrant a hearing concerning the settlement and the terms set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.
Notice to Settlement Classes, Opt-In Procedure, and Appointment of
Settlement Administrator
The Court finds that the manner and content of the Settlement
Notice as set forth in Section IV.C of the Settlement Agreement and
in the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement will provide the best
notice practicable to the Classes under the circumstances.
The manner and forms of Notice to be sent to members of the
Putative Settlement Class set forth in Section IV of the Settlement
Agreement and in the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement are
hereby approved and the provisions thereof are incorporated into
this Order so that upon entry of this Order, the Parties are
directed to ensure that the Notice is disseminated according to the
terms of Section IV.C of the Settlement Agreement.
The Notice Period must commence within 14 days after the entry of
this Order and will be substantially complete no later than 45 days
after the entry of this Order via electronic mail, first-class
mail, an Internet website, and a toll-free number as set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.
The Claims Administrator will provide the notification required
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 to each Appropriate Federal Official
and to each Appropriate State Official.
Requests for Exclusion from the Classes
Any Class Member, who wishes to be excluded from the proposed
settlement, must send a written request for exclusion to the Claims
Administrator, in care of the post office box rented for that
purpose within 60 days of this Order.
In the event the Settlement receives final approval, any Class
Member, who does not send a timely written request for exclusion
meeting the conditions described in the foregoing paragraph will be
bound by the final settlement and by all subsequent proceedings,
orders and judgments in this action, even if such person has
pending or subsequently initiates litigation or other proceedings
against any Released Persons relating to matters or the claims
released in this action.
Objections to the Settlement
Any Class Member, who does not file a timely written request for
exclusion, may object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy
of the settlement.
Class Members may not seek to exclude themselves from the Classes
and file an objection to the proposed settlement.
Any Class Member, who wishes to object to any aspect of the
Settlement, must deliver to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel,
and file with the Court, within 60 days of this Order a written
statement of his/her objection(s).
Class Members may raise an objection either on their own or through
an attorney hired at their own expense.
Any Class Member, who fails to comply with the provisions of the
subsections concerning objections will waive and forfeit any and
all rights he or she may have to appear separately and/or object
and will be bound by all the terms of the settlement and by all
proceedings, orders and judgments in this action.
Approval and Appointment of Settlement Administrator
The Court approves and appoints CPT Group to administer certain
aspects of the settlement, including providing notice to the Class;
establishing and maintaining the Settlement Website; receiving and
maintaining correspondence regarding requests for exclusion,
intervention and objections to the settlement; responding to
inquiries from Class members received through the Settlement
Website, or by first-class mail or by telephone; and assisting the
Defendants' Counsel and Class Counsel with other aspects of the
settlement as necessary and directed by Counsel.
CPT Group is appointed as the Claims Administrator.
Fairness Hearing
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court will hold
a hearing to determine whether the Settlement Agreement and its
terms are fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the members
of the Settlement Classes, and whether a final judgment as to the
Plaintiff's claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement should
be entered granting final approval of the Settlement (the "Fairness
Hearing").
Schedule
These deadlines will apply unless modified by further order of the
Court:
a. Notices in the form of the Exhibits to the Settlement
Agreement will be sent to Class Members as provided in the
Settlement, within 14 days after entry of this Order;
b. Notices will be made available through the Settlement
Website no later than the date the first Class Notice is
sent by electronic mail;
c. Class Members will have 60 calendar days following the
mailing of notice to postmark, email, or fax required Claim
Forms to the Settlement Administrator, as provided in the
Settlement;
d. Any exclusions and objections to the Settlement Agreement
will be submitted within 60 calendar days after the mailing
date of the Notice;
e. Any notices to appear at the Fairness Hearing will be filed
within 67 calendar days after the mailing date of the
Notice;
f. The Fairness Hearing will be held at 10:00 A.M. on July 22,
2022, in Courtroom No. 4 of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (approx. 90
days from this Order);
g. The parties will file and serve papers in support of final
approval of the settlement, including any responses to
proper and timely objections filed thereto, by June 24,
2022 (approx. 80 days from this Order); and
h. Class Counsel will file with the Court their petition for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
and request for an incentive award to the Plaintiff no
later than on June 24, 2022 (approx. 80 days from this
Order).
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
April 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytmct5p5 from
Leagle.com.
GSKILL USA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Misleading Advertised Speeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Gskill USA, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-06175 (W.D.N.Y.,
April 15, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to inform
purchasers that the advertised speeds are not attainable without
the modifications described, which may result in the other issues.
The Defendant markets its products with lifetime warranties, which
consumers understand to mean if there is an issue with a product
they buy, Defendant will fix or replace it, for the duration of the
product's use.
However, the Defendant fails to honor the lifetime warranties by
not replacing or repairing products which are non-functional.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Reasonable
consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully
market and describe the components, attributes, and features of a
product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives.
The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by Defendant. The Defendant sold
more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers.
Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no
less than $129, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions.
Gskill manufactures, labels, markets, and sells RAM products which
provide high-speed computer memory, such as its Ripjaws V DDR4-3600
MHz, to users who want to improve their computer's performance in
games or other uses.
The representations of Defendant and third-parties acting on its
behalf describe the Product as having "Blazing Fast Transfer
Speed," which "lets you enjoy a faster computing experience for
gaming, video & image editing, rendering, and data processing."
Memory speed refers to the speed of computers in terms of megahertz
("MHz"). RAM with greater MHz will have faster memory and perform
at higher levels.
The Product can be plugged into the memory slots of a computer.
These representations are made by Defendant and at its directions,
including in stores and on websites of third-parties.
However, the Product cannot reach these speeds unless the
computer's firmware is modified through "overclocking," which
theoretically optimizes the system’s performance.
Overclocking memory requires adjusting the computer’s Basic
Input/Output System ("BIOS") or Unified Extensible Firmware
Interface ("UEFI") settings.
These settings control how a computer operates and can only be
accessed through specialized keyboard controls. The user must then
locate settings for RAM frequency (its MHz speed), increase it to
the target speed, i.e., 4000 MHz, and change multiple memory
"timing" settings, which interact with the frequency settings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
GTV MEDIA: June 6 Fixed as Claims Filing Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
If you purchased GTV common stock and/or the digital asset security
referred to as G-Coins or G-Dollars between April 2020 and June
2020, you may be eligible for a distribution payment from the GTV
Media Group Fair Fund.
JND Legal Administration announces that on September 13, 2021, the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued an Order
instituting and simultaneously settling cease-and-desist
proceedings against Respondents GTV Media Group, Inc. ("GTV"),
Saraca Media Group, Inc. ("Saraca"), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.
In the Order, the SEC found that from approximately April 2020
through June 2020, Respondents generally solicited thousands of
individuals to invest in the GTV Common Stock offering. The SEC
further found that during the same period, GTV and Saraca ("the G
Entities") also solicited individuals to invest in the Digital
Asset offering. According to the Order, as a result of these two
unregistered securities offerings, whose proceeds were commingled,
Respondents collectively raised approximately $487 million from
more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United
States. The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay $486,745,063 in
disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest of $17,688,365 and
$35,000,000 in civil money penalties, for a total of $539,433,428,
to the SEC. The SEC also created the Fair Fund, pursuant to
Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties
paid, along with the disgorgement and interest paid, can be
distributed to harmed investors. To date, the Respondents have paid
a total of $455,439,194.49. Any additional funds collected from
the Respondents pursuant to the Order will be added to the Fair
Fund. The Fair Fund has been deposited at the United States
Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service ("BFS")
for investment.
G Entities [Relevant Period start and end dates (inclusive)]:
* GTV Common Stock [4/20/2020 through 6/2/2020]; and
* G-Dollars or G-Coins [4/1/2020 through 6/30/2020];
On October 14, 2021, the SEC appointed Miller Kaplan Arase LLP as
Tax Administrator. The SEC also appointed JND Legal Administration
as Fund Administrator (the "Fund Administrator") on November 23,
2021. The SEC approved a plan for the distribution of the GTV Media
Group Fair Fund (the "Plan"). The Plan is publicly available at
www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com, and available on the SEC's webpage
for this matter at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/gtv-media-group.htm.
If you purchased one or more of the securities listed above during
the corresponding Relevant Period(s) and would like to be
considered for eligibility for a distribution from the GTV Media
Group Fair Fund, you must submit a completed and signed Proof of
Claim Form ("Claim Form"), including adequate supporting
documentation of your purchases and a completed tax certification,
to the Fund Administrator by the Claims Bar Date.
Please note that the claim filing deadline for this matter is June
6, 2022.
The Claim Form is available at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com. You
may submit your Claim Form online no later than 11:59 p.m. PT on
the Claims Bar Date following the directions at
www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com/claim. Alternatively, you may send
your Claim Form to the Fund Administrator. Claim Forms must be
postmarked no later than the Claims Bar Date if sent by First Class
Mail; and if not by First Class Mail, received by the Fund
Administrator by the Claims Bar Date. If not submitted online,
Claim Forms should be directed to the following address:
GTV Media Group Fair Fund
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91403
Seattle, WA 98111
Additional information regarding the GTV Media Group Fair Fund,
including the Distribution Plan, the Plan Notice, the Claim Form,
relevant deadlines, and related materials are available on the
Distribution Website at www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com. You may
obtain additional information or request copies of the Claim Form
by contacting the Fund Administrator toll-free at 866-853-5013,
emailing info@GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com, or writing to:
GTV Media Group Fair Fund
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91403
Seattle, WA 98111
Please check the website www.GTVMediaGroupFairFund.com frequently
for updates.
HP INC: Faces So Class Suit Over Malicious Firmware Updates
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY SO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, v. HP, INC. d/b/a HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-02327-NC (N.D. Cal.,
April 14, 2022) alleges that HP wrongfully compels users of its
printers to buy and use only HP ink and toner supplies by
transmitting firmware updates without authorization to HP printers
over the Internet that lock out its competitors' refilled, new
build, or remanufactured ink and toner supply cartridges.
HP's firmware "updates" act as malware -- adding, deleting or
altering code, diminishing the capabilities of HP printers, and
rendering third-party cartridges incompatible with HP printers
("malicious firmware updates"). As a result, and by HP's design,
Plaintiff and Class Members who reasonably and lawfully buy
competitors' much less costly and equally effective supplies are
left with useless printers and supply cartridges, the lawsuit
says.
HP has marketed and sold its standard HP printers as capable of
printing using HP Original Supplies as well as refilled or
third-party cartridges.
The Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and exemplary damages,
restitution, and an injunction requiring HP to reverse the effects
of its malware transmissions insofar as they render once-compatible
ink cartridges obsolete and prohibiting HP from sending such
transmissions in the future without obtaining the fully informed
consent of each printer owner.
HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology company
headquartered in Palo Alto, California, that develops personal
computers, printers and related supplies, as well as 3D printing
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
INCGSGI INC: Parties in Vela Seek Approval of Conditional Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE VELA, on his own
behalf and On behalf of those similarly situated, v. INCGSGI, INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation, and DANIEL K. COSTOULAS,
Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-59-FtM-66NPM (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving conditional
certification and court-authorized notice under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for a stay of the
proceedings, until the completion of alternative dispute resolution
following the opt-in period.
The collective action shall consist of the following individuals to
be conditionally certified and receive notice of this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All individuals who worked for INCGSGI, Inc. as a Security
Guard at any time and who did not receive overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
from [three years prior to the Court's order granting
certification] to the present."
On January 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the
United States Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On March 26, 2021, the Defendants filed their Answer and
Affirmative Defenses.
Incgsgi is in the security guard service business.
A copy of the Parties motion dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OnO1tA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
E-Mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael G. Fink, Esq.
MIKE FINK LAW FIRM, P.A.
1500 Royal Palm Sq. Blvd., Unit 101
Fort Myers, Fl 33919
Telephone: (239) 939-1906
E-mail: Mfink@mikefinklaw.net
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Levine Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denies the motion to decertify class in the lawsuit
styled LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).
The Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff on May 11,
2021. At the same time, itt denied in part and held in abeyance
Defendant ProFax Inc.'s motion to decertify. The Court requested
additional briefing regarding the size and scope of the class,
which was due June 11. Defendant ProFax filed its notice of
bankruptcy on June 8, and the case was stayed.
The Plaintiff proceeded to file its additional briefing on June 11,
and the Plaintiff filed a status update on Nov. 15, 2021, advising
that the bankruptcy stay could be lifted. There having been no
further activity on the docket, the Court lifted the stay and
advised that Defendant ProFax and any other party could have until
Feb. 3, 2022, by which to file the additional briefing contemplated
by the May 11, 2021 Order. That date has now passed, and no party
filed additional briefing.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class on
Feb. 9, 2018. The class consists of:
All persons who received a facsimile transmission sent by
ProFax, Inc., on behalf of Innate Intelligence LLC or its
chiropractic clinics between January 27, 2016 and July 13,
2016, as confirmed by either:
(1) presence on a facsimile transmission log produced by
Innate Intelligence LLC in this case showing one or more
transmissions sent and complete; or
(2) presence on a list of those who opted out from receiving
future faxes from Innate Intelligence LLC, produced by
ProFax, Inc. in this case.
Defendant ProFax filed a motion to decertify the class as part of
its motion for summary judgment on Feb. 1, 2021. Although the Court
denied the motion to decertify on the grounds ProFax raised, the
Court stated that it is mindful that the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person to use any
telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to
a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement.
ProFax's primary argument for decertifying the class hinged on the
Federal Communications Commission's recent declaratory ruling, In
the Matter of Amerifactors Fin. Grp., LLC Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel.
Consumer Prot. Act of 1991 Junk Fax Prot. Act of 2005, CG 2019 WL
6712128, Docket Nos. 02-278 (Dec. 9, 2019).
ProFax argued that the 10,000-member class would require 10,000
mini-trials to determine whether the fax they received was received
over the Internet by email as opposed to on a physical fax machine.
As such, ProFax argued that the case was not amenable to class
action.
However, the Court determined that the Amerifactors decision, which
again was issued by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, did
not appear to constitute a "final order" of the FCC under the Hobbs
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2342(1). Regardless, the Sixth Circuit in
Lyngaas v. Ag, 992 F.3d 412, 427 (6th Cir. 2021), recently held
that the Amerifactors decision was not retroactive, Judge Limbaugh
notes.
Thus, the Court held the Amerifactors decision did not require
reconsideration of the Court's certification decision. Regardless,
the TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to use any telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a
telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. The
parties were, thus, ordered to submit additional briefing on this
issue.
Judge Limbaugh states that only the Plaintiff has filed the
additional briefing invited by the Court. The Plaintiff notes that
the Defendant bears the burden to show the class should be
decertified, citing Day v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., 827
F.3d 817, 831 (8th Cir. 2016).
The Court declines to decertify the class or otherwise amend the
definition. Again, only the Plaintiff responded to the Court's
invitation to file further briefing. The Plaintiff maintains that a
2003 FCC ruling is controlling, In Re Rules & Reguls. Implementing
the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14133
(2003) ("the 2003 Ruling"). There, the FCC concluded that
"telephone facsimile machine" "broadly applies to any equipment
that has the capacity to send or receive text or images," including
"personal computers equipped with, or attached to, modems and to
computerized fax servers."
The 2003 Ruling included one exception: "we clarify that the
prohibition does not extend to facsimile messages sent as email
over the internet." The Plaintiff states that because the Subject
Faxes were not sent as email over the internet, the Subject Faxes
are subject to the TCPA and the class definition should not be
modified. The Court agrees on this record.
Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh holds that the motion to decertify is
denied, and the Court further declines to revise the previously
approved class definition.
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff will submit a proposed
order consistent with this opinion implementing the Court's grant
of summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated April 7,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nxbv5u2 from
Leagle.com.
INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Court Enters Consent Decree in Estevez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTURO ESTEVEZ, Individually, and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09027 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J.
Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York entered a Consent Decree.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"),
42 U.S.C. Section 12181-12189 ("ADA") and its implementing
regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, prohibit discrimination on the basis
of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of
any place of public accommodation by any private entity that owns,
leases (or leases to), or operates any place of public
accommodation.
On Nov. 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the Defendant. He alleged that those U.S. portions of the
website directed at consumers which can be accessed by U.S. based
consumers through the use of the domain name
http://www.I-nbeauty.com(the "Website" as further defined in
Paragraph 14), contains barriers that prevent full and equal use by
visual impaired persons, in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42
U.S.C. Sections 12181-12189 and the New York City Human Rights Law
("NYCHRL").
The Defendant expressly denies that the Website violates any
federal, state or local Law, including the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the
NYCHRL, and any other wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. By entry
into the Consent Decree, the Defendant does not admit any
wrongdoing.
The Consent Decree resolves, settles, and compromises all issues
between the Parties based on the allegations set forth in the
Plaintiff's Complaint and those claims or issues which arise from
such allegations.
The Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff, individually,
prior to a determination on class certification. Therefore, notice
to the putative class of the Consent Decree is not required under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) nor appropriate.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is a private entity that
owns and/or operates, or contracts to have operated, the Website
which is available through the internet to personal computers,
laptops, mobile devices, tablets, and other similar technology. He
contends that the Defendant's Website is a sales and service
establishment whose operations affect commerce and a public
accommodation subject to Title III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C Section
12181(7); 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. Sections 36.104, 36.201(a). The
Defendant denies that its Website is a public accommodation or a
place of public accommodation or is otherwise subject to Title III
of the ADA and/or NYCHRL.
The Plaintiff is suing on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated as an aggrieved person
pursuant to 42 U.SC. Section 12188(b)(2)(b).
The Plaintiff and the Defendant agree that it is in the Parties'
best interest to resolve the putative class action lawsuit on
mutually agreeable terms without further litigation. Accordingly,
they agree to the entry of thie Consent Decree without trial or
further adjudication of any issues of fact or law raised in the
Complaint. In resolution of the action, the Parties agreed and the
Court expressly approves, enters, and orders the Consent Decree.
The term of the Consent Decree will commence as of the Effective
Date and remain in effect for the earlier of: (a) 18 months from
the Effective Date; or (b) the date, if any, that the United States
Department of Justice adopts regulations for websites under Title
III of the ADA.
The Defendant will use Reasonable Efforts to improve the existing
level of accessibility of the Website as set forth in paragraph 13
thereof and with such improvement to be completed no later than 18
months from the Effective Date. It will not be responsible for
ensuring that third party content or plug-ins that are not owned by
the Defendant, but are otherwise located on the Website or linked
to from the Website, are accessible or otherwise conform to WCAG
2.1 AA.
The Plaintiff (through his counsel) will have the right to perform,
at his/her own cost, his/her own accessibility testing of the
Website. If he raises any purported failure(s) of the Defendant to
substantially comply with its obligations under paragraphs 13 and
17 in writing within the permitted 30-day window provided above,
the Parties (through their respective counsel) will meet and confer
within 60 days thereafter in good faith to determine a resolution
of the issue(s).
If a Party believes that any other Party has not complied with any
provision of the Consent Decree, that Party will provide the other
Party with written notice of non-compliance. Within 45 days of
receipt of a Notice, the non-initiating Party will respond to the
initiating Party in writing. Within 14 days after the response
described, the Parties will informally meet and confer by telephone
or in person and attempt to resolve the issues raised in the
Notice.
If the issue remains unresolved within 30 days of the meet and
confer referenced, the Parties will each have an additional 30 days
to select an expert and the two experts will mutually select an
independent accessibility consultant with substantial experience in
accessible website design who will evaluate the particular item(s)
raised based on whether a person who has a visual impairment can
adequately utilize the Website.
Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given to
the Parties will be given in writing by e-mail and by overnight
express mail or United States first class mail, addressed as
follows: If to the Plaintiff: Jarrett S. Charo, Esq. Mizrahi Kroub
LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor/Mailroom New York, NY 10281 Email:
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com Phone: (212) 595-6200 Fax: (212) 595-9700.
If to the Defendant: Adam Michaels, Esq. HAND BALDACHIN &
ASSOCIATES, LLP 1740 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, New York 10019
E-mail: amichaels@hballp.com Phone: (212) 956-9508.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Consent Decree is
available at https://tinyurl.com/m63ureux from Leagle.com.
INTRUSION INC: Faces Celeste Action in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that in April and May 2021,
Intrusion Inc., its current chief financial officer B. Franklin
Byrd, and its now-former chief executive officer Jack Blount were
named in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.
The lawsuit was captioned "Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al.," Case
No. 4:21-cv-00307. In November 2021, this suit was consolidated and
a lead plaintiff was appointed. The lead plaintiff filed his
amended complaint on February 7, 2022, which named as additional
defendants current and former officers and directors of the Company
James Gero, T. Joe Head, Gary Davis, and Michael Paxton.
Intrusion Inc. is a computer communications equipment provider
based in Plano, TX.
INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Action in Texas Court
------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that in April and May 2021,
Intrusion Inc., its current chief financial officer B. Franklin
Byrd, and its now-former chief executive officer Jack Blount were
named in two purported class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division.
The lawsuit was captioned "Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al.," Case
No. 4:12-cv-00374. In November 2021, this suit was consolidated
with another suit and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The lead
plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022, which
named as additional defendants current and former officers and
directors of the Company James Gero, T. Joe Head, Gary Davis, and
Michael Paxton.
Intrusion Inc. is a computer communications equipment provider
based in Plano, TX.
INVESTORS BANCORP: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03107
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted
Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen
E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the websites
they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals
with disabilities. Assistant Attorney General Boyd's letter
provides: The Department [of Justice] first articulated its
interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations'
websites over 20 years ago. This interpretation is consistent with
the ADA's title III requirement that the goods, services,
privileges, or activities provided by places of public
accommodation be equally accessible to people with disabilities.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
The Defendant operates the Investors Bank online financial advisor
service as well as the Investors Bank website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
JOBCO INCORPORATED: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO PINEDA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. JOBCO INCORPORATED,
and COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING SERVICES INC., and JAIME DELAHUNT,
individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-05321-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order preliminary approving the
settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
-- The Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only,
the settlement classes, defined as:
a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), individuals that
Plaintiffs have alleged were employed by Defendant as
manual laborers that worked overtime hours at any time
during the period of July 13, 2018 through September 28,
2018 at the Moxey Rigby Project located in Freeport, New
York according to the time records maintained at the
jobsite (New York Class); and
b. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individuals that Plaintiffs
have alleged were employed by Defendant as manual
laborers that worked overtime hours at any time during
the period of July 13, 2018 through September 28, 2018
at the Moxey Rigby Project located in Freeport, New York
according to the time records maintained at the jobsite,
and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby opting into
the settlement of all FLSA claims (Federal Class).
-- Class Counsel has designated, Defendant Jobco has consented
to, and the Court hereby appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC
(Claims Administrator) to be responsible for communicating
with Class Members, disseminating the Notice, accepting and
maintaining documents sent by Class Members, including
Claim Forms, Opt-out statements, objections, and other
documents relating to claims administration, and
administering claims for allocation, according to the
formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Parties are directed to require the Claims
Administrator to send the Notice and Claim Form referenced
in Paragraph (6) above to putative class members by May 29,
2022 (30 days after entry of this Order). Prior to May 29,
2022, Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of
attorney's fees and a motion for service awards. If
necessary, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel can supplement
these filings prior to the Final Fairness Hearing.
Jobco was founded by Michael S. Puntillo in 1950. Based in Great
Neck, New York, Jobco specializes in residential construction and
rehabilitation, community development, commercial construction, and
urban renewal.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0ZcPt at no extra charge.[CC]
JZANUS LTD: Leah Mann Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leah Mann, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JZanus, Ltd.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06388-DG-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, for class certification and such other and further
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Jzanus provides revenue recovery and improvement consulting
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LcPBfC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121
E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com
K I MOBILITY: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due Sept. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA SHARPLESS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KI
MOBILITY, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00816-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: May 13, 2022
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for Sept. 23, 2022
conditional certification of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class:
-- Motions & Briefs To Certify/Decertify March 31, 2023
Classes:
Responses: April 28, 2023
Replies: May 12, 2023
-- Disclosure of all experts:
Plaintiff: August 5, 2022
Defendant: Sept. 16, 2022
-- Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 25, 2023
-- Deadline for filing dispositive Sept. 22, 2023
motions:
-- Settlement Letters: Jan. 12, 2024
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Jan. 19, 2024
all motions in limine:
Objections: Feb. 2, 2024
-- Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 14, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MilsMj at no extra charge.[CC]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Response to Class Cert Bid Extended to May 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HAYHURST,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-657 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order that the Motion for
extension of time is granted and the time for the Defendant Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. to file and serve its Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff's motion to for class certification is extended up to
and including May 2, 2022.
Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. It
claimed to be the largest real estate franchise in number of agents
and sales volume for 2018 and 2019.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExJtMy at no extra charge.[CC]
KEYSTONE CREDIT: Court Dismisses Barclift's Amended FDCPA Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAULETTE BARCLIFT, on behalf of Herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-04335 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F.
Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
I. Introduction
Ms. Barclift brought suit against Keystone under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA). She claimed that Keystone
violated the FDCPA when, in order to send her a collection letter
regarding a personal debt, it shared her personal information with
RevSpring Inc., a mailing vendor.
The Court determined that even though Barclift alleged that
Keystone violated the FDCPA, she had not alleged that Keystone's
violation caused her a concrete injury. As a result, Barclift
lacked standing. The Court therefore dismissed her original
complaint without prejudice because, without standing, the Court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim.
Ms. Barclift then filed an amended complaint, and Keystone filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
II. Background
One day, Barclift received a letter from a debt collector --
Keystone. The letter informed her that Keystone had acquired a
personal debt of hers from a prior creditor. Nearly one year after
receiving the letter, Barclift sued Keystone. She filed her
original complaint as a class action suit, seeking to include as
Plaintiffs all persons with a Pennsylvania address who received
collection letters from Keystone via a mailing vendor.
Ms. Barclift alleged in her Original Complaint that Keystone
violated the FDCPA by sharing her information with the mailing
vendor in connection with the collection of a debt. According to
Barclift, sharing her information with a mailing vendor without her
permission violated her "right not to have her private information
shared with third parties." She claimed that she had been
"embarrassed and distressed by the disclosure of her sensitive
financial details and personal medical services. For relief, she
sought statutory damages, actual damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and injunctive relief. See id.
Keystone filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint for
failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
However, the Court never adjudicated Keystone's motion to dismiss.
Instead, the Court dismissed Barclift's Original Complaint because
she lacked standing.
The Court determined that Barclift lacked standing because she had
not alleged that she suffered a concrete harm. In her Original
Complaint, Barclift alleged that Keystone had committed a
procedural violation of the FDCPA. The Court explained, however,
that a simple procedural violation of the FDCPA does not
automatically establish an injury-in-fact.
The Court determined next that Keystone's alleged procedural
violation of the FDCPA -- sharing Barclift's information with a
mailing vendor -- was most closely related to the traditionally
recognized privacy cause of action for public disclosure of private
facts. It explained that a prima facie case of public disclosure of
private facts requires that the private facts be publicized.
Reasoning that Keystone had not publicized or even come close to
publicizing Barclift's private facts by sharing them with a mailing
vendor, it determined that Barclift had not alleged that she
suffered an injury-in-fact. The Court therefore lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction over the Original Complaint because
Barclift had not satisfied Article III's standing requirement. As a
result, the Court dismissed the Original Complaint.
Ms. Barclift then filed an amended complaint. The Amended Complaint
is nearly identical to the Original Complaint. Only some additional
allegations are of any substance. In the Amended Complaint,
Barclift also adds cites to two cases where debt collectors used
mailing vendors and courts determined that the Plaintiffs had
established standing: Morales v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp.,
LLC, 859 F. App'x 625 (3d Cir. 2021) and DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC,
934 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2019).
Once again, Keystone filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
III. Discussion
Ms. Barclift raises the same claim in her Amended Complaint that
she did in the Original Complaint -- that Keystone violated the
FDCPA. Specifically, Barclift takes issue with the fact that
Keystone shared her personal information with a mailing vendor
without her permission. Barclift alleges that by sharing her
information with a mailing vendor, Keystone violated section
1692c(b) of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from
communicating "with any person other than the consumer" regarding
the collection of a debt.
Judge Leeson opines that the Amended Complaint does not establish
standing for the same reasons that the Original Complaint did not.
Barclift alleges Keystone committed a procedural violation of the
FDCPA, but she does not allege a concrete injury. Moreover,
Barclift cannot rely on the mere possibility of a future harm to
establish an injury-in-fact because she has not alleged that such a
hypothetical harm is certain to happen.
IV. Conclusion
Since Barclift did not plead sufficient facts to show that she
suffered a concrete injury, she did not satisfy the standing
requirement in Article III. Without standing, the Court does not
have subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. Judge Leeson,
therefore, dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
A separate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc4z9uut from Leagle.com.
LEGACY HEALTH: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hunter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNE HUNTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEGACY HEALTH, LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, LEGACY EMANUEL
HOSPITAL & HEALTH CENTER, LEGACY HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, RANDALL
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT LEGACY EMANUEL, Case No. 3:18-cv-02219-AR
(D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey J. Armistead entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to modify the scheduling
order as follows:
1. The Parties to complete discovery related to certification
of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, and decertification of any conditionally certified
FLSA collective, to be completed by September 12, 2022;
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the
Defendants' motion for FLSA decertification are to be
filed on or before October 12, 2022;
3. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendants' Motion for Decertification due 28 days after
motions for Rule 23 class certification and FLSA
decertification are filed.
4. Plaintiff's reply in support of Rule 23 certification, and
Defendants' reply in support of FLSA decertification are
due 21 days after the respective responsive briefs are
filed.
5. The Court delays the setting of a discovery cut-off date
related to liability and expert discovery until after
resolution of the class and collective treatment
questions.
Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland,
Oregon, United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vuzovY at no extra charge.[CC]
LEGO SYSTEMS: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Elli Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEHRI ELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LEGO SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02177-DG-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all of
Lego's employees in the State of New York that engage in manual
work in the course of their employment.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner. See New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Article 6, section
191.
The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner. The New York Court Of
Appeals has explained that this law is "intended for the protection
of those who are dependent upon their wages for sustenance." People
v. Vetri, 309 N.Y. 401, 405 (citing former Labor Law section 196).
The Defendant has violated this law by paying its manual workers
every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
The Plaintiff therefore liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of herself and a putative class comprised
of all manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over
the last six years.
The Plaintiff Shehri Elli is a citizen of New York who resides in
Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant
from July 2014 to September 2018 at a Lego store located in Staten
Island, New York.
Lego Systems owns a chain of Lego retail stores that employ
hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
LEWIS BROTHERS: Provisional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO CALDWELL,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES INCORPORATED OF TENNESSEE,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01081 (M.D. Tenn.), the parties jointly move the
Court to provisionally certify a class for settlement purposes
only, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and in accordance with the Court's February 17, 2022 Order:
"Persons currently or formerly employed by Defendant in its
Murfreesboro, Tennessee bakery and were classified as part-
time merchandisers within the three year period preceding the
filing of the original Complaint who assert they were
required or permitted to work under multiple, different names
and/or aliases, who would have been eligible to participate
in an ERISA health insurance plan available to Defendant’s
full-time employees."
The Plaintiff commenced the instant lawsuit on December 18, 2020,
alleging that the Defendant violated Section 510 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, through
an alleged scheme of requiring, suffering, and/or permitting
Plaintiff and the class to each work for the Defendant under
multiple, different names and/or aliases, in order to avoid their
obligations to offer an ERISA health insurance plan sponsored by
Defendant, and thereafter filed an Amended Complaint on February 2,
2022.
The Defendant has answered the Amended Complaint, denies all of
Plaintiff's allegations, and denies that it has violated ERISA in
any manner.
On February 16, 2022, the Court held a status conference during
which the parties indicated their agreement to engage in direct
settlement discussions, including potential mediation, in an effort
to resolve their dispute on a class basis.
Lewis Brothers provides bakery products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vyckfD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina Parsley, Esq.
PONCE LAW
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert E. Boston, Esq.
John E. B. Gerth, Esq.
WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
Nashville City Center
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219-8966
Telephone: (615) 244-6380
Facsimile: (615) 244-6804
E-mail: Bob.Boston@wallerlaw.com
Jeb.Gerth@wallerlaw.com
LIPPER COMPONENTS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Sheets Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Kristie Sheets, et al., Plaintiffs v. Lipper
Components, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01683-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California approves Plaintiff Kristie Sheets'
request for final judgment in a putative class action.
The request is brought pursuant to the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
litigation of class actions in federal court. Rule 23(e) includes
several provisions on the settlement and voluntary dismissal of
class actions, but that subsection requires the court's approval of
a settlement only when a class has been certified. Because no class
has been certified in this case, the Court need not approve the
parties' settlement agreement.
Nevertheless, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller notes that
Rule 23(d)(1) allows the Court to issue orders that require--to
protect class members and fairly conduct the action--giving
appropriate notice to some or all class members of any step in the
action. Similarly, the Court may also consider whether the proposed
settlement and dismissal are tainted by collusion or will prejudice
absent putative members with a reasonable reliance expectation of
the maintenance of the action for the protection of their
interests, and the Court may inquire into possible prejudice from
lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions,
because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations.
Here, the Court is satisfied that dismissal of the action will
result in no prejudice to the putative class members. Judge Mueller
points out that this is not a widely publicized case, and potential
class members are unlikely to have relied on this action to
vindicate their interests, citing Castro v. Zenith Acquisition
Corp., No. 06-04163, 2007 WL 81905, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9,
2007).
Judge Mueller holds that all of the individual claims and
allegations brought by Kristie Sheets are dismissed with prejudice
and all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members
are dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2he32s8s from Leagle.com.
MED-TRANS CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Bradley
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alphine Bradley and
William Daniel Black, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Med-Trans Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-02679-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered
an order denying the motion to certify class.
The Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing the
appropriateness of Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(2) certification.
The Plaintiffs are individuals who received transport services from
Defendant, an air ambulance company.
The Defendant transported Bradley from Bishopville, South Carolina
to Columbia, South Carolina on February 8, 2020. The
cost of Bradley's transport was $43,462.00, of which her insurer
paid $30,750.00. The Defendant transported Black from Greer, South
Carolina to Charleston, South Carolina on June 27, 2020. The cost
of Black’s transport was $66,976.00, of which his insurer paid
$25,000.00.
Black signed an Ambulance Billing Authorization Form ("ABA") at the
time of transport, and Bradley did not. The ABA is a document
providing that the signor "agrees that the patient is financially
responsible for, and obligated to pay, the amount charged by the
Supplier for the medical services, including any amount that is not
paid by any applicable insurance (unless Supplier is a contracted
network provider for such applicable insurance, in which case any
applicable co-pay, coinsurance, or deductible is owed)."No other
price term appears in the ABA.
Med-Trans is a private ambulance company serving the Greater Miami
Valley and surrounding areas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ewm1iN at no extra charge.[CC]
MIAMI DADE COLLEGE: Appeals Court Orders Dismissal of Verdini Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College,
Appellant v. Fernando Verdini, Appellee, Case No. 3D21-0470 (Fla.
Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third
District, reversed the order denying District Board of Trustees of
Miami Dade College's motion to dismiss and remanded with
instructions to dismiss the complaint.
I. Background
Appellant/Defendant Miami Dade College ("MDC") appeals from a
non-final order denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign
immunity, a doctrine that prohibits suit in the absence of an
express contract. The is a putative class action for breach of
contract stemming from the transition from on-campus instruction to
remote instruction at MDC due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In March
2020, the Florida Department of Education ordered all public
institutions of higher learning to close in response to the
pandemic. MDC transitioned to remote learning during part of the
Spring 2020 semester and the entire Summer 2020 semester.
Mr. Verdini, who was enrolled as a nursing student during the
Spring and Summer 2020 semesters, filed a class action Complaint
against MDC (through its Board of Trustees) alleging breach of
contract. Verdini alleges he paid certain mandatory fees for
on-campus services pursuant to express, written contracts with MDC,
and MDC breached when it failed to provide the on-campus services
for which the fees were intended. The Complaint lists five
mandatory fees, charged on a per credit hour basis: Student
Services: $8.28, Financial Aid: $4.14, Capital Improvement: $15.88,
Technology: $4.14, and Parking: $3.
The Complaint alleges that the express, written contracts are
constituted by bills, invoices, and other written agreements. The
Complaint includes two exhibits: (A) Verdini's Spring and Summer
2020 invoices and (B) a Financial Obligation Agreement. Verdini
further alleges he does not have all the documents constituting the
express contracts, but he asserts he should be given the
opportunity to establish these unidentified documents by way of
discovery.
MDC moved to dismiss, arguing that as a public college it is
protected by sovereign immunity; therefore, Verdini is required to
establish waiver by identifying an express, written contract
requiring MDC to provide on-campus services. In response, Verdini
maintained that "the Complaint attaches the express agreement that
the Plaintiff entered into with MDC in which he agreed to pay all
fees in exchange for specifically enumerated services." Verdini
again pointed to the invoices and the Financial Obligation
Agreement attached to the Complaint. Additionally, though not
alleged in the Complaint, Verdini's response relied heavily on the
payment of laboratory fees.
Following a virtual hearing, the lower court denied MDC's motion to
dismiss, concluding that the invoices attached to the Complaint
"sufficiently contain the express written terms and provide the
specific services MDC was contractually obligated to provide in
exchange for the Plaintiff's payment of 'fees' to survive a motion
to dismiss," citing Waite Dev., Inc. v. City of Milton, 866 So.2d
153, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("Several writings may constitute a
valid and binding written contract when they evidence a complete
meeting of the minds of the parties and an agreement upon the terms
and conditions of the contract.")). MDC timely appealed.
II. Analysis
There is no dispute that MDC, a member of the Florida College
System, is protected by sovereign immunity. In Florida, sovereign
immunity is the rule, rather than the exception. There are no
statutory provisions for sovereign immunity, or its waiver, with
regard to contracts. That issue has fallen instead to the courts to
address." It is firmly established that a sovereign may be sued in
contract only when there is an express, written contract.
Mr. Verdini argues he has sufficiently alleged that MDC breached an
express, written contract to provide on-campus services in exchange
for certain mandatory fees. The District Court of Appeals need not
decide whether Verdini has alleged an express contractual
relationship to provide some services because this alone is not
sufficient to survive MDC's motion to dismiss. This is because
Verdini's breach claim is not based on MDC's complete failure to
provide services; it is premised on MDC's failure to provide
on-campus or in-person services. So, the issue here is whether
Verdini has sufficiently identified an express, written contract to
provide on-campus or in-person services.
Mr. Verdini's Complaint specifically mentions five mandatory fees.
The first four fees -- student services, financial aid, capital
improvement, and technology -- are student fees authorized pursuant
to separate subsections within section 1009.23, Florida Statutes
(2021). The fifth fee listed in the Complaint, parking, is a user
fee authorized by section 1009.23(12)(a).
Mr. Verdini also contends he is suing for a refund of laboratory
fees, which are likewise user fees authorized by section
1009.23(12)(a). The District Court of Appeal addresses the student
fees and the user fees in turn. And although Verdini maintains that
his Complaint sufficiently alleges an express, written contract to
provide on-campus services, the District Court of Appeal also
considers Verdini's contention that discovery is needed to identify
other potential documents evidencing an express contract.
A. Student Fees
As an initial matter, the District Court of Appeals opines that
there is nothing in the Complaint or the attachments that expressly
requires MDC to provide on-campus services in exchange for the
student services, financial aid, capital improvement, and
technology fees. Moreover, Verdini has not identified anything that
expressly prohibits MDC from providing remote services in exchange
for these fees.
Mr. Verdini argues that the attached invoices incorporate the
conditions imposed by section 1009.23. Even assuming for the sake
of argument this is true, Verdini fails to identify the conditions
in section 1009.23 that require on-campus or in-person services.
Nothing in the broad provisions requires the student fees at issue
to be used only for on-campus or in-person services.
Consequently, based on the Complaint, the attachments to the
Complaint, and section 1009.23, the District Court of Appeal holds
that Verdini has failed to establish an express, written
contractual obligation to provide on-campus services in exchange
for the Student Services, Financial Aid, Capital Improvement, and
Technology fees.
B. User Fees
With respect to the parking fee, the Complaint concedes that for
the Summer 2020 semester, students were not assessed the parking
fee and that the fee would be credited to their account if they
already paid. Thus, only the parking fee for the Spring 2020
semester is at issue. However, Verdini has failed to identify an
express, written contract for this fee because the attached Spring
2020 invoice does not list a parking fee.
Finally, Verdini's response in opposition to MDC's motion to
dismiss raised allegations, for the first time, related to
laboratory fees. As with the parking fee, a laboratory fee is a
user fee that "shall not exceed the cost of the services provided
and will only be charged to persons receiving the service."
Although a laboratory fee is listed on the attached Spring 2020
invoice, Verdini's Complaint does not contain any allegations with
respect to laboratory fees as a basis for his breach of contract
claim. Moreover, Verdini has not moved to amend the Complaint to
add any allegations regarding laboratory fees. The District Court
of Appeal is therefore unable to conclude that Verdini has
sufficiently alleged breach of an express, written contract with
respect to laboratory fees.
C. Discovery
Mr. Verdini's primary argument on appeal is that the Complaint (and
attachments), as is, sufficiently alleges the existence of an
express, written contract. However, Verdini also argues there could
be additional, unspecified documents evidencing an express contract
and that he should therefore be allowed discovery.
The District Court of Appeal disagrees. It opines that Verdini has
only alleged the possibility of unspecified documents evidencing an
express, written contract. Verdini has not cited, and research has
failed to uncover, any authority supporting the broad proposition
that discovery is warranted when a complaint merely alleges the
possible existence of an unidentified contract that may or may not
be another's possession. Indeed, such a rule would be contrary not
only to the plain language of Rule 1.130 but also its recognized
purpose of apprising the defendant of the nature and extent of the
cause of action.
III. Conclusion
The District Court of Appeal concludes that Verdini has failed to
identify an express, written contractual obligation to provide
on-campus or in-person services in exchange for the various fees
listed in the Complaint. Further, the Complaint does not contain
allegations related to laboratory fees. And finally, Verdini is not
entitled to discovery simply for alleging the possible existence of
unspecified documents. The District Court of Appeal therefore
reversed the order denying MDC's motion to dismiss and remanded
with instructions to dismiss the Complaint.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p82fmxb from Leagle.com.
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Javier A. Lopez --
jal@kttlaw.com -- Dwayne A. Robinson, Michael R. Lorigas, and Eric
S. Kay; Javier A. Ley-Soto, General Counsel, for the Appellant.
The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, and Adam Moskowitz --
info@moskowitz-law.com -- Howard M. Bushman, and Adam A.
Schwartzbaum, for the Appellee.
Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Kansas R. Gooden --
kgooden@boydjen.com; Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J.
Sniffen and Jeffrey D. Slanker (Tallahassee), for the Florida
Defense Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae.
Matthew H. Mears (Tallahassee); Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, and
Rocco E. Testani and Stacey M. Mohr (Atlanta, GA); Isicoff RagatzM,
and Eric D. Isicoff ; Lacey D. Hofmeyer (Fort Lauderdale); B.
Shannon Saunders, P.A., and B. Shannon Saunders (Marianna); Brian
Babb (Daytona Beach); Carl J. Coleman (Fort Myers); Gilligan,
Gooding, Batsel, Anderson & Phelan, P.A., and Robert W. Batsel, Jr.
(Ocala); Michael A. Richey (Melbourne); Romualdo C. Marquinez, Jr.
(Jacksonville); Derrick Bennett, P.A., and Derrick Bennett (Panama
City Beach); Neill Griffin Marquis, PLLC, and Richard V. Neill, Jr.
(Fort Pierce); Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J. Sniffen
(Tallahassee); Martha Kaye Koehler (Tampa); Law Office of Anita
Geraci-Carver, P.A., and Anita Geraci-Carver (Clermont); Hand
Arendale Harrison Sale , and Hayward Dykes, Jr. (Destin); Kevin
Fernander (Lake Worth); Boswell & Dunlap, LLP, and Donald H. Wilson
(Bartow); J. Paul Carland, II (Sanford); Thomas J. Gilliam, Jr.
(Pensacola); Patti Locascio (Gainesville); Karlson Law Group, P.A.,
and Pamela T. Karlson (Lake Placid); Melissa C. Miller (Palatka);
Steven W. Prouty (Bradenton); William J. Mullowney (Orlando);
Suzanne L. Gardner (St. Petersburg); Andrews, Crabtree, Knox &
Longfellow, LLP, and J. Craig Knox (Tallahassee), for the Florida
State Board of Education, the Commissioner of the Florida
Department of Education, and 36 Florida Public Colleges and
Universities, as amici curiae.
Robert B. Shillinger Jr., Monroe County Attorney, and Cynthia L.
Hall and Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorneys; Steven T.
Williams, City Attorney; Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, and
Dirk M. Smits and Gaelan P. Jones; Roget V. Bryan ; Shawn D. Smith,
Key West City Attorney, and Nathalia Mellies, Assistant City
Attorney, for Monroe County, Florida, and the Cities of Key West,
Marathon, Key Colony Beach, Layton, and the Village of Islamorada,
Florida, as amici curiae.
Holland & Knight LLP, and Frances G. De La Guardia --
Frances.Guasch@hklaw.com; Miriam Soler Ramos, City Attorney, for
the City of Coral Gables, as amicus curiae.
Varnell & Warwick, P.A., and Janet R. Varnell --
JVarnell@VarnellandWarwick.com -- (Tampa), for the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, as amicus curiae.
MICRO FOCUS: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP
and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP issued a Notice of Pendency of
Class Action involving purchasers of Micro Focus American
Depositary Shares.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
In re MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 18CIV01549
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES OF MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC PURSUANT TO THE
INTERRELATED REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ON FORMS F-4 AND F-6 AND
PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER OF MICRO FOCUS WITH
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY (OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES).
Please be advised that your rights may be affected by a class
action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, if you purchased or acquired
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Micro Focus International
plc ("Micro Focus") in connection with the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated September 7, 2016, with Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company ("HPE"), Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Seattle Holdings, Inc., and
Seattle Merger Sub, Inc., pursuant to which Micro Focus combined
with the software business segment of HPE.
A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to a Court Order dated November
19, 2021, a Class has been certified in a class action entitled In
re Micro Focus International PLC Securities Litigation, Case No.
18CIV01549 (the "Action"), pending before Judge Marie S. Weiner of
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County
(the "Court").
The Action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired ADSs of Micro Focus pursuant to the
interrelated Registration Statements on Forms F-4 and F-6 and
Prospectus (the "Offering Materials") issued in connection with the
Merger (the "Class"), and asserts claims under the federal
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against: (a)
defendant Micro Focus; and (b) certain current and former Micro
Focus officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") who
signed the Offering Materials. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class,
allege that all Defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act because the Offering Materials, pursuant to which Micro Focus
ADSs were offered, contained materially false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material information required to be
disclosed therein. Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of the Class,
that Micro Focus violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
and that each Individual Defendant is liable for Micro Focus's
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) as a "controlling
person" of Micro Focus under Section 15 of the Securities Act.
Each Defendant denies any wrongdoing or having violated any
provisions of the Securities Act.
The Court has decided that the Action should proceed as a class
action on behalf of a Class that (subject to certain exclusions)
consists of "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired
American Depositary Shares of Micro Focus International plc
pursuant to the interrelated Registration Statements on Forms F-4
and F-6 and Prospectus issued in connections with the merger of
Micro Focus with the software business segment of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company (or their subsidiaries)."
If you are a member of the Class, your rights may be affected by
this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing to
Notice Administrator, Micro Focus Class Action, c/o Epiq, PO Box
5459, Portland, OR 97228-5459, tel: (855) 604-1743, or by
downloading this information at www.MicroFocusClassAction.com.
Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of the Notice, may be
made to Class Counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, c/o James
I. Jaconette, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
tel. 1-800-449-4900; Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, c/o John T.
Jasnoch, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101, tel.
1-800-332-2259; or Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, c/o Mark C.
Molumphy, 840 Malcolm Rd., Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, tel.
650-697-6000.
You have the right to request exclusion (opt out) from the Class.
If you do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound
by past and any future rulings of the Court on the claims asserted
against the Defendants, even if there is no recovery.
IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING
AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS,
YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY JUNE 29, 2022, IN THE
MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS
WHO DO NOT VALIDLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND
BY ALL OF THE DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, THAT
THE COURT HAS MADE OR WILL MAKE IN THIS ACTION, EVEN IF THERE IS NO
RECOVERY.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Dated: April 15, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN MATEO COUNTY
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
James I. Jaconette
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
John T. Jasnoch
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
Mark C. Molumphy
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
URL// www.MicroFocusClassAction.com
MINDBODY INC: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
----------------------------------------------------------
This Notice relates to a stockholder class action In re Mindbody,
Inc., Stockholder Litigation C.A. No. 2019-0442-KSJM (the "Action")
arising out of the merger of MINDBODY, Inc. ("Mindbody") with
affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC ("Vista") on
February 15, 2019 (the "Merger"). Lead Plaintiffs in the Action,
Luxor Capital Partners, LP, Luxor Capital Partners Offshore Master
Fund, LP, Luxor Wavefront, LP, and Lugard Road Capital Master Fund,
LP (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs" or "Luxor") allege that
defendants Richard Stollmeyer ("Stollmeyer") and Eric Liaw ("Liaw")
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the Merger and by causing Mindbody to issue a false and
misleading Proxy statement in connection with the Merger. Lead
Plaintiffs further allege that Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent, LLC
("Torreys Parent"), Torreys Merger Sub, Inc. ("Torreys Merger
Sub"), and Institutional Venture Partners XIII, L.P. and
Institutional Venture Management XIII LLC (the "IVP Entities," and
together with Stollmeyer, Liaw, Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent,
Torreys Merger Sub, and the IVP Entities, "Defendants") aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified
Class, and settling defendants Liaw and IVP Entities (together, the
"Settling Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement for
$27,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The proposed Settlement,
if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action as
against the Settling Defendants. The proposed Settlement does not
settle or release any claims or dissenter rights (including
appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
(DGCL) brought by Lead Plaintiffs against non-settling defendants
Stollmeyer, Mindbody, Vista, Torreys Parent, and Torreys Merger Sub
(together with their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers,
directors (except for Settling Defendant Liaw), predecessors,
successors, and assigns, the "Non-Settling Defendants"). Lead
Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims in the Action against
the Non-Settling Defendants.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected, and
you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement. The Class
certified by the Court's Order dated December 17, 2021 consists
of:
All holders of Mindbody common stock as of the closing of the
merger with affiliates of Vista on February 15, 2019 ("Closing"),
whether beneficial or of record, including their legal
representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees and
assignees of all such foregoing holders.
Excluded from the Class are: (i) defendants in this Action, (ii)
any person who is, or was at the time of Closing, an officer,
director, or partner of Mindbody, Vista, or the IVP Entities, (iii)
the immediate family members, meaning the parents, spouse,
siblings, or children, of any of the foregoing, (iv) any trusts,
estates, entities, or accounts that held Mindbody shares for the
benefit of any of the foregoing, and (v) the legal representatives,
heirs, successors in interest, successors, transferees, and assigns
of the foregoing (the "Excluded Stockholders").
PLEASE NOTE: The Class is a non-"opt-out" class pursuant to
Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, Class Members do not have the right to exclude
themselves from the Class.
Payments to eligible Class Members will be made only if the Court
approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation for the
distribution of the Settlement proceeds, and only after any appeals
are resolved. Please be patient, as this process may take some time
to complete.
Eligible Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in order
to receive a distribution from the Settlement. If you are eligible
to receive a distribution from the Settlement, your distribution
will be paid to you directly.
Please be patient. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, it
will take some time to conduct the Settlement distribution.
CLASS MEMBERS' LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTLEMENT:
RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT. CLASS MEMBERS DO NOT NEED
TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.
If you are a member of the Class (defined in paragraph 17 of the
Notice), you may be eligible to receive a pro rata distribution
from the Settlement proceeds. Eligible Class Members do not need
to submit a claim form in order to receive a distribution from the
Settlement, if approved by the Court. Your distribution from the
Settlement will be paid to you directly. See paragraphs 23-30 of
the Notice for further discussion.
OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO THAT
IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN May 25, 2022.
If you are a member of the Class and would like to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, you
may write to the Court and explain the reasons for your objection.
ATTEND A HEARING ON JUNE 8, 2022 AT 1:30 P.M., AND FILE A NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 25,
2022.
Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear that
is received by May 25, 2022, allows you to speak in Court, at the
discretion of the Court, about your objection. In the Court's
discretion, the June 8, 2022 hearing may be conducted by telephone
or video conference (see paragraphs 36-37 of the Notice). If you
submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend
the hearing and, at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court
about your objection.
How do I obtain more information?
More detailed information about the Action and the Settlement is
contained in the Notice. If you have questions, you may contact the
Settlement Administrator by calling toll-free 1-855-606-1085;
emailing info@MindbodyMergerLitigation.com; or mailing a letter
to:
Mindbody Merger Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91014
Seattle, WA 98111
Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court, the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, or their counsel.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit the website -- https://www.mindbodymergerlitigation.com/ --
often to get the most up-to-date information.
Call 1-855-606-1085
Emailinfo@MindbodyMergerLitigation.com
MailMindbody Merger Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91014
Seattle, WA 98111
MOBILITYLESS LLC: Swenson, et al., File Bid for Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA SWENSON; GERALD
SHEARON and all similarly situated persons, v. MOBILITYLESS, LLC;
GABOR SMATKO; MONICA SMATKO; JOHN DOES I-X, Case No.
3:19-cv-30168-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 of two
consumer classes, and appointment of Adam Deutsch, Esq. of
Northeast Law Group, LLC to serve as class counsel.
-- Class A
"All persons within the United States, other than any of
Plaintiff's counsel, who (1) purchased merchandise from
Mobilityless, LLC through its website
www.mobility4less.com; (2) during the time-period from
September 2018 to December 31, 2021.
-- Class B
-- "All persons within the United States, other than any of
Plaintiff's counsel, who (1) purchased merchandise from
Mobilityless, LLC through its website
www.mobility4less.com; (2) received goods that were non-
conforming to what was ordered; and (3) during the time-
period from September 2018 to December 31,
2021.
Through its website Mobility4less.com, Defendants allegedly
deceived customers by among other things, (1) making
misrepresentations of the type and quality of goods being sold; (2)
serially failing to deliver upgraded parts purchased by customers;
(3) serially delivering damaged and/or non-conforming goods; (4)
falsely claiming to have locations in six states; and, (5)
maintaining conflicting inoperable return and warranty policies.
The Defendants' conduct included "unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade
or commerce" that violate the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act. The Defendants' deceptive conduct was made knowingly with
intent to deceive and constitutes common law fraud. The Defendants
further used deceptive conduct to defraud customers in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1341 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act by knowingly shipping damaged and/or defective products to
victim customers across state lines, through the hiring of
commercial interstate carriers.
The Plaintiffs Barbara Swenson and Gerald Shearon commenced this
action on December 23, 2019. On January 15, 2020, the summons and
complaint were served on the registered corporate agent for
Mobilityless, LLC.
On May 12, 2020, Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an Order
permitting Plaintiffs to serve Gabor Smatko and Monica Smatko by
alternative means.
On September 2, 2020 a First Amended Complaint was filed, adding
among other things, a claim for violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 5,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v5RVjh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Deutsch, Esq.
NORTHEAST LAW GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 60717
Longmeadow, MA 01106
Telephone: (413) 285-3646
MORCONAVA GROUP: Roman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
RAMON ROMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MORCONAVA GROUP, LLC d/b/a SANTIAGO'S
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, SANTIAGO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, and CARMEN
MORALES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00907 (D. Colo., April 14, 2022) is a
class action complaint for unpaid wages pursuant to the the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the FLSA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act
(MWA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), the Denver Minimum Wage
Ordinance, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order
(the COMPS Order), and predecessor Minimum Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff asserts his Count I, II, III and IV claims for unpaid
overtime wages and associated damages and penalties, on behalf of
himself only. The Plaintiff asserts his Count V claim for denial of
compensated rest breaks on behalf of himself and of all others
similarly situated.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants to work as a cook
in the kitchen of their Santiago's Mexican Restaurant located at
6365 E. Hampden Ave., Denver, Colorado.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff all required
overtime wages for hours he worked. The Defendants failed to grant
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated mandatory,
compensated rest periods and failed to compensate them for denial
of these compensated rest periods in violation of the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (and of predecessor Wage
Orders), the lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway -- Suite B
Boulder, CO. 80304
Telephone: (303) 305-8230
E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com
MOUNTAIN WEST: Jodie, Drange File Bid for Rule 23 Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODIE and ANDY DRANGE,
each individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:20-cv-00030-SPW (D. Mont.), the
Plaintiffs move for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mountain West is an insurance company providing 401k plan, health,
and group life insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvsE0R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evan Selik, Esq.
MCCATHERN LLP
523 West 6th Street, Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 225-6150
Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
E-mail: eselik@mcccathernlaw.com
- and -
Jesse Kodadek, Esq.
Sean Morris, Esq.
WORDEN THANE P.C.
321 W. Broadway Street, Suite 300
Missoula, MT 59802
Telephone: (406) 721-3400
E-mail: jkodadek@wordenthane.com
smorris@wordenthane.com
NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Settlement to be Heard on June 27
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In Re Novo Nordisk
Securities Litigation
No. 3:17-cv-209-ZNQ-LHG
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF
ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased the
American Depository Receipts of Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk")
between February 3, 2015 and February 2, 2017, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full
definition of the Class including a complete description of who is
excluded from the Class is set forth in the full Settlement Notice
referred to below.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that co-lead
plaintiffs and class representatives Lehigh County Employees'
Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Boston Retirement System, Employees' Pension Plan of the
City of Clearwater, and Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned
securities class action (the "Action"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with defendants Novo Nordisk, Lars Rebien
Sørensen, Jesper Brandgaard, and Jakob Riis (collectively,
"Defendants") for $100,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on June 27, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, by videoconference to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated November 23, 2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally
approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and the Settlement
Notice should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv)
determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses (including awards to the Lead Plaintiffs)
should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Novo
Nordisk Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91154, Seattle, WA 98111, by telephone at 1 (833) 674-0167, or
by email at info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of
the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website for the Action,
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website,
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than July 27,
2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no
later than June 6, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Novo Nordisk,
any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Or you may
visit www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com or toll-free at 1
(833) 674-0167.
Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made
to:
Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91154
Seattle, WA 98111
1 (833) 674-0167
info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
Luke O. Brooks, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
1 (800) 449-4900
rickn@rgrdlaw.com
Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1 (800) 380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
OPHTHOTECH CORP: $29MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Ophthotech Corporation Securities Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FRANK MICHOLLE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID R.
GUYER and SAMIR PATEL,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION
("OPHTHOTECH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS"
OR "CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 8,
2022, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick at the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New
York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $29,000,000 in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award
Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement
Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and to award
Lead Plaintiff reimbursement of its time and expenses pursuant to
15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of
the Class, and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate.
The COVID-19 pandemic creates the possibility that the Court may
decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear remotely at
the hearing, without further written notice to the Class. In order
to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing
have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by
phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket
and the Settlement website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, before
making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates
regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date
or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the
conference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH
2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 6,
2022) or electronically (no later than July 6, 2022). Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by July 6, 2022, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you
purchased or acquired Ophthotech common stock between March 2, 2015
through December 12, 2016, inclusive, and do not request exclusion
from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to:
Ophthotech Securities Settlement
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43307
Providence, RI 02940-3307
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800-449-4900
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST 18,
2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS
MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT
A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $29,000,000
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, PLUS
INTEREST EARNED ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT
TO EXCEED $7,500 IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD
COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 1, 2022, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: March 17, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com.
PANERA BREAD: Court Remands Sally Suit to St. Louis Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDALL SALLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, a/k/a SAINT
LOUIS BREAD CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00217 (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
I. Background
The Plaintiff originally filed his petition in the Circuit Court
for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Defendants Panera Bread Co.
and Panera, LLC (collectively "Panera") removed the case by
purportedly invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331.
The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo. Rev. Stat.
Section 407.010 et seq., case arises out of Panera's "clean"
advertising campaign. The Plaintiff's MMPA action centers around
Panera's claim, made in advertisements, on its website, and
displayed in its restaurants, that all its food is "clean," a word
Panera self-defines as meaning that the food is free from any
"artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors from
artificial sources." Panera previously removed the case to federal
court, and the Court remanded the case back to state court finding
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331.
Since then, Panera implemented new "Terms of Use," imposing
arbitration agreements during the pendency of the lawsuit that did
not exist at the time he filed his case. Based on these arbitration
agreements, Panera moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's
claims on the grounds that he had agreed to the Terms of Use
containing an arbitration provision, pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. In response,
the Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order to
Strike Arbitration Clauses.
For a second time, Panera removed the action to the Court, once
again asserting federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331. The Plaintiff never amended his original Petition.
Rather, Panera now argues that Panera's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, and the Plaintiff's subsequent motion against
arbitration (collectively the "Arbitration Motions") invoke federal
question jurisdiction because the FAA and First Amendment are
implicated. In the current Motion, the Plaintiff moves to remand
the case back to state court.
II. Discussion
Judge Schelp explains that under the "well-pleaded complaint rule,"
a case ordinarily is not removable on federal question grounds
unless the federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. In the case, the
Plaintiff's Petition states a claim for violations of the MMPA
resulting from Panera's allegedly false and misleading "clean"
representations. Nothing in the Petition alleges a dispute under
Panera's arbitration agreements; nor does it implicate any relief
related to Panera's arbitration agreements. In fact, the
Plaintiff's Petition could not have raised such a dispute since the
arbitration agreements of which Panera seeks to compel enforcement
of did not exist when Plaintiff filed the action. Because the
Plaintiff asserts a claim only under the MMPA, "no federal question
appears on the face of the Petition."
Nonetheless, Panera interjected the litigation into federal court
-- for a second time -- via federal question jurisdiction asserting
that the FAA and First Amendment is implicated because of the
Arbitration Motions. But, defenses and counterclaims cannot create
federal jurisdiction. Judge Schelp holds that the case here does
not require the Court to interpret or apply the FAA or First
Amendment but rather to determine questions of state law regarding
Panera's allegedly false and misleading "clean" representations.
Indeed, Panera has made no showing that the Petition states any
facts that bring the Plaintiff's MMPA claim into the theater of
federal question jurisdiction. As the Court already concluded, upon
its first remand of the case back to state court, "federal law does
not 'create the cause of action asserted,' so there is no basis for
'arising under' jurisdiction on the face of the Plaintiff's
Petition."
III. Conclusion
As the Court previously noted in the matter, the Plaintiff is the
"master of his complaint," and as such he "may avoid federal
jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." In his Petition,
he alleged only a violation of the MMPA, a state law; thus, federal
law does not create the cause of action alleged here. Nor has
Panera shown how the FAA allows it a work-around to establish
jurisdiction in federal court. Therefore, the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and the
Court must remand the case.
Accordingly, Judge Schelp granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand.
A separate Order of Remand will accompany the Memorandum and
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysbwbfbj from Leagle.com.
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARL KENDALL, SUZANNE
RAINEY and VINCENZO PERNICE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
7:20-cv-00071-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs Karl Kendall, Suzanne
Rainey, and Vincenzo Pernice, and participants in the
Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC Retirement Savings Plan,
submit an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement agreement entered into with defendants, preliminary
approval of class notice, approval of plan of allocation, and
scheduling of a fairness hearing.
Pharmaceutical Product Development is a global contract research
organization providing comprehensive, integrated drug development,
laboratory and lifecycle management services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36uyk2H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
PORTLAND GENERAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9
-------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) on April 4 provided
notice of proposed settlement of derivative actions and settlement
hearing.
JS HALBERSTAM IRREVOCABLE
GRANTOR TRUST, Derivatively and on
Behalf of PORTLAND GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
JACK E. DAVIS, JOHN W. BALLANTINE,
RODNEY L. BROWN, JR., KIRBY A.
DYESS, MARK B. GANZ, MARIE OH
HUBER, KATHRYN J. JACKSON, PH.D.,
MICHAEL A. LEWIS, MICHAEL H.
MILLEGAN, NEIL J. NELSON, M. LEE
PELTON, PH.D., MARIA M. POPE,
CHARLES W. SHIVERY, JAMES P.
TORGERSON, AND JAMES LOBDELL,
Defendants,
and
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00413-SI
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL OWNERS OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ("PGE")
COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 28, 2022.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned
shareholder action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (the "Action"), have reached a Settlement to
resolve the issues raised in the Action and related shareholder
derivative actions captioned Berning v. Pope et al., No.
21-cv-00783-SI, filed in this Court, and Shimberg v. Pope et al.,
No. 21CV02957, and Ashabraner v. Pope et al., No. 21CV13698, filed
in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County (collectively, the
"Actions"). The parties to the Actions have entered into a
Stipulation dated February 11, 2022, setting forth the terms of the
Settlement. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, would fully,
finally and forever resolve this Action on the terms set forth in
the Stipulation.1
The Stipulation and a detailed Notice of Settlement describing in
greater detail the Actions, the proposed Settlement, and the rights
of Current PGE Shareholders with regard to the Settlement are
available on PGE's website at
https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/.
You have the right to participate in a Settlement Hearing to be
held on May 9, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse,
Room 15B, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 to
determine:
(i) whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Portland General
Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") and PGE's shareholders
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23.1; (ii) whether
to enter a judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and
extinguish and release all Settled Claims; (iii) whether the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due
process have been satisfied in connection with notice of the
Settlement; and (iv) whether the Court should approve Plaintiffs'
Fee and Expense Amount, as well as to consider such other matters
as may properly come before the Court.
Unless otherwise defined, all capitalized terms contained in this
Summary Notice shall have the same definitions as set forth in the
Stipulation.
The Settlement, reached with the substantial assistance and
oversight of an experienced mediator, addresses allegations that
certain current and former directors and officers of PGE breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maintain an adequate system of
internal controls to oversee PGE's energy trading and purportedly
disseminating materially false and misleading statements relating
to the Company's energy trading activities. As part of the
Settlement, PGE has implemented or, to the extent PGE has not
already done so, will implement certain corporate governance
reforms specifically set forth in Exhibit A of the Stipulation.
After negotiating the principal terms of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' counsel and PGE separately negotiated at arm's-length
with the assistance of the mediator the amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel, agreeing that PGE
or its insurance carriers shall, subject to and upon Court
approval, pursuant to the timetable provided in the Stipulation,
pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the total amount of $750,000.
The individual defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all
allegations of wrongdoing and that they have any liability on the
claims asserted in the Actions. PGE also has denied and continues
to deny the claims in the Actions.
If you are a Current PGE Shareholder, your rights to pursue certain
derivative claims on behalf of PGE may be affected by the
Settlement. Any Current PGE Shareholder wishing to assert an
objection to the Settlement or Fee and Expense Amount must, at
least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, (i) file
with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement
and/or Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Amount setting forth: (a) the
nature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of PGE common stock
at the time the Preliminary Approval Order was entered through the
date of the Settlement Hearing, including the number of shares of
PGE common stock held by the shareholder and the date(s) of
purchase; and (c) any documentation in support of such objection;
and (ii) if a Current PGE Shareholder intends to appear and
requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such shareholder
must have, in addition to the requirements of (i) above, filed with
the Clerk of Court: (a) a written notice of such shareholder's
intention to appear; (b) a statement that indicates the basis for
such appearance; and (c) the identities of any witnesses the
shareholder intends to call at the Settlement Hearing and a
statement as to the subjects of the testimony of each witness. Any
Current PGE Shareholder who fails to object in the manner provided
above will be deemed to have waived all objections (including the
right to appeal) and will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment
to be entered and the releases to be given, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court.
Any inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action should be
directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel:
David C. Katz
Mark D. Smilow
WeissLaw LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
dkatz@weisslawllp.com
msmilow@weisslawllp.com
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR PGE REGARDING THIS NOTICE
A copy of the Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") fully executed as of February 11, 2022, is available
on PGE's website at https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/.
About Portland General Electric Company
Portland General Electric (NYSE: POR) --
http://www.PortlandGeneral.com/newsis a fully integrated energy
company based in Portland, Oregon. The company serves approximately
900,000 customers with a service area population of 2 million
Oregonians in 51 cities. PGE owns 16 generation plants across
Oregon and other Northwestern states and maintains and operates 14
public parks and recreation areas. For more than 130 years, PGE has
powered the advancement of society, delivering safe, affordable,
and reliable energy to Oregonians. PGE and its approximately 3,000
employees are working with customers to build a clean energy
future. Together with its customers, PGE has the No. 1 voluntary
renewable energy program in the U.S. PGE is committed to achieving
at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power
served to customers by 2030 and 100% reduction by 2040. In 2021,
PGE became the first U.S. utility to join The Climate Pledge. For
the eighth year in a row PGE achieved a perfect score on the 2021
Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index, a
national benchmarking survey and report on corporate policies and
practices related to LGBTQ workplace equality. In 2021, PGE,
employees, retirees, and the PGE Foundation donated $4.8 million
and volunteered 15,760 hours with more than 300 nonprofits across
Oregon.
QUAKER OATS COMPANY: Winger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Winger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-02023 (N.D.
Ill., April 18, 2022), is brought to recover the unpaid wages and
other damages owed by the Defendant along with the penalties,
interest, and other remedies provided by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Indiana Minimum Wage Law, and the Indiana Wage Payment
Statute.
Like many other companies across the United States, Quaker Oats'
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Quaker Oats' organization. As a result, Quaker Oats'
workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal and state
law were not paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their
proper overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the
onset of the Kronos hack.
Quaker Oats could have easily implemented a system to accurately
record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried
employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it
didn't. Instead, Quaker Oats used prior pay periods or reduced
payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to
these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees. Quaker Oats'
failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all hours
worked violates the FLSA the IMWL and the IWPS, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for Quaker Oats since April 2016.
The Defendant The Quaker Oats Company is a foreign
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713 999 5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Warren Astbury, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E. Monroe St., Ste. 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 706-0550
Fax: (313) 739-1976
Email: wastbury@forthepeople.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Remains Pending Class Cert. Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE, et al., v. QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01590 (D.N.J.), the Court will
not stay all discovery pending resolution of the
class-certification motion as discussed during the April 5, 2022
telephone conference.
On or before May 16, 2022, the parties will submit a joint proposal
to continue to conduct discovery while the class-certification
motion is pending, says Judge Hammer.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property - Other
Fraud.
Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.
Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.[CC]
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Securities Suit Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-2863 (WMW/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' unopposed
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses, and Awards
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement
Class, move to amend the March 25, 2022 Judgment in the case. The
Plaintiffs' motion seeks to correct an inadvertent erroneous
omission in the Court's March 25, 2022 Judgment -- namely, to
reflect that "the action is dismissed with prejudice." The
Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, which is
consistent with the parties' Settlement Agreement. As such, the
motion is granted.
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and
proceedings therein, Judge Wright granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to amend the March 25, 2022 Judgment; vacated the March 25,
2022 Judgment; and directed the Clerk of Court to enter an Amended
Judgment as provided therein.
Judge Wright granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. The action is dismissed with
prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards is granted. The
Court (i) awards $13.75 million, plus any accrued interest, in
attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel; (ii) awards $349,575.75
in litigation expenses to the Plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) approves
service awards of $12,500 to the Gabelli Group and $10,000 to the
Naya Group, for an aggregate amount of $22,500, to compensate the
Lead Plaintiffs for the time spent directly related to their
representation of the Settlement Class.
Without affecting the finality of the Order and the judgment, the
Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of
resolving disputes related to the interpretation, administration,
implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2r3ahsde from Leagle.com.
SCWORX CORP: $3.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL YANNES, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCWORX CORPORATION and MARC S.
SCHESSEL,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 20-cv-3349-JGK
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (i) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (ii) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND
(iii) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING
TO:
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SCWORX
CORPORATION ("SCWORX") COMMON STOCK ON THE NASDAQ OR OTHER U.S.
EXCHANGES OR IN A U.S. TRANSACTION BETWEEN APRIL 13, 2020 AND APRIL
17, 2020, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
February 11, 2022 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
action ("Action") has been provisionally certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only and that the parties to
the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action
("Settlement"). A hearing will be held on June 29, 2022, at 2:30
p.m., before the Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District
Judge, at the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl St.,
Courtroom 14A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of
determining: a) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims
alleged in the Action for a total value of no less than Three
Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000.00), consisting
of Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,700,000.00) in
cash and the number of shares of SCWorx common stock that equate to
a value of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), plus an
additional one hundred thousand (100,000) shares of SCWorx common
stock at then-current market values, is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved by the Court; b) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation; c) whether the Settlement Class should be
certified for purposes of settlement; d) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the
Court; e) whether Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved by
the Court; and f) any other relief the Court deems necessary to
effectuate the terms of the Settlement.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED
TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (ii) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (iii)
Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and Claim Form, you may
obtain a copy by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at
SCWorx Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173034,
Milwaukee, WI, 53217, by email at
info@SCWorxSecuritiesLitigation.com, by telephone at
1-877-266-4060, or by the website at
www.SCWorxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by mail (postmarked no later
than August 9, 2022), or electronically no later than August 9,
2022, establishing that you are entitled to recover. If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the attorneys' fee
and Litigation Expense applications, or otherwise request to be
heard. To object, you must submit a written objection in accordance
with the procedures described in the more detailed Notice, referred
to above. Any written objection must be delivered to the following
recipients so that it is received no later than June 8, 2022: (a)
the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007; (b)
Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 850 Third Avenue,
14th Floor, New York, NY 10022; (c) Carole R. Bernstein, Law
Offices of Carole R. Bernstein, 41 Maple Ave. N., Westport, CT
06880; and (d) Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding LLP, 500 West 2nd
Street, Ste. 1800, Austin, TX 78701. Note that the Court can only
approve or deny the Settlement, not change the terms of the
Settlement.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than June 8, 2022, in accordance
with the procedures described in the Notice. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of
the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that allows
you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against
Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the
claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please note, however, if
you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you may
be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action by a
statute of repose.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions
about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address
listed below:
Frederic S. Fox
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 687-1980, mail@kaplanfox.com
Dated: April 18, 2022
By Order of the Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
SMITHFIELD FRESH: Winking Class Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN WINKING, SUMMER HOLLIS, and JAMES KILBANE on behalf of
themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, v.
SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP. And SMITHFIELD DISTRIBUTION LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01937 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2022) is a collective
action claim for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
The Plaintiffs Winking and Hollis worked as hourly employees for
Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. at its Monmouth, Illinois facility and
Plaintiff Kilbane worked as an hourly employee for Smithfield
Distribution, LLC at its Tar Heel, North Carolina distribution
center.
Smithfield is an enterprise made of various corporations and LLCs.
It operates in substantial part from 4225 Naperville Road, Lisle
Illinois. Smithfield is "a global food company with farms,
facilities and offices in the United States, Europe and Mexico."
This includes over 40 production plants, 6 distribution centers, 5
corporate offices, 20 Direct Store Delivery locations, and 16
slaughterhouses located in the United States.
Working at meatpacking facilities, and Smithfield Foods in
particular, during the COVID-19 Pandemic was hazardous. The
Washington Post reported that plants "became deadly coronavirus hot
spots" resulting in deaths, outbreaks of COVID-19 infections, and
OSHA fines because meatpacking plants failed to provide a workplace
"free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause
death or serious physical harm to employees".
The working conditions at Smithfield were so dangerous that it
became the focus of a Congressional Committee investigation by the
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. The Select
Subcommittee reported that "Smithfield Foods, whose parent company
reported $925 million in profit in the first half of 2020, has had
over 3,500 workers contract the coronavirus and 8 employees
die."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Cowlin, Es
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
www.fishlawfirm.com
111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com
pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com
- and -
David J. Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C
200 E 5th Ave. Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630)355-7590
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Discovery & Cert Schedule Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FALLS v. SOULBOUND
STUDIOS LLC, et al., Case No. C21-922 JCC-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered a class discovery and
certification scheduling order as follows :
Event Date
-- Deadline to Join Additional May 2, 2022
Parties:
-- Deadline to Amend Pleadings: May 2, 2022
-- Phase One Discovery Commences – May 30, 2022
Class Certification Discovery:
-- All motions related to Phase Oct. 14, 2022
One Discovery must be noted
on the motion calendar no later
than the Friday before discovery
closes pursuant to LCR 7(d) and LCR
37(a)(2):
-- Phase One Discovery Completed: Oct. 21, 2022
-- Motion for Class Nov. 18, 2022
Certification due:
-- Opposition to Class Dec. 16, 2022
Certification due:
Soulbound Studios is a game development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXejLj at no extra charge.[CC]
UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Court Narrows Claims in Hoelzer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HOELZER and all
similarly situated individuals, v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Case No. 1:20CV1072
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss:
-- The motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiff's
claims for:
Count One: Discrimination Based on Disability (Failure to
Engage in the Interactive Process);
Count Two: Discrimination Based on Disability (Failure to
Accommodate);
Count Three: Retaliation (For Requesting a Reasonable
Accommodation Under the ADA);
Count Four: FMLA Violation (Retaliation); and
Count Five: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (Deprivation of Due
Process) against UNC Board, UNC-CH, Individual Defendants
in their official capacities, and Individual Defendants
Farrow, Stephenson, Routh, and Dibbert; in their individual
capacities and those claims are dismissed.
-- The Defendant's motion is denied as to Plaintiff's Count
Five: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (Deprivation of Due Process)
claims against Individual Defendant Lebold in his
individual capacity only.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion to amend amended complaint is
denied.
-- The Plaintiff's consent notion to extend time to file
motion under Local Rule 23.1(b) to Certify Class, is
granted in part.
-- The Plaintiff shall have 30 days following the entry of
this Order to file her motion to certify class.
The Plaintiff Martha Hoelzer brings this action for wrongful
termination, among other claims, under Title I of the American
Against Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA), and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against the Defendants, The
Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (UNC Board),
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and five
administrators: Raymond Farrow, Barbara J. Stephenson, Daniel
Lebold, David Routh, and Debbie Dibbert.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXRoFt at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIR FORCE OFFICER v.
AUSTIN, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES (M.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff Air Force Officer, joined by Additional Representatives
Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer, ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all members of the United States Air Force who (a) are
subject to a mandate of the Department of Defense or Air
Force to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a
request for religious accommodation regarding such mandate
based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have
received or will receive a final denial of such request
from the Department of Defense or Air Force; and
2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
The Defendants include LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense; FRANK KENDALL, III, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I.
MILLER, in his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air
Force.
The United States Air Force is the air service branch of the United
States Armed Forces, and is one of the eight U.S. uniformed
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXMGC0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen Crampton, Esq.
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Senior Counsel
PO Box 4506
Tupelo, MS 38803
Telephone: (662) 255-9439
E-mail: scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org
- and -
Adam S. Hochschild, Esq.
Hochschild Law Firm
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel
PO Box 401
Plainfield, VT 05667
Telephone: (314)503-0326
E-mail: adam@hochschildlaw.com
- and -
Mary Catherine Hodes, Esq.
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel
112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314)825-5725
E-mail: mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org
- and -
Michael McHale, Esq.
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Counsel
10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110
Omaha, NE 68114
Telephone: (402) 501-8586
E-mail: mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org
- and -
Paul M. Jonna, Esq.
LIMANDRI & JONNA LLP
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel
P.O. Box 9120
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-994
E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com
- and -
Michael R. Hirsh, Esq.
HIRSH LAW OFFICE, LLC
2295 Towne Lake Parkway, Suite 116-181
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (678) 653-9907
E-mail: michael@hirsh.law
UNITED STATES: Lewis Re-Notice of Class Cert Bid Nixed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL A. LEWIS, et al., v.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiffs' re-notice of class certification motion is
denied.
-- The Order is not a final Order subject to appeal.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services, is a
cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal
government created to protect the health of all Americans and
providing essential human services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rEVbQf at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Bid for Lead Roles in Risley Suit Due June 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NESSA RISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION, d/b/a
UNISWAP LABS, HAYDEN Z. ADAMS, PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, AH CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ, and UNION SQUARE
VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2780 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order setting June 7, 2022,
as deadline to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.
On April 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who purchased any Tokens on the Exchange
between April 5, 2021, and the present and were harmed thereby. The
complaint alleges violations of Section 5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77e; Section 12(a)(1) of
the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 771(a)(1); Section 5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78e; Section
15(a)(1) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78o(a)(1); Section 20
of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t; and Section 29(b) of the
1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78cc(b).
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that: Not later than 20 days after
the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or
plaintiffs will cause to be published, in a widely circulated
national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice
advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I) of the
pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after
the date on which the notice is published, any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the purported class.
The PSLRA also requires that: Not later than 90 days after the date
on which a notice is published under subparagraph (A)(i), the court
will consider any motion made by a purported class member in
response to the notice, including any motion by a class member who
is not individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint or
complaints, and will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or
members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of
class members
In the event that "more than one action on behalf of a class
asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed,
and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial
purposes or for trial, the Court will not" appoint a lead plaintiff
"until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered."
The Plaintiff's counsel published the required notice on April 8,
2022. Members of the purported class, therefore, have until June 7,
2022, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Judge Failla ordered that opposition to any motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by July 7,
2022. A conference will be held at 3:00 p.m. on July 29, 2022, in
Courtroom 618, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, New York, New York, to consider any motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation.
The named Plaintiffs will promptly serve a copy of the Order on
each of the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4w84eab5 from Leagle.com.
VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Orders Rodriguez to Amend Pleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Adriana Rodriguez, individually on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veridian Healthcare
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 2989 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York ordered the Plaintiff to amend her pleading to allege
the citizenship of each constituent person or entity.
The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Defendant
Veridian, invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, which grants district courts jurisdiction over
any civil class action suit in which "any member of a class of
plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is a citizen of Illinois,
because its principal place of business is in Gurnee, Illinois.
But, if the Defendant is, indeed, a limited liability company, as
its name would imply, Judge Torres holds that it "has the
citizenship of each of its members." Accordingly, the complaint
must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of
the limited liability company and the place of incorporation and
principal place of business of any corporate entities who are
members of the limited liability company.
In addition, for the purposes of venue, a civil action may be
brought in "(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides,
if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district
is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may
otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial
district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action."
The Plaintiff states that venue is proper in this district because
"she and the many Class Members reside in the Southern District of
New York," and a "substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the Classes' claims occurred in the district." But,
the complaint contains no such factual allegations, stating only
that the Plaintiff is a "citizen of New York State," viewed the
Defendants' marketing materials and purchased the products in New
York State, and had the products shipped to her home in New York
State. Judge Torres cannot, accordingly, conclude that venue is
proper in this district based on the complaint's factual
allegations.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff will amend her pleading to allege the
citizenship of each constituent person or entity. If the Plaintiff
fails to amend by the foregoing date to truthfully allege complete
diversity based upon the citizenship of each constituent person or
entity of the LLC, then the complaint will be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff must also amend her
pleading to truthfully establish that venue is proper in the
Southern District of New York and that the action should not be
transferred in the interest of justice. If she fails to do so, the
Court will transfer the action to an appropriate judicial
district.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8952rw from Leagle.com.
VILLA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Wages, Coulter Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ION DAWN COULTER and TRACY JOHNSON, each individually and on behalf
FLSA Collective Action of all others similarly situated, v. VILLA
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01970 (N.D. Ill.,
April 15, 2022) seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages
owed by Villa to all workers, along with the penalties, interest,
and other remedies provided by Illinois and Michigan laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL),
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and the
Mighigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (MWOWA).
Like many other companies across the United States, Villa's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Villa's organization.
As a result, Villa's workers who were not exempt from overtime
under federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked
and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all overtime
hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.
Dawn Coulter and Tracy Johnson are two such workers for Villa.
Villa could have easily implemented a system to accurately record
time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees
until issues related to the hack were resolved.
But it didn't. Instead, Villa used prior pay periods or reduced
payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to
these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, the lawsuit says.
Coulter worked for Villa in Illinois. Johnson worked for Villa in
Michigan.
Coulter and Johnson represent at least three groups of similarly
situated workers.
Villa operates a network of nursing and rehabilitation centers.
Many of Villa's employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried
workers. Since at least 2021, Villa has used timekeeping software
and hardware operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
WALT DISNEY: District Court Issues Protective Order in Woodall Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BUCK G. WOODALL, Plaintiff v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 20-3772-CBM (Ex) (C.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted the Defendants' Motion for
Protective Order.
I. Introduction
The parties have agreed on the terms of a protective order, with
the exception of two disputed provisions sought by the Defendants
and opposed by the Plaintiff: (1) a provision precluding Mitchell
Stein from having access to any documents the Defendants designate
as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only"; and (2) a
provision that the designating party may designate as confidential
an entire document when the document contains both confidential
information and information otherwise available to the public or to
the receiving party.
A privilege log the Plaintiff served in February of 2022 indicates
that the Plaintiff has withheld, under claim of attorney-client
privilege, an email from Stein dated Dec. 13, 2021. The privilege
log also indicates that the Plaintiff's brother and two of his
attorneys saw or received this email.
Mr. Stein's role in the litigation is somewhat unclear. The
Plaintiff has offered differing characterizations of Stein: (1) "a
member of Plaintiff's outside counsel litigation team"; (2) an
individual "akin" to a paralegal or clerical staff of counsel of
record acting under attorney supervision; (3) a "paralegal and
research assistant who is employed and being supervised by the
Plaintiff's counsel of record" on a "pro bono" basis; and (4) a
"Consultant to Plaintiff's Counsel." The Plaintiff does not
identify the particular firm which may employ Stein, and he does
not identify the particular person(s) for whom Stein provides
services.
II. Discussion
A. Preclusion of Stein from Having Access to Documents Defendants
Designate as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only"
It is undisputed that Stein was a California attorney and that
Stein is currently suspended from practicing law in the State. It
is also undisputed that, in 2013, Stein was convicted of multiple
felonies involving fraud, for which Stein served a lengthy term in
federal prison.
The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") shows that
Stein was released on Jan. 13, 2022. Thus, at the time Stein
purportedly authored the Dec. 13, 2021 email identified on
Plaintiff's privilege log, Stein evidently was still in BOP
custody. Presently, Stein is unconstrained by the rules of
professional responsibility governing the conduct of attorneys in
the Court.
Judge Eick finds that Stein's history reflects such a level of
untrustworthiness and moral turpitude as to warrant the preclusion
of Stein from having access to documents designated by the
Defendants as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" in the
case. He says, Stein's access to such documents, which may well
include valuable intellectual property, would pose an unreasonable
risk of disclosure of the documents to others, including the
Defendants' competitors.
There is no indication on this record that a preclusion of Stein's
access to documents designated by the Defendants as "Highly
Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" would impair the Plaintiff's
prosecution of this case in any appreciable respect. The Plaintiff
is represented by multiple law firms which presumably can call upon
the services of multiple competent paralegals, clerks, research
assistants and consultants other than Stein. In sum, good cause
exists for a protective order precluding Stein from having access
to documents designated by Defendants as "Highly Confidential -
Attorneys' Eyes Only."
B. Provision That the Designating Party May Designate an Entire
Document as Confidential When the Document Contains Both
Confidential Information and Information Otherwise Available to the
Public or to the Receiving Party
The Plaintiff already has served thousands of document requests in
the case. Judge Eick declines to require the Defendants initially
to separate out from their presumably thousands or hundreds of
thousands of confidential, responsive documents those pages or
portions of pages which may contain non-confidential information.
Initial designations of confidential documents may proceed on a
document-by-document basis.
III. Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Eick granted the Motion.
Contemporaneously with the Order, he issued the Protective Order
proposed by the Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 13, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/8k4p5xu7 from Leagle.com.
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Elliott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrantech Consumer
Product Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Elliott, Susan
Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Warrantech Consumer Product Services, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Warrantech is a company that markets and administers extended
warranties and service contracts for vehicles, consumer products,
and homes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Raymond Lynch, Esq.
160 Clairemont Ave., Suite 340
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 373-7735
Email: andrew@atlnotguilty.com
- and -
Joseph W. Weeks, Esq.
MCNALLY WEEKS
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 450
Decatur, GA 30030-2560
Phone: (404) 373-3131
Email: jweeks@mcnallyweeks.com
WELLS FARGO: Becker, et al Seek to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yvonne Becker, Christopher
Nobles, Rosa, Valerie Seyler, and Jannien Weiner, v. Wells Fargo &
Co.; Employee Benefit Review Committee; and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, Case No. 0:20-cv-02016-KMM/BRT (D. Minn.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed Class Action
Settlement and Settlement Agreement;
2. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), or
in the alternative, 23(b)(2):
"All Participants of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan
at any time between March 13, 2014, through the date on
which the Settlement becomes Final;"
Excluded from the Settlement Class are members of the
Employee Benefits Review Committee from March 13, 2014
through the date on which the Settlement becomes Final;
3. appointing Yvonne Becker, Christopher Nobles, Rosa
Ramirez, Valerie Seyler, and Jannien Weiner as Settlement
Class Representatives;
4. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Keller
Rohrback LLP and Zimmerman Reed LLP as Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g);
5. approving the form and manner of notice; and
6. setting a date for a Fairness Hearing.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California,
operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices
throughout the United States and internationally.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDExpG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Erin Riley, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
June P. Hoidal, Esq.
Charles R. Toomajian, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: june.hoidal@zimmreed.com
charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Dowdy Suit Over Ponzi-like Fraudulent Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY ANN DOWDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-00631 (D.
Nev. April 15, 2022) is a class action to recover investment losses
suffered by the Plaintiff and others who invested in an alleged
fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the J&J investment enterprise
(J&J) and substantially assisted by Wells Fargo.
J&J marketed and sold unregistered securities that purportedly
would give investors interests in personal injury settlements
obtained by tort plaintiffs who were seeking short-term funding
before receiving the settlement payments.
The Plaintiff Dowdy and other investors were told that their
investments were safe and secure, and they would receive payment of
returns on their investment every 90 days. In fact, the investor
funds were misused and misappropriated by J&J, which paid returns
using money from new investors, in Ponzi-like fashion.
On March 3, 2022, FBI agents executed search warrants at the homes
of J&J principals, Jeffrey Judd and Matthew Beasley. Beasley
brandished a pistol and the agents shot him twice. Beasley then
locked himself inside for several hours. A negotiation with the FBI
ensued. Before surrendering, Beasley confessed that the J&J
investment enterprise was a Ponzi scheme.
On April 12, 2022, the SEC filed an enforcement action against J&J
and others for injunctive relief, civil penalties and disgorgement.
On April 13, 2022, on motion of the SEC, a Temporary Restraining
Order was entered in the SEC action, enjoining among other things,
the movement of assets under the control of the co-conspirators in
the J&J investment enterprise, and further enjoining transfers of
funds held in the co-conspirators' accounts, 11 including an
attorney trust account maintained by Beasley on behalf of his law
firm, the Beasley Law Group, PC, at Wells Fargo.
Rather than terminating its relationship with the Beasley firm or
taking affirmative steps to halt this fraudulent scheme dependent
on the misuse of its banking services, Wells Fargo furthered the
scheme, carrying out the instructions which allowed Beasley and his
co-conspirators to commingle and dissipate investor funds, and
continue to seek out new investors in furtherance of their Ponzi
scheme.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Mark Albright, Esq.
Daniel R. Ormsby, Esq.
ALBRIGHT STODDARD WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
801 S. Rancho Dr., Suite D4
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Telephone: (702) 854-2791
E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com
dormsby@albrightstoddard.com
- and -
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Widmer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman Weinberg &
Reis Co., L.P.A. The case is styled as Edwin S. Widmer, Heather
Widmer, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v.
Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-01323-KSM
(E.D. Pa., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA -- https://www.weltman.com/ -- is
a full-service creditors' rights law firm with over 90 years of
client service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 351-0200
Fax: (215) 922-3874
Email: rcocco@rcn.com
- and -
Sean P. Mays
THE MAYS LAW FIRM PC
Warminster Corporate Center
65 W. Street Rd., Suite B102
Warminster, PA 18974
Phone: (215) 792-4321
Fax: (215) 792-4321
Email: sean@maysfirm.com
WHOLE FOODS: New York Court Dismisses Mitchell Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit styled MANDELL MITCHELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20
Civ. 8496 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).
On Oct. 12, 2020, Mandell Mitchell brought the putative class
action against Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., alleging that the
representations on the label of certain Whole Foods' ice cream bars
are misleading, in violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New
York General Business Law, along with other claims.
In an opinion and order dated March 4, 2022, the Court dismissed
all of Mitchell's claims and granted him leave to replead by March
18, 2022. The order specifically concluded, "Mitchell is directed
to file an amended complaint, if at all, by March 18, 2022. If he
does not, the case will be closed."
District Judge Edgardo Ramos states that Mitchell has neither filed
any amended complaint nor requested an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vcaymwpt from Leagle.com.
WISCONSIN: Peshek, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE PESHEK, HUNG TRAN,
and BRIAN THRELKELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. KAREN TIMBERLAKE, in her official capacity
as the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services,
Case No. 21-cv-1061 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying that this case may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of:
"all individuals in the custody and care ofthe Wisconsin
Department of Health Services who remain indefinitely and
involuntarily detained at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment
facility solely because they are unable to obtain a place
to reside on supervised release that complies with the
onerous placement and residency restrictions contained
within Wis. Stat. Section 980.08;"
2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs Dale Peshek and Brian Threlkeld are two individuals
who were previously adjudicated as "sexually violent persons"
("SVPs") and remanded to the custody and care of the Wisconsin
Department of Health Services ("DHS"). They have all met the
requirements for supervised release and received judicial approval
for release from the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment facility ("Sand
Ridge"), but they remain indefinitely and involuntarily detained at
Sand Ridge solely because they are unable to obtain a place to
reside on supervised release that complies with the placement and
residency restrictions contained within Wis. Stat. Section 980.08.
The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Statute. The
Plaintiffs contend that the housing restrictions make it virtually
impossible for them to obtain housing, forcing them to remain
indefinitely and involuntarily at Sand Ridge and preventing them
from being released into the community to complete their
treatment.
The Wisconsin Department of Health Services is a governmental
agency of the U.S. state of Wisconsin responsible for maintaining
public health.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ED8bev at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
- and -
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
ZALE CORP: Faces Villalpando Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANE VILLALPANDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. ZALE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-
50, inclusive, Case No. (April 14, 2022) is a class action
complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
consumers who have purchased one or more products through
zalesoutlet.com that were deceptively represented as discounted
from a false reference price.
The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased products tainted by
this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin
Defendant from using misrepresentations regarding former price
comparisons in its labeling, marketing, and advertising
permanently. Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks to obtain actual,
statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief
in the amount by which the Defendant was unjustly enriched as a
result of its sales offered at a false discount.
Discounts of products benefit both sellers and their
customers—when they are legitimate. To the detriment of
consumers, as announced by the Ninth Circuit, sellers are "well
aware of consumers' susceptibility to a bargain, [and] therefore
have an incentive to lie to their customers."
The following example of a hypothetical DVD seller, which is
parallel to Defendant's deceptive business practice, illustrates
the illegal false reference pricing scheme and its attendant harm
to consumers. A seller knows it can sell a particular DVD at 27
$5.00, which represents both the market price and the price at
which the seller could 28 regularly offer the DVD and make a
profit. Instead, however, the seller creates an inflated "original"
price for the DVD of $100.00 and advertises the DVD as "on sale at
90% off rendering the "sale" price of the DVD $10.00. When a
consumer purchases the DVD, he presumes he got a "good deal" on a
DVD previously sold -- i.e., valued by others in the 4 market -- at
an "original" price of $100.00.
Through its alleged false and misleading marketing, advertising,
and pricing scheme, the Defendant violated, and continues to
violate, federal law and various state consumer protection laws,
which prohibit the advertisement of goods for sale discounted 28
from false former prices. These laws also prohibit the
dissemination of misleading statements about the existence and
amount of price reductions. Specifically, the Defendant violated
and continues to violate: California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
Zale is an American jewelry retailer, incorporated in Delaware in
1993.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Register for the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference,
Monday, May 2nd, at the Harmonie Club.
New speakers are announced weekly. If your firm is interested in
sponsorship or a speaking opportunity, please contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.com/
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***